All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
This is the risk that the govt faces. In the ebb and flow of Us vs The Rest and in particular the EU we may yet fall behind and therefore see the "vaccine boost" evaporate.
Ever since that week when we let tens of thousands rush back from India with no quarantine, things have been slipping away from us.
Putting that small group of people in quarantine while they were tested would probably have bought us enough time to get the jabs into most younger adults before Delta cases arrived here in any numbers.
As many PB’ers were saying, right while it was happening.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Why do you think it is relevant to make a remark about the Home Secretary’s background. Her parents are immigrants. Get over it.
All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
This is the risk that the govt faces. In the ebb and flow of Us vs The Rest and in particular the EU we may yet fall behind and therefore see the "vaccine boost" evaporate.
Ever since that week when we let tens of thousands rush back from India with no quarantine, things have been slipping away from us.
Putting that small group of people in quarantine while they were tested would probably have bought us enough time to get the jabs into most younger adults before Delta cases arrived here in any numbers.
As many PB’ers were saying, right while it was happening.
But wasn't there s fantastic Brexit-busting trade deal photo opportunity at the end of that particular Indian rainbow?
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
Actually, I don't think either you or @alex_ are correct as to the mechanics.
If you are paying a people smuggler, you will not be attempting to claim asylum. Asylum can only be claimed at a regular port of entry. If you have entered the country illegally, that isn't be possible.
For that reason, @alex_ is incorrect about people attempting to claim asylum at a camp in (for example) Chad: it wouldn't be possible, because it wouldn't be a port of entry into the UK. However, it clearly won't have much impact on people smuggling, because those people aren't attempting to claim asylum anyway.
Aren’t they being picked up by the British Navy in the channel, or arriving on a beach in Kent in a rickety old boat, and then claiming asylum?
We should report France to the UN, as it must be such a horrible place to live.
Ah yes, I see what you mean. They could - in theory, if not actuality - be on there way to Dover to report at the immigration office, and are therefore claiming to have been intercepted on there way there.
If they land on the beach, mind, then they aren't attempting to get to an immigration officer at Dover. So, I don't see how they could claim asylum, and would therefore simply be in violation of the UK's immigration laws and therefore subject to immediate deportation.
"We got lost at sea and couldn't work out where Dover was. We were going to go there now."
They should aim for Salisbury. It has an excellent cathedral and is a well known and excellent international attraction.
All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
Presumably they've not been properly whacked by Delta - yet.
They've not.
And the EU countries will, in all probability, be badly hit by it in the next few weeks.
However...
Sometimes it's better to be second. In the UK, the wave of infections has not created a wave of hospitalizations. While the weekend numbers are not out yet, the number of people in hospital dramatically slowed towards the end of last week, and appeared to completely reverse in the North West.
If the links between infection and hospitalization has been seriously reduced, then maybe EU countries will hold their nerves rather more than Hancock and Johnson did.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
Actually, I don't think either you or @alex_ are correct as to the mechanics.
If you are paying a people smuggler, you will not be attempting to claim asylum. Asylum can only be claimed at a regular port of entry. If you have entered the country illegally, that isn't be possible.
For that reason, @alex_ is incorrect about people attempting to claim asylum at a camp in (for example) Chad: it wouldn't be possible, because it wouldn't be a port of entry into the UK. However, it clearly won't have much impact on people smuggling, because those people aren't attempting to claim asylum anyway.
Aren’t they being picked up by the British Navy in the channel, or arriving on a beach in Kent in a rickety old boat, and then claiming asylum?
We should report France to the UN, as it must be such a horrible place to live.
I understand we did prepare such a report but it was left at a bus stop in New York.
Huge amount of noise, little light and the Tories seem to be running a stealth campaign (or no campaign at all).
I expect, but don't know, that the Torys are running a higly targeted campaign, delving, phoning and door knocking on people they think are pro-Brexit, and letting Labour and GG have an undignified fight without getting there hands too dirty.
Borris did visit I think a week ago, which I dont think he would do if he did not think there was a good shot of wining.
HYDF (Or something like that) often gets involved in Tory campaigning, and updates us but I haven't seen him on here for a few days,
HYUFD, and he is a PB hero (except when he cites Trafalgar voodoo polling as gospel).
Here's the best free kick goal ever - Willie Carr, Coventry, 1970. Watch it to the end (only 40 seconds) because you need to see the replay. I remember this as a little kid.
Yes, you could be right; I don't remember this being tried in subsequent seasons. Still, it was fun while it lasted!
Unfortunately, they were indeed changed promptly. As it’s so much easier to put top spin on the ball if it’s in the air than it is on the ground, you can get some really lethal shots far more easily if you were to try this way.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
On the football discussion, what makes it different to other sports - especially the US ones - is the inequality. Jonathan Wilson's written a lot about how the concentration of wealth has radically altered the game. The big teams no longer have to "earn the right to play", and as such, players are being developed to fit into sides that have no trouble dominating the ball. The ability to play with your back to goal is gradually disappearing from the game altogether.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Why do you think it is relevant to make a remark about the Home Secretary’s background. Her parents are immigrants. Get over it.
Are you serious? This is stupid shit politics doing dog whistle for racists. Of course it is relevant that the Home Secretary doing it is a 1st generation migrant.
As Robert rightly points out in his video you aren't going to stop illegal migration like this. But doing it the other way - funding the Border Force and the Police - costs money and involves planning and organisational skills they lack.
On topic, I very much hope the OP is right about Goaway - he really is a turd. Problem is that he does dogwhistle politics very well. With the Lawrence Fox types also supporting him it is a bizarre coalition of "I'm a better muslim than you" types and "send the darkies to Rwanda (not you Priti, you're alright)" types.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Why do you think it is relevant to make a remark about the Home Secretary’s background. Her parents are immigrants. Get over it.
Are you serious? This is stupid shit politics doing dog whistle for racists. Of course it is relevant that the Home Secretary doing it is a 1st generation migrant.
As Robert rightly points out in his video you aren't going to stop illegal migration like this. But doing it the other way - funding the Border Force and the Police - costs money and involves planning and organisational skills they lack.
I agree that given the narrowness of the Channel (vs the 1000 miles for Australia) this is headline stuff rather than practical
But why is the Home Secretary’s background relevant?
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Why do you think it is relevant to make a remark about the Home Secretary’s background. Her parents are immigrants. Get over it.
Are you serious? This is stupid shit politics doing dog whistle for racists. Of course it is relevant that the Home Secretary doing it is a 1st generation migrant.
As Robert rightly points out in his video you aren't going to stop illegal migration like this. But doing it the other way - funding the Border Force and the Police - costs money and involves planning and organisational skills they lack.
I agree that given the narrowness of the Channel (vs the 1000 miles for Australia) this is headline stuff rather than practical
But why is the Home Secretary’s background relevant?
The assumption seems to be that the child of legal migrants should support illegal immigration, for some reason.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Why do you think it is relevant to make a remark about the Home Secretary’s background. Her parents are immigrants. Get over it.
Are you serious? This is stupid shit politics doing dog whistle for racists. Of course it is relevant that the Home Secretary doing it is a 1st generation migrant.
As Robert rightly points out in his video you aren't going to stop illegal migration like this. But doing it the other way - funding the Border Force and the Police - costs money and involves planning and organisational skills they lack.
I agree that given the narrowness of the Channel (vs the 1000 miles for Australia) this is headline stuff rather than practical
But why is the Home Secretary’s background relevant?
Again, are you serious? She of all people should know how critical a fair and just migration policy is. She is Home Secretary because previous Home Secretaries let her parents migrate here from a country neighbouring the one she now wants to use as exclusion camps.
So she says that its ok for her parents to come here, but not the parents of the potential 2075 Home Secretary who she'd inter next door in Rwanda. Why? Because she has zero moral fibre and is happy to dog whistle for the racist wazzocks who sadly infest my former country who want to send anyone who isn't pure bred anglo-saxon like them "back home".
On topic, thanks for this @Quincel, I would make a few observations. It is not just the percentage of Muslim voters that counts (and worth noting, in 2012, Galloway won Bradford West against a Muslim candidate) but also if he has a cause celebre to stir things. It is worth noting that in the 2017 and 2019 by-elections, it is noticeable that he did badly at a time when Jeremy Corbyn was leader of the Labour party. It might be argued that the reason Galloway didn't gain much traction was because Muslims felt they had an ally in the leadership and so there was not a reason to "rebel".
This time round, he does have some boosters to feed his vote - SKS' handling of Corbyn / the anti-Semitic allegations, what looks like dissatisfaction against the candidate at the local party level and how she was appointed plus her personal sexuality, the Batley Grammar issue plus one or two others - which would seem to boost his likely performance.
The one thing against that is the Survation Polling, which got Huddersfield results right. The only question I would have there is what is Survation's track record at polling in seats with a large ethnic minority vote and whose English fluency may be limited in the older segments (I don't know the answer)?
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Oh I don't doubt it!
What I'm getting at is that we have a real problem in this country of getting tough. So I'd happily see mahoosive fines on companies or landlords or whoever. But we don't do pain in this country (it's probably why we've fucked up COVID in both ways). The Guardian will scream and scream and scream and the feeble Tories will cave every time.
Also, isn't the problem in the Channel that they are asylum seekers not economic migrants (or, at least, that's what they claim)?
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Oh I don't doubt it!
What I'm getting at is that we have a real problem in this country of getting tough. So I'd happily see mahoosive fines on companies or landlords or whoever. But we don't do pain in this country (it's probably why we've fucked up COVID in both ways). The Guardian will scream and scream and scream and the feeble Tories will cave every time.
Also, isn't the problem in the Channel that they are asylum seekers not economic migrants (or, at least, that's what they claim)?
I think it's only the ones who get caught who claim to be asylum seekers. The reason they're trying to sneak through is to avoid their first contact being with an immigration officer.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Why do you think it is relevant to make a remark about the Home Secretary’s background. Her parents are immigrants. Get over it.
Are you serious? This is stupid shit politics doing dog whistle for racists. Of course it is relevant that the Home Secretary doing it is a 1st generation migrant.
As Robert rightly points out in his video you aren't going to stop illegal migration like this. But doing it the other way - funding the Border Force and the Police - costs money and involves planning and organisational skills they lack.
I agree that given the narrowness of the Channel (vs the 1000 miles for Australia) this is headline stuff rather than practical
But why is the Home Secretary’s background relevant?
Again, are you serious? She of all people should know how critical a fair and just migration policy is. She is Home Secretary because previous Home Secretaries let her parents migrate here from a country neighbouring the one she now wants to use as exclusion camps.
So she says that its ok for her parents to come here, but not the parents of the potential 2075 Home Secretary who she'd inter next door in Rwanda. Why? Because she has zero moral fibre and is happy to dog whistle for the racist wazzocks who sadly infest my former country who want to send anyone who isn't pure bred anglo-saxon like them "back home".
Her parents were legal immigrants. That’s a huge difference.
Frankly I think you are contemptible. Everyone has the right to form their own views regardless of their ethic background. But you are critical of her for “betraying” her background. You are the racist, not her.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Anyone know the relative numbers who enter the UK on little boats, as opposed to coming on a plane as a tourist and then just forgetting to leave? Which seems like a much simpler way in.
The trouble with moving the checks to housing, employment and services is that it inconveniences us, not just them, and I suspect most of us aren't sufficiently bothered about immigration to tolerate that inconvenience.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Voters in Switzerland and Norway haven't been groomed to think that spending any money on anything that doesn't directly benefit them is wrong.
It is interesting though. The Blue Labour Cult claim to be pro-Britain having taken back control of our border and migration policy. Have they properly funded Border Force? No. Recruited customs agents and officers? No. Passed laws to go after the companies who exploit illegal labour? No.
Seemingly the only thing they have done is send her out in a branded jacket to smirk whilst a single illegal is rounded up for the camera whilst thinking what other headline generating stunts she can do next.
Like so many other areas they have no real interest in policy or actually governing. No grasp of the issue, never mind what to do about it. Just headlines so that the ill-informed think they are doing what they want.
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
And yet it is the logical consequence of self-id gender ideology.
No it isn't. Because they never have to sleep with anyone they don't want to. For whatever reason.
They don't. But they are being accused of transphobia and attacked. It is one reason why some lesbian groups have set up away from Stonewall and in opposition to it, precisely because they are worried about the consequences of self-id for lesbians.
This is a real issue for lesbians who feel that the demands of men wishing to transition are taking precedence over the rights of women and lesbians in particular.
I suspect we are largely in agreement here.
If a man wants to dress as a woman that is no problem. If a man want to live as a woman that is no problem. If a man wants to take part in women's sporting events that are restricted to women that is a problem. However he/she wishes to self identify, he/she does not qualify. The weight lifting thing in the Olympics is absurd. If a man wants to make use of "safe spaces" for women such as toilets, prisons, changing rooms there is a conflict of rights but in my view that conflict should be resolved in favour of those born with the sex of a women if they are at risk. That is why those spaces exist.
But no one, ever, is obliged to have sex with anyone else. That is all I was saying.
It is not quite that simple though is it. You meet someone in the bar you are attracted, you wine her and dine her over a couple of weeks then you find out she isn't a women/man depending on your gender.
At what point does it become incumbent on someone to mention it before it becomes deception? You whether he or she may be spending money on someone that you wouldn't have done if you had known up front. This sort of thing is going to crop up and I fully expect lawsuits about it.
Isn't the simplest way to simply employ the Croc Dundee greeting whenever you meet someone new?
Also legally is it even deception?
If a transwoman (biological man) identifies as and is legally a woman, even if they have a penis, then why would they need to say that they have a penis or are biologically a man?
Which is kind of messed up, but legally is there any grounds for it to be considered a deception?
That the girl you've picked up has a penis may be a bit more of a shock than that she has a third nipple or false leg, but is there any law that says it needs to be declared?
That was a woman posing as a man. She was acting fraudulently.
A transwoman is a biological man who is legally a woman. So if she calls herself a woman, the law agrees that she is a woman, so no deception has occurred.
If you disagree with that, surely that's an issue in the law, not the individual committing a crime?
The much-trumpeted European Union COVID Digital Green Pass, which launches 1 July and is meant to vastly ease travel to Europe for vaccinated and recovered passengers is being rolled out with one important hitch.
Anyone vaccinated with an AstraZeneca vaccine produced by the Serum Institute of India would not be qualified to get the pass – and that includes most citizens of low- and middle-income countries who were immunised with vaccines distributed by the WHO co-sponsored COVAX initiative.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Oh I don't doubt it!
What I'm getting at is that we have a real problem in this country of getting tough. So I'd happily see mahoosive fines on companies or landlords or whoever. But we don't do pain in this country (it's probably why we've fucked up COVID in both ways). The Guardian will scream and scream and scream and the feeble Tories will cave every time.
Also, isn't the problem in the Channel that they are asylum seekers not economic migrants (or, at least, that's what they claim)?
I think it's only the ones who get caught who claim to be asylum seekers. The reason they're trying to sneak through is to avoid their first contact being with an immigration officer.
I'm not sure how many are making it into the UK without getting caught/being assisted.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Why do you think it is relevant to make a remark about the Home Secretary’s background. Her parents are immigrants. Get over it.
Are you serious? This is stupid shit politics doing dog whistle for racists. Of course it is relevant that the Home Secretary doing it is a 1st generation migrant.
As Robert rightly points out in his video you aren't going to stop illegal migration like this. But doing it the other way - funding the Border Force and the Police - costs money and involves planning and organisational skills they lack.
I agree that given the narrowness of the Channel (vs the 1000 miles for Australia) this is headline stuff rather than practical
But why is the Home Secretary’s background relevant?
Again, are you serious? She of all people should know how critical a fair and just migration policy is. She is Home Secretary because previous Home Secretaries let her parents migrate here from a country neighbouring the one she now wants to use as exclusion camps.
So she says that its ok for her parents to come here, but not the parents of the potential 2075 Home Secretary who she'd inter next door in Rwanda. Why? Because she has zero moral fibre and is happy to dog whistle for the racist wazzocks who sadly infest my former country who want to send anyone who isn't pure bred anglo-saxon like them "back home".
Her parents were legal immigrants. That’s a huge difference.
Frankly I think you are contemptible. Everyone has the right to form their own views regardless of their ethic background. But you are critical of her for “betraying” her background. You are the racist, not her.
Right you are. Of course she is entitled to her own views! And given that she has been a Tory since university I'm not sure what stereotypical "background" you assign to her. This isn't about race, its about hypocrisy. I had it, I'm going to make sure you can't have it because migration is bad as demonstrated by me being a good migrant.
Final point, are you saying that asylum seekers can never become "legal immigrants"? That is a very radical reinterpretation of very basic laws that this country has been a leading light of.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Oh I don't doubt it!
What I'm getting at is that we have a real problem in this country of getting tough. So I'd happily see mahoosive fines on companies or landlords or whoever. But we don't do pain in this country (it's probably why we've fucked up COVID in both ways). The Guardian will scream and scream and scream and the feeble Tories will cave every time.
Also, isn't the problem in the Channel that they are asylum seekers not economic migrants (or, at least, that's what they claim)?
I think it's only the ones who get caught who claim to be asylum seekers. The reason they're trying to sneak through is to avoid their first contact being with an immigration officer.
I'm not sure how many are making it into the UK without getting caught/being assisted.
Well probably never know how many make it to a beach and walk into the country.
It’s something like 5,000 so far this year that have been picked up by UK authorities, in the Channel or on the beach. Almost all of whom have come from France, which we are led to believe is a safe country.
More important is that hundreds of these people are dying during their journey, either in the Med or the Channel, having paid large sums of money to organised criminals to facilitate their trip.
The Australian system, of refusing any and all arrivals by sea, has seen a huge decline in asylum claims, because word has got back that they won’t be allowed to settle in Australia - it’s saved thousands of lives.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Anyone know the relative numbers who enter the UK on little boats, as opposed to coming on a plane as a tourist and then just forgetting to leave? Which seems like a much simpler way in.
The trouble with moving the checks to housing, employment and services is that it inconveniences us, not just them, and I suspect most of us aren't sufficiently bothered about immigration to tolerate that inconvenience.
With housing and employment, why should they? They are making money from it. Everybody operates in their own perceived economic interest.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Anyone know the relative numbers who enter the UK on little boats, as opposed to coming on a plane as a tourist and then just forgetting to leave? Which seems like a much simpler way in.
The trouble with moving the checks to housing, employment and services is that it inconveniences us, not just them, and I suspect most of us aren't sufficiently bothered about immigration to tolerate that inconvenience.
With housing and employment, why should they? They are making money from it. Everybody operates in their own perceived economic interest.
You could shut down the economic pipeline that feeds the people smugglers in weeks.
1) 100K fine per worker for employing people without the right paperwork. 2) The worker in question gets 50% plus indefinite leave to remain on conviction.
Suddenly all the sweatshops will discover HR process...
That and dealing with the fact that since France can't look after migrants properly, it is a failed state. And we all know what we do with failed states, don't we? Hmmmm... they do have a little bit of oil....
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
When asked, at the end of a brilliant interview by Nick Robinson, if standards only matter if the govt is popular with voters, Robert Buckland says: “The truth is a lot of people just don’t like the PM and they can’t get over the fact he’s popular in the country.”
Extraordinary #r4today interview with Robert Buckland by @bbcnickrobinson questioned about standards in public life. Govt argument is they don’t matter to the majority, people vote for us anyway.
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
Is it possible the PM knows this and may be calculating that any fallout would hurt one of the rivals most likely to go for him?
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
Things that tilt can quickly tilt the other way. Whilst we fool ourselves that we have finally got through this the rest of Europe looks at our rapidly spiking figures and shuts the gates.
I do think that we have to go ahead and drop most internal restrictions but that won't be the end. We're quickly going to pivot onto people complaining that they can't go on holiday (not allowed abroad, can't afford £1,600 for a week at Butlins Skegness) and that they've been told to go back into the office and that its now spreading through group x or y...
This header covers Galloway well, but to consider how he will fare in B&S relative to Labour it's necessary to look at Labour too. Someone here suggested that some voters may switch from Labour to GG because GG is pro-Leave, but I don't reckon so. They're more likely to vote Tory. Most switchers from Labour to GG will be in his main target part of the electorate and they will switch not because they want someone who's a rock-hard Leaver but because he is viewed as pro-Muslim - unless this really is another Bradford West 2012.
PS We know GG is pals with Stephen Bannon. But who does he get help from this side of the Atlantic? ("Putin" may be too simple an answer.) Or is he such an all-round campaigns-and-data mega-genius that he handles everything himself? Just a question that came into my head when I heard about all the campaign posters and all the journalists mentioning them too.
All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
How much higher is our testing?
About five times higher - but their positivity rate is lower - about half ours.
All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
This is the risk that the govt faces. In the ebb and flow of Us vs The Rest and in particular the EU we may yet fall behind and therefore see the "vaccine boost" evaporate.
Ever since that week when we let tens of thousands rush back from India with no quarantine, things have been slipping away from us.
Putting that small group of people in quarantine while they were tested would probably have bought us enough time to get the jabs into most younger adults before Delta cases arrived here in any numbers.
As many PB’ers were saying, right while it was happening.
But wasn't there s fantastic Brexit-busting trade deal photo opportunity at the end of that particular Indian rainbow?
So worth the risk?
So where is this trade deal you keep saying Boris wanted to sign ?
The answer is there wasn't one and isn't one.
What Boris wanted was the meeting - as seen at G7 its what he enjoys - the bonhomie, the photostunts, the vacuous pronouncements, even the WAGS bit.
As Dura put it the 'polychromatic pageantry' - in this case the chance to ride on an elephant while dressed as the Khasi of Khalabar.
Its a damning explanation for allowing Delta to enter the UK weeks before it would otherwise have done so.
But it seems some people are so obsessed with Brexit that they create an excuse for Boris that he wanted to visit India for the benefit of Britain.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Voters in Switzerland and Norway haven't been groomed to think that spending any money on anything that doesn't directly benefit them is wrong.
It is interesting though. The Blue Labour Cult claim to be pro-Britain having taken back control of our border and migration policy. Have they properly funded Border Force? No. Recruited customs agents and officers? No. Passed laws to go after the companies who exploit illegal labour? No.
Seemingly the only thing they have done is send her out in a branded jacket to smirk whilst a single illegal is rounded up for the camera whilst thinking what other headline generating stunts she can do next.
Like so many other areas they have no real interest in policy or actually governing. No grasp of the issue, never mind what to do about it. Just headlines so that the ill-informed think they are doing what they want.
They were actually people smugglers, or alleged ones, who were arrested. They hysterical online mob assumed they were illegal migrants and it now seems to be the case people believe it.
What were you saying about The headlines and the ill informed ?
"A woman confronted the staff at the Wi Spa in Los Angeles after a man walked into the women's section with his genitals hanging out in front of girls. He identified as a "woman." The employees said he had a right to do that. The employees say that it's the law."
Get with the program gender critical women. This is the future. Bearded men explaining what it is to be a woman and what a woman is.
As if we haven't had men telling us that for centuries. And exposing themselves to us as well. And behaving like perverts etc.
Only now we're utterly fed up with it. So we say no to all this bullshit.
Yes, it is awful and if women dare to dissent against this bullshit they get attacked, no platformed, sacked and reviled by a tiny minority. Men who think they know what being a woman is.
I was fully on board with the trans lobby until I read of the cotton ceiling and lesbians being guilt shamed for not welcoming ‘girldick’.
Sorry… have I understood that correctly…
If a man self-identities as a woman, lesbians are supported to sleep with her?
Hmmm… 🤔
People sleep with who they want to if the desire is reciprocal. The biggest single exception is men forcing themselves on women in one way or another. The trans aspect to this is really lost in the margins. It's just that it has a certain prurient fascination.
Guilt shaming lesbians who don’t want to sleep with women who still have their male parts is not acceptable
And yet it is the logical consequence of self-id gender ideology.
No it isn't. Because they never have to sleep with anyone they don't want to. For whatever reason.
They don't. But they are being accused of transphobia and attacked. It is one reason why some lesbian groups have set up away from Stonewall and in opposition to it, precisely because they are worried about the consequences of self-id for lesbians.
This is a real issue for lesbians who feel that the demands of men wishing to transition are taking precedence over the rights of women and lesbians in particular.
I suspect we are largely in agreement here.
If a man wants to dress as a woman that is no problem. If a man want to live as a woman that is no problem. If a man wants to take part in women's sporting events that are restricted to women that is a problem. However he/she wishes to self identify, he/she does not qualify. The weight lifting thing in the Olympics is absurd. If a man wants to make use of "safe spaces" for women such as toilets, prisons, changing rooms there is a conflict of rights but in my view that conflict should be resolved in favour of those born with the sex of a women if they are at risk. That is why those spaces exist.
But no one, ever, is obliged to have sex with anyone else. That is all I was saying.
It is not quite that simple though is it. You meet someone in the bar you are attracted, you wine her and dine her over a couple of weeks then you find out she isn't a women/man depending on your gender.
At what point does it become incumbent on someone to mention it before it becomes deception? You whether he or she may be spending money on someone that you wouldn't have done if you had known up front. This sort of thing is going to crop up and I fully expect lawsuits about it.
Isn't the simplest way to simply employ the Croc Dundee greeting whenever you meet someone new?
Also legally is it even deception?
If a transwoman (biological man) identifies as and is legally a woman, even if they have a penis, then why would they need to say that they have a penis or are biologically a man?
Which is kind of messed up, but legally is there any grounds for it to be considered a deception?
That the girl you've picked up has a penis may be a bit more of a shock than that she has a third nipple or false leg, but is there any law that says it needs to be declared?
That was a woman posing as a man. She was acting fraudulently.
A transwoman is a biological man who is legally a woman. So if she calls herself a woman, the law agrees that she is a woman, so no deception has occurred.
If you disagree with that, surely that's an issue in the law, not the individual committing a crime?
No, the law doesn’t agree. Self ID is not the law yet.
Almost a third of British companies that trade with the EU have suffered a decline or loss of business since post-Brexit rules took effect on January 1, according to a survey conducted for the FT
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
How does having a camp in Africa stop migrants trying to cross the Channel? Is there an incentive for them to journey to Rwanda under their own steam and "apply nicely"?
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
Actually, I don't think either you or @alex_ are correct as to the mechanics.
If you are paying a people smuggler, you will not be attempting to claim asylum. Asylum can only be claimed at a regular port of entry. If you have entered the country illegally, that isn't be possible.
For that reason, @alex_ is incorrect about people attempting to claim asylum at a camp in (for example) Chad: it wouldn't be possible, because it wouldn't be a port of entry into the UK. However, it clearly won't have much impact on people smuggling, because those people aren't attempting to claim asylum anyway.
Aren’t they being picked up by the British Navy in the channel, or arriving on a beach in Kent in a rickety old boat, and then claiming asylum?
We should report France to the UN, as it must be such a horrible place to live.
Beautiful to travel through.. prefer not to holiday there.
"I’ve heard from friends campaigning in Batley that Labour activists are being actively intimidated and have even had eggs thrown at them."
It's somewhat of a double-take that Labour activists, rather than Tories, are being intimidated and abused.
Either way, it is of course unacceptable.
The irony is it is most likely intimidation from more extreme left wing brethren.
Are there any tory activists to even intimidate?
Don't be silly, but my point demonstrates, as I have said for many years, that the enemy as far as Momentum types are concerned are mainstream Labour supporters and not the Conservatives.
After all their efforts keep returning Conservative Governments.
Yes and I think there's an interesting point there. Splits in parties between purists and pragmatists tend to be more bitter than those between parties because they are like civil wars, with each accusing the other of being traitors. While arguments between parties tend to be more like international wars, with ritualised agreements on more gentlemanly rules.
But Momentum types don't recognise the rules in the latter types of conflicts.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
Why do you think it is relevant to make a remark about the Home Secretary’s background. Her parents are immigrants. Get over it.
Are you serious? This is stupid shit politics doing dog whistle for racists. Of course it is relevant that the Home Secretary doing it is a 1st generation migrant.
As Robert rightly points out in his video you aren't going to stop illegal migration like this. But doing it the other way - funding the Border Force and the Police - costs money and involves planning and organisational skills they lack.
I agree that given the narrowness of the Channel (vs the 1000 miles for Australia) this is headline stuff rather than practical
But why is the Home Secretary’s background relevant?
Again, are you serious? She of all people should know how critical a fair and just migration policy is. She is Home Secretary because previous Home Secretaries let her parents migrate here from a country neighbouring the one she now wants to use as exclusion camps.
So she says that its ok for her parents to come here, but not the parents of the potential 2075 Home Secretary who she'd inter next door in Rwanda. Why? Because she has zero moral fibre and is happy to dog whistle for the racist wazzocks who sadly infest my former country who want to send anyone who isn't pure bred anglo-saxon like them "back home".
Her parents were legal immigrants. That’s a huge difference.
Frankly I think you are contemptible. Everyone has the right to form their own views regardless of their ethic background. But you are critical of her for “betraying” her background. You are the racist, not her.
Contemptible. I think he’s deranged. I’m pretty liberal when it comes to migration and asylum, I’d support processing requests in Europe and arranging safe passage. I also think Robert spoke a lot of sense in his video but when I read the sort of cobblers he’s coming out with, concentration camps indeed, I just think he’s completely lost the plot and best ignored.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Maybe they are worried about the long-term effects of the vaccinations.
It's more a medical risk culture issue I think - personal risk from COVID vs personal risk from vaccine side effects vs societal risk from COVID.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
Almost a third of British companies that trade with the EU have suffered a decline or loss of business since post-Brexit rules took effect on January 1, according to a survey conducted for the FT
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Presumably 100% open borders and anyone who opposes it is a racist with some shit about Rwanda chucked in for good measure ?
🚨🚨🇬🇧🇪🇺🚛🥩🚚🐟🍸🏭🇪🇺🇬🇧🚨🚨Six months on and UK businesses are still battling with Brexit, finds exclusive @The_IoD @cmi_managers surveys for @FT — red tape, labour shortages etc. With @DanielThomasLDN
Extraordinary to hear the Justice Secretary - of all people - dismiss questions about rule-breaking on @BBCr4today on the grounds that the Conservatives won "a resounding victory" at the local elections.
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
What does Telegraph mean by support an extension? From 19 July or 5 July?
"I’ve heard from friends campaigning in Batley that Labour activists are being actively intimidated and have even had eggs thrown at them."
It's somewhat of a double-take that Labour activists, rather than Tories, are being intimidated and abused.
Either way, it is of course unacceptable.
The irony is it is most likely intimidation from more extreme left wing brethren.
Are there any tory activists to even intimidate?
Don't be silly, but my point demonstrates, as I have said for many years, that the enemy as far as Momentum types are concerned are mainstream Labour supporters and not the Conservatives.
After all their efforts keep returning Conservative Governments.
Yes and I think there's an interesting point there. Splits in parties between purists and pragmatists tend to be more bitter than those between parties because they are like civil wars, with each accusing the other of being traitors. While arguments between parties tend to be more like international wars, with ritualised agreements on more gentlemanly rules.
But Momentum types don't recognise the rules in the latter types of conflicts.
Nah. I'm a member of Momentum and know lots of others. I don't know anyone who thinks the enemy is mainstream Labour supporters - it's a caricature, and personally I don't see anyone in Britain as an enemy, not even Farage. Of course there are a few nutters in every group but mostly it's the usual argument about perceived electability vs perceived progressive policies, and conducted on generally civilised terms.
Batley and Spen is a good example, actually. The group that's stirring things up is travelling all the way from Birmingham for the purpose. When I talked to voters across the spectrum yesterday (from former BNP to socialist Labour), nobody had a good word to say for them. People generalise fringe actors by characterising groups that they dislike - it's like saying that because there are some racists out there, all Tories are are racists. I've been doing this stuff for many decades, and really the number of people who are beyond reason is very, very small - on the right as on the left. As we see here, for that matter.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
The biggest issue with the UK's asylum system, I've always felt, is that it is massively underfunded resulting in ridiculous time gaps between people applying for asylum and either being accepted or deported.
The comments are quite something! 10/10 for basing the video off of old Mr Smith's theories.
I'm quite proud of the 1,100 "downvotes" it achieved, which is (by a large margin) the most I ever managed on a video.
Fab video! It explains everything that is wrong with the current government's approach just as well as it did Trump.
When our government goes after employers or whoever, we get complaints of "why should x do the government's job?"
Yet it is an approach that has been very successful in both Switzerland and Norway.
Voters in Switzerland and Norway haven't been groomed to think that spending any money on anything that doesn't directly benefit them is wrong.
It is interesting though. The Blue Labour Cult claim to be pro-Britain having taken back control of our border and migration policy. Have they properly funded Border Force? No. Recruited customs agents and officers? No. Passed laws to go after the companies who exploit illegal labour? No.
Seemingly the only thing they have done is send her out in a branded jacket to smirk whilst a single illegal is rounded up for the camera whilst thinking what other headline generating stunts she can do next.
Like so many other areas they have no real interest in policy or actually governing. No grasp of the issue, never mind what to do about it. Just headlines so that the ill-informed think they are doing what they want.
They were actually people smugglers, or alleged ones, who were arrested. They hysterical online mob assumed they were illegal migrants and it now seems to be the case people believe it.
What were you saying about The headlines and the ill informed ?
Great! And they're doing a lot of that are they? As the government know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, we don't have the staff and resources to enforce the existing laws.
A one-off "look! we're arresting someone!" means nothing in the scheme of things. Farage may be the rabble-rouser in chief but he does keep pointing out that the authorities have no clue how many people are coming in.
If the government actually had any interest in trying to arrest people smugglers or illegals or even having border officials available at ports of entry they would do so. They don't so its all just about headlines.
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
Things that tilt can quickly tilt the other way. Whilst we fool ourselves that we have finally got through this the rest of Europe looks at our rapidly spiking figures and shuts the gates.
I do think that we have to go ahead and drop most internal restrictions but that won't be the end. We're quickly going to pivot onto people complaining that they can't go on holiday (not allowed abroad, can't afford £1,600 for a week at Butlins Skegness) and that they've been told to go back into the office and that its now spreading through group x or y...
The sad thing about our out-of-phase Covid experience vs the rest of Europe is that I can see it preventing travel for some time to come. Europe is shutting the doors to Brits now as our case numbers soar. Then, by late July I reckon, UK numbers will be in freefall as Delta runs out of unvaccinated hosts. Hopes will rise for August. But by then cases in Spain, France and Italy will be back on the up as Delta soars and the government will put, or keep, them on the amber list.
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
What does Telegraph mean by support an extension? From 19 July or 5 July?
Not clear. We may know more when he speaks later. The context of the article is more about what happens on 19th. I think most in government have already written off 5th, even if they think that's a mistake. Time has run out.
I always like the "crypto currency is outside the law, man" types.
UK financial law has it's sensible bits - if it looks like a market, then it is. If it's a capital gain then you are liable for tax.....
The fun that’s going to happen when the taxman catches up with the “Bitcoin Bros”, most of whom have cashed out and are partying like it’s 1999, is going to be worth watching.
There’s also plenty of drug dealers, whose cover story is that they bought thousands of Bitcoins back when they were a dollar each.
One is that there's a lot of Covid in other countries that they're simply not picking up.
The other is that the UK genuinely has more cases, and is also doing enormous numbers of tests to confirm that people who almost certainly don't have Covid definitely don't have Covid.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
How does having a camp in Africa stop migrants trying to cross the Channel? Is there an incentive for them to journey to Rwanda under their own steam and "apply nicely"?
The idea has been used several times around the world.
Essentially, if you are an illegal migrant, you get put in camp/centre pretty much back where you started/a long way from your destination. The message gets out - going the people smuggling route doesn't work...
"I'm absolutely horrified at what I'm seeing". "I cannot condone this". What is it then?
Just had a look on Twitter and it is clearly either a troll account or some trolling. Some unpleasant accusations which are clearly untrue. I’m not going to go further into it as Mr Galloway is contacting legal people about it. I can’t say I blame him either.
Galloway is not everyone’s cuppa tea, he’s certainly not mine, but he is very much on the receiving end at the moment and his opponents simply jump on selective tweets.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Presumably 100% open borders and anyone who opposes it is a racist with some shit about Rwanda chucked in for good measure ?
Quite. Just how many more people need to die at sea, in order for the Guardian writers and blue-ticks on Twitter to be able to bathe in their smug, self-satisfied sense of moral superiority?
I always like the "crypto currency is outside the law, man" types.
UK financial law has it's sensible bits - if it looks like a market, then it is. If it's a capital gain then you are liable for tax.....
The fun that’s going to happen when the taxman catches up with the “Bitcoin Bros”, most of whom have cashed out and are partying like it’s 1999, is going to be worth watching.
There’s also plenty of drug dealers, whose cover story is that they bought thousands of Bitcoins back when they were a dollar each.
...and then lost all the bitcoin data, so no paper trail... LOL.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Stop people using illegal labour. Enforce rigourous checks when hiring and spot checks of HR departments for their paperwork. The penalty for undocumented employees sits with the company and not the employee.
Take illegal labour out of the economy. Then we can have a grown-up debate about the availability and cost of labour in all sectors and regions.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Presumably 100% open borders and anyone who opposes it is a racist with some shit about Rwanda chucked in for good measure ?
The BBC has a lot to answer for. Its woke agenda deemed illegal immigrants as migrants. They are migrants but illegal.migrants. We should be taking those crossing back to France from whence they came.
One is that there's a lot of Covid in other countries that they're simply not picking up.
The other is that the UK genuinely has more cases, and is also doing enormous numbers of tests to confirm that people who almost certainly don't have Covid definitely don't have Covid.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Maybe they are worried about the long-term effects of the vaccinations.
It's more a medical risk culture issue I think - personal risk from COVID vs personal risk from vaccine side effects vs societal risk from COVID.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
What does Telegraph mean by support an extension? From 19 July or 5 July?
I don't see support for ending restrictions until hospitalisations start going down. At the moment we have -
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Presumably 100% open borders and anyone who opposes it is a racist with some shit about Rwanda chucked in for good measure ?
I do have to laugh. I want an effective border and the rule of law to be paramount. You lot crap on the rule of law and don't bother with the border at all. As I said above, you lot are firmly in charge now, the policy agenda is clear yet what have you done in practice? Have you hired border force agents in large enough numbers? No. Have you stepped up enforcement of people exploiting illegal labour? No. Have you invested in staff to process and quickly deport unwanted illegals? No.
The government has no clue about the detail. On any subject. Immigration is no exception.
"I’ve heard from friends campaigning in Batley that Labour activists are being actively intimidated and have even had eggs thrown at them."
It's somewhat of a double-take that Labour activists, rather than Tories, are being intimidated and abused.
Either way, it is of course unacceptable.
The irony is it is most likely intimidation from more extreme left wing brethren.
Are there any tory activists to even intimidate?
Don't be silly, but my point demonstrates, as I have said for many years, that the enemy as far as Momentum types are concerned are mainstream Labour supporters and not the Conservatives.
After all their efforts keep returning Conservative Governments.
Yes and I think there's an interesting point there. Splits in parties between purists and pragmatists tend to be more bitter than those between parties because they are like civil wars, with each accusing the other of being traitors. While arguments between parties tend to be more like international wars, with ritualised agreements on more gentlemanly rules.
But Momentum types don't recognise the rules in the latter types of conflicts.
Nah. I'm a member of Momentum and know lots of others. I don't know anyone who thinks the enemy is mainstream Labour supporters - it's a caricature, and personally I don't see anyone in Britain as an enemy, not even Farage. Of course there are a few nutters in every group but mostly it's the usual argument about perceived electability vs perceived progressive policies, and conducted on generally civilised terms.
Batley and Spen is a good example, actually. The group that's stirring things up is travelling all the way from Birmingham for the purpose. When I talked to voters across the spectrum yesterday (from former BNP to socialist Labour), nobody had a good word to say for them. People generalise fringe actors by characterising groups that they dislike - it's like saying that because there are some racists out there, all Tories are are racists. I've been doing this stuff for many decades, and really the number of people who are beyond reason is very, very small - on the right as on the left. As we see here, for that matter.
Always interesting to have the perspective from someone at the coalface, even if it differs from my own experiences.
Anyone know the relative numbers who enter the UK on little boats, as opposed to coming on a plane as a tourist and then just forgetting to leave? Which seems like a much simpler way in.
The trouble with moving the checks to housing, employment and services is that it inconveniences us, not just them, and I suspect most of us aren't sufficiently bothered about immigration to tolerate that inconvenience.
An exception is rented housing, where the checks are ferocious. A relative in her 60s who was born in Scotland and has lived all her life in Britain (but who hadn't bothered to renew her passport as she doesn't travel) had to struggle for weeks to get an estate agent to accept that she had a right to live in Britain. The agent was apologetic since he could see and hear that she was Scottish, but said he'd lose his job and his company could lose its licence to operate unless they could show they had required absolute proof.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Maybe they are worried about the long-term effects of the vaccinations.
It's more a medical risk culture issue I think - personal risk from COVID vs personal risk from vaccine side effects vs societal risk from COVID.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
I have heard numbers in the range of 5-6 for Delta's natural R.
Which means that we (as in the heavily vaccinated countries) were very very lucky with the vaccines. Otherwise we would be looking at Italy the first time round. Everywhere.
What will happen in the less vaccinated countries when Delta does it's thing.... ugh.
All of Italy became a mask-free, “low-risk” zone for coronavirus Monday, marking a dramatic milestone for the first European country to be hit by the global pandemic in February 2020, AFP reports.
In a decree that took effect Monday, the health ministry for the first time classified each of Italy’s 20 regions as “white”, signifying low risk, under the country’s colour-coded classification system that evaluates Covid-19 risk.
That means facemasks will no longer be compulsory in outdoor areas - welcome news across the country where an ongoing heatwave is expected to push temperatures past 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in some southern areas this week.
New cases in Italy are now running at fewer than a thousand a day, while ours are about twenty times higher.
Anyone know the relative numbers who enter the UK on little boats, as opposed to coming on a plane as a tourist and then just forgetting to leave? Which seems like a much simpler way in.
The trouble with moving the checks to housing, employment and services is that it inconveniences us, not just them, and I suspect most of us aren't sufficiently bothered about immigration to tolerate that inconvenience.
An exception is rented housing, where the checks are ferocious. A relative in her 60s who was born in Scotland and has lived all her life in Britain (but who hadn't bothered to renew her passport as she doesn't travel) had to struggle for weeks to get an estate agent to accept that she had a right to live in Britain. The agent was apologetic since he could see and hear that she was Scottish, but said he'd lose his job and his company could lose its licence to operate unless they could show they had required absolute proof.
Yes, that can be a problem when requiring checks by the likes of landlords, banks, and employers. There’s often more legitimate people inconvenienced, and costs loaded onto businesses, than genuinely ineligible people caught by the systems.
Incidentally, for all that the "forrin go home" comments have now come out, lets look at what benefits come from forrin migration. Patel. Sunak. Javed. Zahwari.
We're about to hear a lot from Sajid "I'm the son of a bus driver me" Javid over the coming days and weeks. And does he think that the 2020 generation of his parents should be able to come here and drive a bus or farm or work in a factory? No!
Its the hypocrisy of the position that is laughable. We know how much of a success migrants bring to British society and our economy. And yet the sons and daughters of those successes say "go home, you bring no benefit" to others.
Unvaccinated but eligible under EMA authorisation. The government needs to get on and push for vaccines for 12+ and eventually 5+ once they become eligible.
Hmm - not sure we should be changing policy just because some countries require it for travel. Tough though it is.
Tbh i think France (currently) have it right. The risks from kids travelling with their (vaccinated) parents must be pretty small - they will spend the vast majority/all of their time within their family group.
No, it's just the right thing to do. Kids have got a medium risk of hospitalisation with delta and in a high transmission environment like we expect after July 19th there is a big case to vaccinate them with our Pfizer doses and use Novavax and AZ for booster shots.
^^^ Absolutely this.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS. I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Yep, absolubtely - the key transmission risk factor with Covid is puberty, hospitalisation roughly 40s, death very much increases with age. I don't get the hesitation, I think thay'd rather have 5 teenagers die of covid than 1 from myocarditis.
Maybe they are worried about the long-term effects of the vaccinations.
It's more a medical risk culture issue I think - personal risk from COVID vs personal risk from vaccine side effects vs societal risk from COVID.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
If R is that high then some countries are going to be disaster zones this autumn.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
I have heard numbers in the range of 5-6 for Delta's natural R.
Which means that we (as in the heavily vaccinated countries) were very very lucky with the vaccines. Otherwise we would be looking at Italy the first time round. Everywhere.
What will happen in the less vaccinated countries when Delta does it's thing.... ugh.
As I keep saying, we’ll soon find out by looking at the Balearics, who are determined to have the nightclubs open, and full of Europe’s unvaccinated youth, by next weekend.
It's smart policy. You massively reduce the incentive to smuggle yourself into Britain if you will be offshore again for processing.
Does it? I assume that people smuggling themselves into Britain without a valid claim for asylum do not, as a rule, present themselves to the authorities for processing.
Meanwhile, if you create an “offshore centre” somewhere in Africa don’t you potentially increase significantly the numbers presenting with a valid claim?
Many of those smuggling themselves into Britain know they will get caught in the Channel/at the coast. They ensure all their papers/passports are lost so we don't have anywhere to deport them to, and know their case will take long enough they will likely get let out into society at some point, especially if they have kids. And then they can disappear.
The Tories have chosen the wrong country for their concentration camp. Was supposed to be Madagascar. Or, given that Patel is doing this, why not Uganda?
You are far too ott. What's your solution to illegal.immigration.?
Stop people using illegal labour. Enforce rigourous checks when hiring and spot checks of HR departments for their paperwork. The penalty for undocumented employees sits with the company and not the employee.
Take illegal labour out of the economy. Then we can have a grown-up debate about the availability and cost of labour in all sectors and regions.
They will just work in the black economy. You can't stop it. They only way yo stop it is to stop them getting here. Once here the human rights legislation... and so on and so forth.
Comments
Putting that small group of people in quarantine while they were tested would probably have bought us enough time to get the jabs into most younger adults before Delta cases arrived here in any numbers.
As many PB’ers were saying, right while it was happening.
B&S voter: I’m not sure how I’ll vote on Thursday..
GG: REMOVE YOUR TWEET OR FACE THE CONSEQUENCES
https://twitter.com/northernrev/status/1409194594806468610?s=21
So worth the risk?
And the EU countries will, in all probability, be badly hit by it in the next few weeks.
However...
Sometimes it's better to be second. In the UK, the wave of infections has not created a wave of hospitalizations. While the weekend numbers are not out yet, the number of people in hospital dramatically slowed towards the end of last week, and appeared to completely reverse in the North West.
If the links between infection and hospitalization has been seriously reduced, then maybe EU countries will hold their nerves rather more than Hancock and Johnson did.
As it’s so much easier to put top spin on the ball if it’s in the air than it is on the ground, you can get some really lethal shots far more easily if you were to try this way.
As Robert rightly points out in his video you aren't going to stop illegal migration like this. But doing it the other way - funding the Border Force and the Police - costs money and involves planning and organisational skills they lack.
But why is the Home Secretary’s background relevant?
So she says that its ok for her parents to come here, but not the parents of the potential 2075 Home Secretary who she'd inter next door in Rwanda. Why? Because she has zero moral fibre and is happy to dog whistle for the racist wazzocks who sadly infest my former country who want to send anyone who isn't pure bred anglo-saxon like them "back home".
This time round, he does have some boosters to feed his vote - SKS' handling of Corbyn / the anti-Semitic allegations, what looks like dissatisfaction against the candidate at the local party level and how she was appointed plus her personal sexuality, the Batley Grammar issue plus one or two others - which would seem to boost his likely performance.
The one thing against that is the Survation Polling, which got Huddersfield results right. The only question I would have there is what is Survation's track record at polling in seats with a large ethnic minority vote and whose English fluency may be limited in the older segments (I don't know the answer)?
What I'm getting at is that we have a real problem in this country of getting tough. So I'd happily see mahoosive fines on companies or landlords or whoever. But we don't do pain in this country (it's probably why we've fucked up COVID in both ways). The Guardian will scream and scream and scream and the feeble Tories will cave every time.
Also, isn't the problem in the Channel that they are asylum seekers not economic migrants (or, at least, that's what they claim)?
Frankly I think you are contemptible. Everyone has the right to form their own views regardless of their ethic background. But you are critical of her for “betraying” her background. You are the racist, not her.
The trouble with moving the checks to housing, employment and services is that it inconveniences us, not just them, and I suspect most of us aren't sufficiently bothered about immigration to tolerate that inconvenience.
It is interesting though. The Blue Labour Cult claim to be pro-Britain having taken back control of our border and migration policy. Have they properly funded Border Force? No. Recruited customs agents and officers? No. Passed laws to go after the companies who exploit illegal labour? No.
Seemingly the only thing they have done is send her out in a branded jacket to smirk whilst a single illegal is rounded up for the camera whilst thinking what other headline generating stunts she can do next.
Like so many other areas they have no real interest in policy or actually governing. No grasp of the issue, never mind what to do about it. Just headlines so that the ill-informed think they are doing what they want.
That was a woman posing as a man. She was acting fraudulently.
A transwoman is a biological man who is legally a woman. So if she calls herself a woman, the law agrees that she is a woman, so no deception has occurred.
If you disagree with that, surely that's an issue in the law, not the individual committing a crime?
Anyone vaccinated with an AstraZeneca vaccine produced by the Serum Institute of India would not be qualified to get the pass – and that includes most citizens of low- and middle-income countries who were immunised with vaccines distributed by the WHO co-sponsored COVAX initiative.
https://t.co/MnrGiZMcQw
Final point, are you saying that asylum seekers can never become "legal immigrants"? That is a very radical reinterpretation of very basic laws that this country has been a leading light of.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/new-chairman-says-electoral-commission-could-agree-to-snp-demands-to-independence-referendum-without-boris-johnson-approval-3287980?amp
It’s something like 5,000 so far this year that have been picked up by UK authorities, in the Channel or on the beach. Almost all of whom have come from France, which we are led to believe is a safe country.
More important is that hundreds of these people are dying during their journey, either in the Med or the Channel, having paid large sums of money to organised criminals to facilitate their trip.
The Australian system, of refusing any and all arrivals by sea, has seen a huge decline in asylum claims, because word has got back that they won’t be allowed to settle in Australia - it’s saved thousands of lives.
Without vaxing the under-18s, we can expect north of 10,000 (more) kids to be hospitalised with covid, several thousand with long-running organ damage, and hundreds of thousands to develop chronic health conditions of various levels of severity.
We would only expect very very few to actually die, however, and it's extremely unlikely that it would overwhelm the NHS.
I think ordinarily we'd see it as really bad, but in view of the year we've had, the default view is rather changed, but I would be personally far more comfortable if we could vaccinate the kids as soon as possible.
Malta taking a sensible view on vaccinations tbh
https://www.mylondon.news/lifestyle/travel/heathrow-gatwick-holidays-malta-ruled-20912707
1) 100K fine per worker for employing people without the right paperwork.
2) The worker in question gets 50% plus indefinite leave to remain on conviction.
Suddenly all the sweatshops will discover HR process...
That and dealing with the fact that since France can't look after migrants properly, it is a failed state. And we all know what we do with failed states, don't we? Hmmmm... they do have a little bit of oil....
Be interesting to see precisely what Javid says in Commons this pm. But looks promising for those who feel it is time to risk opening up properly.
Telegraph has this: Source close to Javid says: “he’ll be extremely reluctant to support an extension… He’ll be looking and seeking to justify ending it as soon as possible".
"The tilt in the Cabinet has just shifted quite considerably.”
Unbelievable
https://twitter.com/REWearmouth/status/1409412736040243202
Extraordinary #r4today interview with Robert Buckland by @bbcnickrobinson questioned about standards in public life. Govt argument is they don’t matter to the majority, people vote for us anyway.
-Appalling
https://twitter.com/paul__johnson/status/1409413352540016640
https://twitter.com/PippaCrerar/status/1409412343499476995
Mr. Dickson, is not a legitimate referendum a UK Government matter?
I do think that we have to go ahead and drop most internal restrictions but that won't be the end. We're quickly going to pivot onto people complaining that they can't go on holiday (not allowed abroad, can't afford £1,600 for a week at Butlins Skegness) and that they've been told to go back into the office and that its now spreading through group x or y...
PS We know GG is pals with Stephen Bannon. But who does he get help from this side of the Atlantic? ("Putin" may be too simple an answer.) Or is he such an all-round campaigns-and-data mega-genius that he handles everything himself? Just a question that came into my head when I heard about all the campaign posters and all the journalists mentioning them too.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has ruled that the firm cannot conduct any "regulated activity" in the UK.
It also issued a consumer warning about Binance.com, advising people to be wary of adverts promising high returns on cryptoasset investments.
This comes amid pushback from regulators around the world against crypto-currency platforms.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57632831.amp
The answer is there wasn't one and isn't one.
What Boris wanted was the meeting - as seen at G7 its what he enjoys - the bonhomie, the photostunts, the vacuous pronouncements, even the WAGS bit.
As Dura put it the 'polychromatic pageantry' - in this case the chance to ride on an elephant while dressed as the Khasi of Khalabar.
Its a damning explanation for allowing Delta to enter the UK weeks before it would otherwise have done so.
But it seems some people are so obsessed with Brexit that they create an excuse for Boris that he wanted to visit India for the benefit of Britain.
What were you saying about The headlines and the ill informed ?
Latest Positivity Rate:
Germany: 1.4
UK: 0.9
Latest testing rate (per '000)
Germany: 1.21
UK: 14.52
https://twitter.com/GBNEWS/status/1409412210397519876
https://on.ft.com/3qxVDye
Meanwhile, a blast from the past: back in 2003 there was talk of Nicholas van Hoogstraten running an "asylum centre" for migrants on an aircraft carrier moored off Margate in Kent.
But Momentum types don't recognise the rules in the latter types of conflicts.
Contemptible. I think he’s deranged. I’m pretty liberal when it comes to migration and asylum, I’d support processing requests in Europe and arranging safe passage. I also think Robert spoke a lot of sense in his video but when I read the sort of cobblers he’s coming out with, concentration camps indeed, I just think he’s completely lost the plot and best ignored.
Young people have a low risk of illness - though hospitalisation does occur as does long COVID. Vaccines, like all medicines have side effects. The justification for vaccinating 12-18 is increasing herd immunity - not protecting the individual.
But this is changing - if Delta does it's thing*, the 12-18 group will all get it, eventually. At which point the risk calculation changes. But admitting that Delta is basically unstoppable is hard......
*The estimates for R for Delta suggest that even a *full lock down* wouldn't stop it.
Stay with me/1 https://on.ft.com/3qxVDye
So why have rules for ministers at all? Does anything go if you're winning?
https://twitter.com/redhistorian/status/1409414467608264705
UK financial law has it's sensible bits - if it looks like a market, then it is. If it's a capital gain then you are liable for tax.....
Batley and Spen is a good example, actually. The group that's stirring things up is travelling all the way from Birmingham for the purpose. When I talked to voters across the spectrum yesterday (from former BNP to socialist Labour), nobody had a good word to say for them. People generalise fringe actors by characterising groups that they dislike - it's like saying that because there are some racists out there, all Tories are are racists. I've been doing this stuff for many decades, and really the number of people who are beyond reason is very, very small - on the right as on the left. As we see here, for that matter.
A one-off "look! we're arresting someone!" means nothing in the scheme of things. Farage may be the rabble-rouser in chief but he does keep pointing out that the authorities have no clue how many people are coming in.
If the government actually had any interest in trying to arrest people smugglers or illegals or even having border officials available at ports of entry they would do so. They don't so its all just about headlines.
There’s also plenty of drug dealers, whose cover story is that they bought thousands of Bitcoins back when they were a dollar each.
One is that there's a lot of Covid in other countries that they're simply not picking up.
The other is that the UK genuinely has more cases, and is also doing enormous numbers of tests to confirm that people who almost certainly don't have Covid definitely don't have Covid.
Essentially, if you are an illegal migrant, you get put in camp/centre pretty much back where you started/a long way from your destination. The message gets out - going the people smuggling route doesn't work...
Galloway is not everyone’s cuppa tea, he’s certainly not mine, but he is very much on the receiving end at the moment and his opponents simply jump on selective tweets.
What a shitty by election.
Take illegal labour out of the economy. Then we can have a grown-up debate about the availability and cost of labour in all sectors and regions.
I'm beginning to suspect that Boris has got lucky again with Delta - the imagery of a Europe, Australia and USA being hammered by Delta later this year after it has passed through a more heavily vaccinated UK during the summer could be very favourable for him.
The government has no clue about the detail. On any subject. Immigration is no exception.
Which means that we (as in the heavily vaccinated countries) were very very lucky with the vaccines. Otherwise we would be looking at Italy the first time round. Everywhere.
What will happen in the less vaccinated countries when Delta does it's thing.... ugh.
Not one to try here at present
We're about to hear a lot from Sajid "I'm the son of a bus driver me" Javid over the coming days and weeks. And does he think that the 2020 generation of his parents should be able to come here and drive a bus or farm or work in a factory? No!
Its the hypocrisy of the position that is laughable. We know how much of a success migrants bring to British society and our economy. And yet the sons and daughters of those successes say "go home, you bring no benefit" to others.