Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Invade and steal their oil.
But... they haven't got any oil.
They do: we discussed it. IIRC some in the Gironde area and some in the same sort of Jurassic as we have in Dorset, only other side of the ditch.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Invade and steal their oil.
But... they haven't got any oil.
Well, some decent quality olive oil and a fair bit of sunflower oil. Anyway, oil is just the excuse.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
You’ve handed Philip an escape route to asylum, will he take it or will he remain in the first available country of incoherent arguments that allows him to defend BJ & co?
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 20% Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73% Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
For now.
If the whole of Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda return and use it as a launchpad for further terrorist attacks on New York or another US major city resulting in thousands of American deaths they may change their mind
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 20% Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73% Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
For now.
If the whole of Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda return and use it as a launchpad for further terrorist attacks on New York or another major city resulting in thousands of American deaths they may change their mind
AIUI they didn't use it as a launchpad before, so 'further' is wrong.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
Why should we only welcome those who pay people smugglers and risk their lives instead of being welcoming to others?
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Invade and steal their oil.
But... they haven't got any oil.
They do: we discussed it. IIRC some in the Gironde area and some in the same sort of Jurassic as we have in Dorset, only other side of the ditch.
Plus the olive, lavender, etc. stuff.
Plus we can get our regular commentator in his Covenanter tank to spearhead the invasion.....
Mind you, even if there isn't much oil, can't we crib from a PhD thesis and a story from a cab driver that there is tons of oil in France?
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Invade and steal their oil.
But... they haven't got any oil.
They do: we discussed it. IIRC some in the Gironde area and some in the same sort of Jurassic as we have in Dorset, only other side of the ditch.
Plus the olive, lavender, etc. stuff.
Plus we can get our regular commentator in his Covenanter tank to spearhead the invasion.....
Mind you, even if there isn't much oil, can't we crib from a PhD thesis and a story from a cab driver that there is tons of oil in France?
Not a happy history, Covenanters and the sea, BTW:
Anyway, what's all this interest in case numbers? Experts on here keep telling me that case numbers really don't matter at all, and we shouldn't worry when they rise; indeed, we should probably stop reporting them. (Although they seem to matter more when they're going down).
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Invade and steal their oil.
But... they haven't got any oil.
They do: we discussed it. IIRC some in the Gironde area and some in the same sort of Jurassic as we have in Dorset, only other side of the ditch.
Plus the olive, lavender, etc. stuff.
Plus we can get our regular commentator in his Covenanter tank to spearhead the invasion.....
Mind you, even if there isn't much oil, can't we crib from a PhD thesis and a story from a cab driver that there is tons of oil in France?
Tonnes, tonnes ... the cabbie allusion does escape me.
If, like me and mine, you cook an enormous bowl of pasta - spaghetti or linguini or whatever - which even with our greediness, we cannot finish, you will have leftover pasta.
Do not throw it away.
Put it in a large bowl. Beat a couple of eggs, more if there is lots of pasta. You need enough eggs to bind the pasta together but not so many that it becomes slimy.
Then add other leftovers eg if there is cooked meat from your Sunday roast - you can chop it into little bits. Or some ham or salami. And mozzarella - again chopped up - or another piquant cheese - provolone for example. Peas are a nice addition too. And Parmesan. Plus seasoning.
Mix it all together. Then mix it with the pasta so it is all nicely coated.
Get a large frying pan. Add a touch of olive oil. When it is hot, pour the pasta mixture into the pan. Cook until browned on one side then put a plate over the pan and flip over so that you can cook and brown on the other side.
Cut into slices and enjoy. You can let it cool and take it on picnics or into the office. It is essentially a neat way of cooking leftovers.
To be honest even if you add an approx Wales figure that is still a real good number for a Wednesday.
...three and a half weeks after no restrictions, and night clubs open etc. Its brilliant tbh and nothing like the 100,000 cases per day or worse that some feared/predicted (hoped?)
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 20% Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73% Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
For now.
If the whole of Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda return and use it as a launchpad for further terrorist attacks on New York or another major city resulting in thousands of American deaths they may change their mind
AIUI they didn't use it as a launchpad before, so 'further' is wrong.
They did, Al Qaeda used Afghanistan to train and indoctrinate terrorists in camps. They also imported weapons there and plotted attacks. Indeed as early as 1998 President Clinton sent missiles to strike militant camps in the country.
The 9/11 operation was planned by Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Afghanistan. Bin Laden financed and selected the terrorists and they were trained in Afghanistan before going to the US, including those from the Hamburg cell.
Note a partisan divide on the issue too even as most Americans back the withdrawal for now, while 81% of Democrats support the withdrawal only 61% of Republicans do.
If Biden's gamble goes wrong and Kabul falls and a US city is attacked again in a major terrorist attack for the first time since 9/11 expect a clear swing to the GOP
Clearly we need remedial cookery courses for ex-MPs.
Cyclefree kindly advised me on cooking pasta, and another friend has explained how to make an omelette. So sometimes I go wild with those.
I hope it was the right sort of omelette. There are more ways of making omelettes than pawns on a chessboard.
Delia ("One is Fun") is particularly keen on souffle omelettes, where you whip the eggs and finish it off under a grill to make it fluffy with a crust.
I've got "One is Fun" ( a neighbour moving away put out her set of unwanted books for people to snaffle. It's pleasantly light on jargon.
The version I was taught meets my time test, though - break the eggs (10 secs), whip them with a fork (5 seconds), add salt and pepper (10 seconds), fry with butter and oil for half a minute, put some filling in (whatever), fold and eat. Actually faster than a microwaved meal, amazing. Leaves lots of time to work, translate, write leaflets, post on PB, incite revolutions, play computer games or all the other interesting things that life has to offer.
How's the Socialist Republic of South Woking (?) coming along?
Sheffield still has a headache, according to my Godmother.
In other cookbooks, I enjoy the Carb and Cals series.
I'll try your omelette, as I have some batch-frozen heggs in the freezer.
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 20% Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73% Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
For now.
If the whole of Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda return and use it as a launchpad for further terrorist attacks on New York or another major city resulting in thousands of American deaths they may change their mind
AIUI they didn't use it as a launchpad before, so 'further' is wrong.
They did, Al Qaeda used Afghanistan to train and indoctrinate terrorists in camps. They also imported weapons there and plotted attacks. Indeed as early as 1998 President Clinton sent missiles to strike militant camps in the country.
The operation was planned by Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Afghanistan. Bin Laden financed and selected the terrorists and they were trained in Afghanistan before going to the US, including those from the Hamburg cell.
Note a partisan divide on the issue too even as most Americans back the withdrawal, while 81% of Democrats support the withdrawal only 61% of Republicans do
Thanks - memory obviously wrong. The last divide seems very small, actually, for the Republicans to be agreeing so well with the Democrats.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Invade and steal their oil.
But... they haven't got any oil.
They do: we discussed it. IIRC some in the Gironde area and some in the same sort of Jurassic as we have in Dorset, only other side of the ditch.
Plus the olive, lavender, etc. stuff.
Plus we can get our regular commentator in his Covenanter tank to spearhead the invasion.....
Mind you, even if there isn't much oil, can't we crib from a PhD thesis and a story from a cab driver that there is tons of oil in France?
Tonnes, tonnes ... the cabbie allusion does escape me.
IIRC it turned out that part of the WMD intelligence in the dodgy dossier was something offered up by a cab driver who was trying to get asylum.
It is unknown if he was actually an Albanian black cab driver *possing* as an Iraqi, though....
Anyway, what's all this interest in case numbers? Experts on here keep telling me that case numbers really don't matter at all, and we shouldn't worry when they rise; indeed, we should probably stop reporting them. (Although they seem to matter more when they're going down).
It can be true that case numbers should not be used to drive policy on social mixing restrictions and guidelines and also true that they are interesting from a perspective of judging how impressively effective the vaccines are, particularly in combination with the other data.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
OT. An interesting piece from 2018 about Iran's success in reducing their fertility rate from 6.5 births per woman to 2, and the opportunities and threats.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Yes, when it comes to our generosity absolutely you have that right. Libertarianism should be within the borders, it doesn't apply to the entire globe and nobody proposes it should because having 7 billion people able to come here without checks simply would not work.
If we are giving aid, if we are giving shelter, then absolutely we should give that to those who need it most.
So you are not a libertarian. Fair enough. Perhaps you never said you were.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
If you make crossing the Channel in small boats a successful option, then more and more people will come that way.
If you make it into landing on a snake in the game of snakes and ladders, then less people will come that way.
This is why the lab leak theory is true. They know they fucked up and are trying hard to convince the world they didn't. The more they protest it wasn't a lab leak the more convinced we should be that it was.
This is why the lab leak theory is true. They know they fucked up and are trying hard to convince the world they didn't. The more they protest it wasn't a lab leak the more convinced we should be that it was.
I don't buy that argument. The paranoia of the Chinese state means that they would react the same way if they had no idea of the virus source as they would if it were a lab leak. We've seen very similar behaviour with the Wuhan floods and the deaths in the road tunnels. China's behaviour in blocking any independent scientific investigation of the virus origins is indefensible, but I think it's wrong to assume this proves a leak.
It remains a possibility, but no more than that.
If it was down to any animal markets they'd be handing over the evidence of that, it puts them officially in the clear. Instead we have jumped up "scientists" getting organised letters published in the Lancet by a dimwitted editor.
The theory has moved from probably to highly likely, IMO. I think you aren't seeing the forest, all of the elements are there, the cover ups, the dodgy lab, the idiot scientists who were working on viral gain of function in the WIV, the same idiot scientists then covering up that work but not very well, the same idiot scientists then getting the Lancet to do their dirty work of calling the lab leak theory somehow racist etc...
Everyone involved in that lab has been desperately trying to cover up the dirt. They know it was them, the Chinese state knows it was the lab. Once again the simple question is this - in Wuhan we had a lab that was researching bat coronaviruses and conducting gain of function research on virus samples they found. We know they were doing this, there are multiple published papers from the scientists that say they were doing this they later attempted to remove from servers. Coincidentally a bat coronavirus which is significantly more transmissible (a gain of function) than anything we've ever seen pops up in exactly the same city as the research is being carried out.
Other theories are no longer credible.
Not only that, we now know they were doing the novel bat GOF coronavirus research in unsafe BSL-2 labs, one of which is about 3 minutes from the wet market
OT. An interesting piece from 2018 about Iran's success in reducing their fertility rate from 6.5 births per woman to 2, and the opportunities and threats.
If, like me and mine, you cook an enormous bowl of pasta - spaghetti or linguini or whatever - which even with our greediness, we cannot finish, you will have leftover pasta.
Do not throw it away.
Put it in a large bowl. Beat a couple of eggs, more if there is lots of pasta. You need enough eggs to bind the pasta together but not so many that it becomes slimy.
Then add other leftovers eg if there is cooked meat from your Sunday roast - you can chop it into little bits. Or some ham or salami. And mozzarella - again chopped up - or another piquant cheese - provolone for example. Peas are a nice addition too. And Parmesan. Plus seasoning.
Mix it all together. Then mix it with the pasta so it is all nicely coated.
Get a large frying pan. Add a touch of olive oil. When it is hot, pour the pasta mixture into the pan. Cook until browned on one side then put a plate over the pan and flip over so that you can cook and brown on the other side.
Cut into slices and enjoy. You can let it cool and take it on picnics or into the office. It is essentially a neat way of cooking leftovers.
Great recipe. I'm sure I have done one recently, but sure when.
And it looks as if it will freeze well.
Reminds me that I need to get to a country show to get some high end cheese.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
If you make crossing the Channel in small boats a successful option, then more and more people will come that way.
If you make it into landing on a snake in the game of snakes and ladders, then less people will come that way.
Given the probable numbers drowning each day.....
Yes I understand that very well. Thing is, what are the practicalities of stopping boats coming from France?
We have a situation today where the government doesn't want to patrol 24/7 the UK coastline (or perhaps they do already) and hence we have these boats. Run by criminals exploiting very needy people who have decided, as is their legal right, that they want to come to the UK.
Send them to a poor country, people cry, but I am interested in the practicalities. Are you saying the UK should enter into negotiations with XXXX (you tell me) to offload all the asylum seekers picked up on our coasts? I just can't see it happening.
So then what? Choose them in Turkey. But plenty won't want to play ball and will try to come here anyway.
So we have the problem of what to do with them once they are here. And of course the RNLI's role in it all. Our only option is to try to process them here to determine the validity of their claims and then if possible, for those who do not meet our asylum criteria, to take action to return them to their homeland. For those where this is impossible then we have a dilemma - integrate them into society or keep them locked up in Asylum Centres.
We are a big country with lots of space and I'm guessing the number of asylum seekers is small but I have no idea.
it is not easy but some of the solutions posited here today are frankly ridiculous.
This is why the lab leak theory is true. They know they fucked up and are trying hard to convince the world they didn't. The more they protest it wasn't a lab leak the more convinced we should be that it was.
This is why the lab leak theory is true. They know they fucked up and are trying hard to convince the world they didn't. The more they protest it wasn't a lab leak the more convinced we should be that it was.
I don't buy that argument. The paranoia of the Chinese state means that they would react the same way if they had no idea of the virus source as they would if it were a lab leak. We've seen very similar behaviour with the Wuhan floods and the deaths in the road tunnels. China's behaviour in blocking any independent scientific investigation of the virus origins is indefensible, but I think it's wrong to assume this proves a leak.
It remains a possibility, but no more than that.
If it was down to any animal markets they'd be handing over the evidence of that, it puts them officially in the clear. Instead we have jumped up "scientists" getting organised letters published in the Lancet by a dimwitted editor.
The theory has moved from probably to highly likely, IMO. I think you aren't seeing the forest, all of the elements are there, the cover ups, the dodgy lab, the idiot scientists who were working on viral gain of function in the WIV, the same idiot scientists then covering up that work but not very well, the same idiot scientists then getting the Lancet to do their dirty work of calling the lab leak theory somehow racist etc...
Everyone involved in that lab has been desperately trying to cover up the dirt. They know it was them, the Chinese state knows it was the lab. Once again the simple question is this - in Wuhan we had a lab that was researching bat coronaviruses and conducting gain of function research on virus samples they found. We know they were doing this, there are multiple published papers from the scientists that say they were doing this they later attempted to remove from servers. Coincidentally a bat coronavirus which is significantly more transmissible (a gain of function) than anything we've ever seen pops up in exactly the same city as the research is being carried out.
Other theories are no longer credible.
Not only that, we now know they were doing the novel bat GOF coronavirus research in unsafe BSL-2 labs, one of which is about 3 minutes from the wet market
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
I champion enterprise that doesn't illegally put people into danger. People are dying because of drownings, so no I do not champion that.
I don't want fewer asylum seekers coming here, I'd welcome more coming here. What I want is fewer deaths in the Channel. What part of that do you object to precisely? Do you champion the fact people are dying drowning in the Channel?
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
If you make crossing the Channel in small boats a successful option, then more and more people will come that way.
If you make it into landing on a snake in the game of snakes and ladders, then less people will come that way.
Given the probable numbers drowning each day.....
Yes I understand that very well. Thing is, what are the practicalities of stopping boats coming from France?
We have a situation today where the government doesn't want to patrol 24/7 the UK coastline (or perhaps they do already) and hence we have these boats. Run by criminals exploiting very needy people who have decided, as is their legal right, that they want to come to the UK.
Send them to a poor country, people cry, but I am interested in the practicalities. Are you saying the UK should enter into negotiations with XXXX (you tell me) to offload all the asylum seekers picked up on our coasts? I just can't see it happening.
So then what? Choose them in Turkey. But plenty won't want to play ball and will try to come here anyway.
So we have the problem of what to do with them once they are here. And of course the RNLI's role in it all. Our only option is to try to process them here to determine the validity of their claims and then if possible, for those who do not meet our asylum criteria, to take action to return them to their homeland. For those where this is impossible then we have a dilemma - integrate them into society or keep them locked up in Asylum Centres.
We are a big country with lots of space and I'm guessing the number of asylum seekers is small but I have no idea.
it is not easy but some of the solutions posited here today are frankly ridiculous.
Once they are in a small boat, picking them up is the only option. Unless you want to increase the number of dead people.
Once you have picked them up, you can
- Dump them on the shores of France, illegally - Bring them ashore in the UK. - Conscript them into the Royal Navy (my favourite)
There are already countries taking such migrants, cash per head....
If you make arriving here by small boat a one way ticket to X, all expenses paid, then you will see a decrease in people crossing the Channel in small boats.
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 20% Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73% Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
For now.
If the whole of Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda return and use it as a launchpad for further terrorist attacks on New York or another major city resulting in thousands of American deaths they may change their mind
AIUI they didn't use it as a launchpad before, so 'further' is wrong.
They did, Al Qaeda used Afghanistan to train and indoctrinate terrorists in camps. They also imported weapons there and plotted attacks. Indeed as early as 1998 President Clinton sent missiles to strike militant camps in the country.
The operation was planned by Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Afghanistan. Bin Laden financed and selected the terrorists and they were trained in Afghanistan before going to the US, including those from the Hamburg cell.
Note a partisan divide on the issue too even as most Americans back the withdrawal, while 81% of Democrats support the withdrawal only 61% of Republicans do
Thanks - memory obviously wrong. The last divide seems very small, actually, for the Republicans to be agreeing so well with the Democrats.
A 20% gap is quite significant.
In 2001 there was still a gap but on the other side, while 61% of Americans overall strongly backed the invasion, including 69% of Republicans who strongly supported it, only 51% of Democrats said the same. So a still significant 18% gap. (A further 21% reluctantly supported it with only 18% opposed, albeit 25% of Democrats opposed it).
So if and when the first skyscraper falls in a major US city since 9/11 on Biden's watch thanks to a terrorist attack launched from Afghanistan, expect those numbers to shift rapidly
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
Why should we only welcome those who pay people smugglers and risk their lives instead of being welcoming to others?
We need to set up processing centres for asylum seekers in Europe. Five or six of them. Allow these poor people to apply in Europe. We should take their request. Assess it, approve it then bring them over to the UK and safety and freedom.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
If you make crossing the Channel in small boats a successful option, then more and more people will come that way.
If you make it into landing on a snake in the game of snakes and ladders, then less people will come that way.
Given the probable numbers drowning each day.....
Yes I understand that very well. Thing is, what are the practicalities of stopping boats coming from France?
We have a situation today where the government doesn't want to patrol 24/7 the UK coastline (or perhaps they do already) and hence we have these boats. Run by criminals exploiting very needy people who have decided, as is their legal right, that they want to come to the UK.
Send them to a poor country, people cry, but I am interested in the practicalities. Are you saying the UK should enter into negotiations with XXXX (you tell me) to offload all the asylum seekers picked up on our coasts? I just can't see it happening.
So then what? Choose them in Turkey. But plenty won't want to play ball and will try to come here anyway.
So we have the problem of what to do with them once they are here. And of course the RNLI's role in it all. Our only option is to try to process them here to determine the validity of their claims and then if possible, for those who do not meet our asylum criteria, to take action to return them to their homeland. For those where this is impossible then we have a dilemma - integrate them into society or keep them locked up in Asylum Centres.
We are a big country with lots of space and I'm guessing the number of asylum seekers is small but I have no idea.
it is not easy but some of the solutions posited here today are frankly ridiculous.
BiB: Yes that is exactly what I am proposing.
And then we take other asylum seekers direct through safe and legal routes that don't lead to deaths at sea or the paying of criminal people smuggling gangs.
We could have more asylum seekers come here, every single one of them coming here safely on airplanes instead of dinghies.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
Why should we only welcome those who pay people smugglers and risk their lives instead of being welcoming to others?
We need to set up processing centres for asylum seekers in Europe. Five or six of them. Allow these poor people to apply in Europe. We should take their request. Assess it, approve it then bring them over to the UK and safety and freedom.
If, like me and mine, you cook an enormous bowl of pasta - spaghetti or linguini or whatever - which even with our greediness, we cannot finish, you will have leftover pasta.
Do not throw it away.
Put it in a large bowl. Beat a couple of eggs, more if there is lots of pasta. You need enough eggs to bind the pasta together but not so many that it becomes slimy.
Then add other leftovers eg if there is cooked meat from your Sunday roast - you can chop it into little bits. Or some ham or salami. And mozzarella - again chopped up - or another piquant cheese - provolone for example. Peas are a nice addition too. And Parmesan. Plus seasoning.
Mix it all together. Then mix it with the pasta so it is all nicely coated.
Get a large frying pan. Add a touch of olive oil. When it is hot, pour the pasta mixture into the pan. Cook until browned on one side then put a plate over the pan and flip over so that you can cook and brown on the other side.
Cut into slices and enjoy. You can let it cool and take it on picnics or into the office. It is essentially a neat way of cooking leftovers.
Sounds delightful! Lunch, or emergency starter for unexpected dinner guests, per person:
1. Cook 100g of short pasta al dente, drain. Farfalle is nice. 2. Stir in contents of tin of mussels in escabeche (sometimes sold as "Mussels in Galician Sauce" in supermarkets) and allow to warm through. 3. Add something on top if desired (pepper, parmesan, parsley etc.) and serve.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
The country was already overpopulated 20 years ago when it reached 60 million.
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 20% Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73% Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
For now.
If the whole of Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda return and use it as a launchpad for further terrorist attacks on New York or another major city resulting in thousands of American deaths they may change their mind
AIUI they didn't use it as a launchpad before, so 'further' is wrong.
They did, Al Qaeda used Afghanistan to train and indoctrinate terrorists in camps. They also imported weapons there and plotted attacks. Indeed as early as 1998 President Clinton sent missiles to strike militant camps in the country.
The 9/11 operation was planned by Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Afghanistan. Bin Laden financed and selected the terrorists and they were trained in Afghanistan before going to the US, including those from the Hamburg cell.
Note a partisan divide on the issue too even as most Americans back the withdrawal for now, while 81% of Democrats support the withdrawal only 61% of Republicans do.
If Biden's gamble goes wrong and Kabul falls and a US city is attacked again in a major terrorist attack for the first time since 9/11 expect a clear swing to the GOP
This may sound cynical, but part of the equation would be is the human and property cost of an occasional successful terrorist attack an acceptable trade off against year after year of deaths of soldiers and expenditure on materiel with no prospect of "victory"? "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" is a principle strongly embedded in the American psyche, both among the military and civilians, but eventually the point where continuing on with no hope of success can no longer be justified is reached. I think Biden has reached that point, and indeed it's not like he's doing anything new here, he's just completing the policy set by Trump.
And America does take protection against terrorism very, very seriously now which it most certainly didn't pre-9/11, despite Oklahoma City and the WTC garage bombing. I recall in the late '90s being approached by a beggar at the gate at Philly airport. Of course, the terrorists only have to be lucky once, but I think the risk of another 9/11-scale spectacular being pulled off is a lot less these days.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
I champion enterprise that doesn't illegally put people into danger. People are dying because of drownings, so no I do not champion that.
I don't want fewer asylum seekers coming here, I'd welcome more coming here. What I want is fewer deaths in the Channel. What part of that do you object to precisely? Do you champion the fact people are dying drowning in the Channel?
I want fewer asylum seekers dying also. We are as one. 15 a year over the past 20 years is 300 too many. But it is a risk that asylum seekers are prepared to take and, as we have discussed endlessly on here, people have various levels of risk tolerance.
You simply won't stop them coming by keeping them in France or Denmark as that is cloud cuckoo land. Why are you trying for a zero-asylum death in the channel policy? It would surely be hugely cost-ineffective.
And do you think there wouldn't be criminality, profiteering and likely deaths in the Turkish camps if that was the solution that came about?
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
If you make crossing the Channel in small boats a successful option, then more and more people will come that way.
If you make it into landing on a snake in the game of snakes and ladders, then less people will come that way.
Given the probable numbers drowning each day.....
Yes I understand that very well. Thing is, what are the practicalities of stopping boats coming from France?
We have a situation today where the government doesn't want to patrol 24/7 the UK coastline (or perhaps they do already) and hence we have these boats. Run by criminals exploiting very needy people who have decided, as is their legal right, that they want to come to the UK.
Send them to a poor country, people cry, but I am interested in the practicalities. Are you saying the UK should enter into negotiations with XXXX (you tell me) to offload all the asylum seekers picked up on our coasts? I just can't see it happening.
So then what? Choose them in Turkey. But plenty won't want to play ball and will try to come here anyway.
So we have the problem of what to do with them once they are here. And of course the RNLI's role in it all. Our only option is to try to process them here to determine the validity of their claims and then if possible, for those who do not meet our asylum criteria, to take action to return them to their homeland. For those where this is impossible then we have a dilemma - integrate them into society or keep them locked up in Asylum Centres.
We are a big country with lots of space and I'm guessing the number of asylum seekers is small but I have no idea.
it is not easy but some of the solutions posited here today are frankly ridiculous.
BiB: Yes that is exactly what I am proposing.
And then we take other asylum seekers direct through safe and legal routes that don't lead to deaths at sea or the paying of criminal people smuggling gangs.
We could have more asylum seekers come here, every single one of them coming here safely on airplanes instead of dinghies.
Where? Work with me here. Tell me about those plans.
I got the impression last year that those hostile to private schools were the most supportive of grade inflation - presumably because if everyone got As then the private sector differential would end.
Reality has turned out differently:
A charity has raised concerns that the coronavirus crisis has widened the gap between independent and state schools after it was revealed that just over 70% of all A-level entries from private schools in England were awarded an A grade or higher this year.
Analysis of entries by exams regulator Ofqual found that 70.1% of pupils at fee-paying schools achieved the top grades, compared with 44% in 2019, when exams last took place, and 60.8% last year.
"Hear the teachers are doing the A level grades this year. So, not to interfere or anything, but you know those fees we all pay ..."
Yes (he who pays the piper) but that applies in state schools as well - pressure from parents and league tables.
Self-selection bias.
Any parents paying fees almost certainly care a lot about their kids education.
While that will be true for many state school parents, it will not by any means be true for all or as many.
No, I don't hold with this. I don't think there's a correlation between not sending your kids to private school and not caring much about their education. It's only a small minority of people who can afford school fees for their offspring and of these a fair proportion go that route only because it's the done thing in this country for their social class.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
Why should we only welcome those who pay people smugglers and risk their lives instead of being welcoming to others?
We need to set up processing centres for asylum seekers in Europe. Five or six of them. Allow these poor people to apply in Europe. We should take their request. Assess it, approve it then bring them over to the UK and safety and freedom.
Any coming on boats just return.
a) where would we return them to; and b) what would the unsuccessful ones do - say ok then and head back to Syria, or....
David Cameron has denied lobbying the government on behalf of Illumina, a genetics company he worked for.
The denial comes after it emerged Mr Cameron encouraged Health Secretary Matt Hancock to speak at a conference co-hosted by the firm shortly before it won a £123m government contract. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58146567
For screening virtually everyone uses Illumina. Their NexGen product is market standard
David Cameron has denied lobbying the government on behalf of Illumina, a genetics company he worked for.
The denial comes after it emerged Mr Cameron encouraged Health Secretary Matt Hancock to speak at a conference co-hosted by the firm shortly before it won a £123m government contract. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-58146567
For screening virtually everyone uses Illumina. Their NexGen product is market standard
The story is completely stupid. Quite apart from anything else, the timings don't add up.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
I champion enterprise that doesn't illegally put people into danger. People are dying because of drownings, so no I do not champion that.
I don't want fewer asylum seekers coming here, I'd welcome more coming here. What I want is fewer deaths in the Channel. What part of that do you object to precisely? Do you champion the fact people are dying drowning in the Channel?
I want fewer asylum seekers dying also. We are as one. 15 a year over the past 20 years is 300 too many. But it is a risk that asylum seekers are prepared to take and, as we have discussed endlessly on here, people have various levels of risk tolerance.
You simply won't stop them coming by keeping them in France or Denmark as that is cloud cuckoo land. Why are you trying for a zero-asylum death in the channel policy? It would surely be hugely cost-ineffective.
And do you think there wouldn't be criminality, profiteering and likely deaths in the Turkish camps if that was the solution that came about?
It wouldn't be remotely cost-ineffective. The solution is not just possible, it exists and has been demonstrated to work. If people know that coming via boat is not a ticket into the country, then they will stop bothering to come via boat.
The year-to-date number of people reaching Australia by boat like that is zero for the whole of 2021 to date. That's not zero to the nearest hundred, or nearest thousand, that's zero people. Source: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-boats-statistics/
I got the impression last year that those hostile to private schools were the most supportive of grade inflation - presumably because if everyone got As then the private sector differential would end.
Reality has turned out differently:
A charity has raised concerns that the coronavirus crisis has widened the gap between independent and state schools after it was revealed that just over 70% of all A-level entries from private schools in England were awarded an A grade or higher this year.
Analysis of entries by exams regulator Ofqual found that 70.1% of pupils at fee-paying schools achieved the top grades, compared with 44% in 2019, when exams last took place, and 60.8% last year.
"Hear the teachers are doing the A level grades this year. So, not to interfere or anything, but you know those fees we all pay ..."
Yes (he who pays the piper) but that applies in state schools as well - pressure from parents and league tables.
Self-selection bias.
Any parents paying fees almost certainly care a lot about their kids education.
While that will be true for many state school parents, it will not by any means be true for all or as many.
No, I don't hold with this. I don't think there's a correlation between not sending your kids to private school and not caring much about their education. It's only a small minority of people who can afford school fees for their offspring and of these a fair proportion go that route only because it's the done thing in this country for their social class.
UCS, Highgate, Haberdashers, NLCS, South Hampstead.
Must have been tempting and well done you to avoid all that for your children.
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 20% Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73% Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
For now.
If the whole of Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda return and use it as a launchpad for further terrorist attacks on New York or another major city resulting in thousands of American deaths they may change their mind
AIUI they didn't use it as a launchpad before, so 'further' is wrong.
They did, Al Qaeda used Afghanistan to train and indoctrinate terrorists in camps. They also imported weapons there and plotted attacks. Indeed as early as 1998 President Clinton sent missiles to strike militant camps in the country.
The 9/11 operation was planned by Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Afghanistan. Bin Laden financed and selected the terrorists and they were trained in Afghanistan before going to the US, including those from the Hamburg cell.
Note a partisan divide on the issue too even as most Americans back the withdrawal for now, while 81% of Democrats support the withdrawal only 61% of Republicans do.
If Biden's gamble goes wrong and Kabul falls and a US city is attacked again in a major terrorist attack for the first time since 9/11 expect a clear swing to the GOP
This may sound cynical, but part of the equation would be is the human and property cost of an occasional successful terrorist attack an acceptable trade off against year after year of deaths of soldiers and expenditure on materiel with no prospect of "victory"? "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" is a principle strongly embedded in the American psyche, both among the military and civilians, but eventually the point where continuing on with no hope of success can no longer be justified is reached. I think Biden has reached that point, and indeed it's not like he's doing anything new here, he's just completing the policy set by Trump.
And America does take protection against terrorism very, very seriously now which it most certainly didn't pre-9/11, despite Oklahoma City and the WTC garage bombing. I recall in the late '90s being approached by a beggar at the gate at Philly airport. Of course, the terrorists only have to be lucky once, but I think the risk of another 9/11-scale spectacular being pulled off is a lot less these days.
US civilian deaths on 9/11, 2,605. US military deaths in Afganistan so far, 2,376.
That says it all, even after 20 years of US forces in Afghanistan fewer US troops have been killed than the number of US civilians killed on 1 day in 2001 on US soil after a terrorist attack launched from Afghanistan. Whatever his mistakes on Iraq it was thanks to Bush's hard headed response to the attacks to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan followed up by Obama's killing of Bin Laden no further major attacks have occurred again since.
The US is vast, as you say it only takes 1 terrorist cell to sneak through once and we are back to square 1 again.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
I champion enterprise that doesn't illegally put people into danger. People are dying because of drownings, so no I do not champion that.
I don't want fewer asylum seekers coming here, I'd welcome more coming here. What I want is fewer deaths in the Channel. What part of that do you object to precisely? Do you champion the fact people are dying drowning in the Channel?
I want fewer asylum seekers dying also. We are as one. 15 a year over the past 20 years is 300 too many. But it is a risk that asylum seekers are prepared to take and, as we have discussed endlessly on here, people have various levels of risk tolerance.
You simply won't stop them coming by keeping them in France or Denmark as that is cloud cuckoo land. Why are you trying for a zero-asylum death in the channel policy? It would surely be hugely cost-ineffective.
And do you think there wouldn't be criminality, profiteering and likely deaths in the Turkish camps if that was the solution that came about?
It wouldn't be remotely cost-ineffective. The solution is not just possible, it exists and has been demonstrated to work. If people know that coming via boat is not a ticket into the country, then they will stop bothering to come via boat.
The year-to-date number of people reaching Australia by boat like that is zero for the whole of 2021 to date. That's not zero to the nearest hundred, or nearest thousand, that's zero people. Source: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-boats-statistics/
And it stopped almost overnight, when word got back to the camps that anyone arriving in Australia on a boat would be immediately deported somewhere else.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
I champion enterprise that doesn't illegally put people into danger. People are dying because of drownings, so no I do not champion that.
I don't want fewer asylum seekers coming here, I'd welcome more coming here. What I want is fewer deaths in the Channel. What part of that do you object to precisely? Do you champion the fact people are dying drowning in the Channel?
I want fewer asylum seekers dying also. We are as one. 15 a year over the past 20 years is 300 too many. But it is a risk that asylum seekers are prepared to take and, as we have discussed endlessly on here, people have various levels of risk tolerance.
You simply won't stop them coming by keeping them in France or Denmark as that is cloud cuckoo land. Why are you trying for a zero-asylum death in the channel policy? It would surely be hugely cost-ineffective.
And do you think there wouldn't be criminality, profiteering and likely deaths in the Turkish camps if that was the solution that came about?
It wouldn't be remotely cost-ineffective. The solution is not just possible, it exists and has been demonstrated to work. If people know that coming via boat is not a ticket into the country, then they will stop bothering to come via boat.
The year-to-date number of people reaching Australia by boat like that is zero for the whole of 2021 to date. That's not zero to the nearest hundred, or nearest thousand, that's zero people. Source: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-boats-statistics/
So excluding (or including?) our Crown dependencies which country would be your first call to take these people?
And what about stopping people coming from 20 miles from France rather than the hundreds (thousands?) of miles to Australia.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
Why should we only welcome those who pay people smugglers and risk their lives instead of being welcoming to others?
We need to set up processing centres for asylum seekers in Europe. Five or six of them. Allow these poor people to apply in Europe. We should take their request. Assess it, approve it then bring them over to the UK and safety and freedom.
Any coming on boats just return.
a) where would we return them to; and b) what would the unsuccessful ones do - say ok then and head back to Syria, or....
(A) Anywhere that will take them. Australia made an agreement with the small Polynesian state of Nauru.
(B) They can do as they please. They could choose to go home, or attempt to move on to France or anywhere else. They could stay wherever we reached an agreement with to send them. They could seek legitimate migration. That's on them its their life. Their choice. If they come back to the UK via boats again they'd get a one way ticket back out again though, so they probably wouldn't try that.
Strongly support US withdrawal from Afghanistan 31% Somewhat support 42% Somewhat oppose 20% Strongly oppose 7%
Net support 73% Net oppose 27%
-The Hill/HarrisX
For now.
If the whole of Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda return and use it as a launchpad for further terrorist attacks on New York or another major city resulting in thousands of American deaths they may change their mind
AIUI they didn't use it as a launchpad before, so 'further' is wrong.
They did, Al Qaeda used Afghanistan to train and indoctrinate terrorists in camps. They also imported weapons there and plotted attacks. Indeed as early as 1998 President Clinton sent missiles to strike militant camps in the country.
The 9/11 operation was planned by Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Afghanistan. Bin Laden financed and selected the terrorists and they were trained in Afghanistan before going to the US, including those from the Hamburg cell.
Note a partisan divide on the issue too even as most Americans back the withdrawal for now, while 81% of Democrats support the withdrawal only 61% of Republicans do.
If Biden's gamble goes wrong and Kabul falls and a US city is attacked again in a major terrorist attack for the first time since 9/11 expect a clear swing to the GOP
This may sound cynical, but part of the equation would be is the human and property cost of an occasional successful terrorist attack an acceptable trade off against year after year of deaths of soldiers and expenditure on materiel with no prospect of "victory"? "Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute" is a principle strongly embedded in the American psyche, both among the military and civilians, but eventually the point where continuing on with no hope of success can no longer be justified is reached. I think Biden has reached that point, and indeed it's not like he's doing anything new here, he's just completing the policy set by Trump.
And America does take protection against terrorism very, very seriously now which it most certainly didn't pre-9/11, despite Oklahoma City and the WTC garage bombing. I recall in the late '90s being approached by a beggar at the gate at Philly airport. Of course, the terrorists only have to be lucky once, but I think the risk of another 9/11-scale spectacular being pulled off is a lot less these days.
US civilian deaths on 9/11, 2,605. US military deaths in Afganistan so far, 2,376.
That says it all, even after 20 years of US forces in Afghanistan fewer US troops have been killed than the number of US civilians killed on 1 day in 2001 on US soil after a terrorist attack launched from Afghanistan. Whatever his mistakes on Iraq it was thanks to Bush's hard headed response to the attacks to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan followed up by Obama's killing of Bin Laden no further major attacks have occurred again since.
The US is vast, as you say it only takes 1 terrorist cell to sneak through once and we are back to square 1 again.
Yes, I totally get your point and it's perfectly valid. But I would point out that while "no further major attacks have occurred again since" there have been a lot of quite sophisticated plots that have been thwarted over the last two decades through better anti-terrorism policing.
I got the impression last year that those hostile to private schools were the most supportive of grade inflation - presumably because if everyone got As then the private sector differential would end.
Reality has turned out differently:
A charity has raised concerns that the coronavirus crisis has widened the gap between independent and state schools after it was revealed that just over 70% of all A-level entries from private schools in England were awarded an A grade or higher this year.
Analysis of entries by exams regulator Ofqual found that 70.1% of pupils at fee-paying schools achieved the top grades, compared with 44% in 2019, when exams last took place, and 60.8% last year.
"Hear the teachers are doing the A level grades this year. So, not to interfere or anything, but you know those fees we all pay ..."
Yes (he who pays the piper) but that applies in state schools as well - pressure from parents and league tables.
Self-selection bias.
Any parents paying fees almost certainly care a lot about their kids education.
While that will be true for many state school parents, it will not by any means be true for all or as many.
No, I don't hold with this. I don't think there's a correlation between not sending your kids to private school and not caring much about their education. It's only a small minority of people who can afford school fees for their offspring and of these a fair proportion go that route only because it's the done thing in this country for their social class.
And for those that board it gies the parents peace from the wee shites. When you look at the grown up products of this outsourcing of parenting currently governing us, one can see that this might be a not inconsiderable benefit (to the parents if not the rest of us).
This was quite a good analysis of why are these ****s like this.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
Why should we only welcome those who pay people smugglers and risk their lives instead of being welcoming to others?
We need to set up processing centres for asylum seekers in Europe. Five or six of them. Allow these poor people to apply in Europe. We should take their request. Assess it, approve it then bring them over to the UK and safety and freedom.
Any coming on boats just return.
a) where would we return them to; and b) what would the unsuccessful ones do - say ok then and head back to Syria, or....
(A) Anywhere that will take them. Australia made an agreement with the small Polynesian state of Nauru.
(B) They can do as they please. They could choose to go home, or attempt to move on to France or anywhere else. They could stay wherever we reached an agreement with to send them. They could seek legitimate migration. That's on them its their life. Their choice. If they come back to the UK via boats again they'd get a one way ticket back out again though, so they probably wouldn't try that.
Hmm quite an ugly sentiment. So I ask again, where would you have in mind to pay to take them.
If, like me and mine, you cook an enormous bowl of pasta - spaghetti or linguini or whatever - which even with our greediness, we cannot finish, you will have leftover pasta.
Do not throw it away.
Put it in a large bowl. Beat a couple of eggs, more if there is lots of pasta. You need enough eggs to bind the pasta together but not so many that it becomes slimy.
Then add other leftovers eg if there is cooked meat from your Sunday roast - you can chop it into little bits. Or some ham or salami. And mozzarella - again chopped up - or another piquant cheese - provolone for example. Peas are a nice addition too. And Parmesan. Plus seasoning.
Mix it all together. Then mix it with the pasta so it is all nicely coated.
Get a large frying pan. Add a touch of olive oil. When it is hot, pour the pasta mixture into the pan. Cook until browned on one side then put a plate over the pan and flip over so that you can cook and brown on the other side.
Cut into slices and enjoy. You can let it cool and take it on picnics or into the office. It is essentially a neat way of cooking leftovers.
Sounds delightful! Lunch, or emergency starter for unexpected dinner guests, per person:
1. Cook 100g of short pasta al dente, drain. Farfalle is nice. 2. Stir in contents of tin of mussels in escabeche (sometimes sold as "Mussels in Galician Sauce" in supermarkets) and allow to warm through. 3. Add something on top if desired (pepper, parmesan, parsley etc.) and serve.
I thought it wasn't done to put parmesan on fish or seafood pasta.
It seems the Home Office are still treating asylum seekers as criminals.
It's funny how such a small issue is used by the government as a smoke screen for the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else.
No comments from you on why such an individual has come here via Denmark and France?
Is that the bleeding obvious that's happening everywhere else?
Isn't it established law or precedent or convention or something (someone will know) that asylum seekers do not have to apply for asylum in the first country they arrive at and are perfectly entitled (according to such laws/conventions) to apply in the UK having passed through 20 other nations beforehand?
Anyway you are a champion of these people, aren't you?
A court has interpreted it that way, despite the law literally saying "direct" from the country they're seeking asylum from, but if it were up to me I would pass a law to say the opposite and override that court ruling.
No I am not a champion of people coming across the channel from France. I think its a deadly, dangerous, stupid thing to do that is putting people's lives at risk and should be eradicated. I am of the opinion that anyone who comes to the UK from France is deported instantly, no ifs and no buts.
I think instead we should fly over our fair share of asylum seekers from frontline countries like Turkey, without feeding a Darwinian "you can come here if you don't die first" rush across the Channel.
First off, perhaps it's a good thing it's not up to you. Second of all, where would you send them back to? They don't fill in a Passenger Locator Form.
Plus, with that approach people will come nevertheless. You are an asylum seeker, you have a choice. Buy a lottery ticket in Turkey and hope your number will come up and you get to come to the UK, or risk it on your "own". Odds-wise many I'm guessing will take the chance of a channel crossing.
First off: anywhere that will take them.
Pick a safe, law abiding, poor country that wants money and give them money in exchange for them agreeing to provide safe harbour for anyone who comes here illegally. We could commit say for ten years to give them 20% of our international aid budget (so 0.1% of GDP) guaranteed, in exchange for them taking anyone who comes here via boats, or under trains or lorries. Pretty rapidly nobody would be coming here via boats, or under trains or lorries anymore.
Secondly - absolutely people are doing that, but that's not asylum that's criminal activity and it should be stomped out. If we're taking asylum seekers we should be open and generous with that, but taking people who need our help from the front line. Not facilitating gangsters making millions in people smuggling.
The organisers are the criminals, not necessarily the asylum seekers. The latter are going to try to get here by any means fair or foul. They are desperate.
And as for places ("safe, law abiding, poor country") that we could pay to take our unwanted people. Where did you have in mind and how would that conversation go?
They're not desperate, they're in Europe.
If they're in Europe and they're desperate we should ask why Europe is a failed state.
As for places there's a few viable ones. Australia came up with arrangements that worked. The conversation would essentially go along the lines of "how big of a cheque is necessary to make this work" and take it from the international aid budget.
Irrelevant. They were desperate when they started and decided to go to the UK rather than Luxembourg. It is their right under whichever international law or convention applies. So they are behaving rationally, legally, and eminently understandably (who the hell would want to go to France).
But you object.
And you should be championing such paragons of free enterprise.
That you are not makes your whole "I want more foreigners here" seem a bit, well, less believable.
I want them to come here safely, not via people smugglers leading to people drowning.
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
You misunderestimate people's ingenuity and endeavour and, yes, desperation. You are asking people to go to a camp where they stick their hand up saying "me sir, me sir", then have a phalanx of @Philip_Thompsons determining their eligibility, and then getting the gold star of a trip to the UK.
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
I champion enterprise that doesn't illegally put people into danger. People are dying because of drownings, so no I do not champion that.
I don't want fewer asylum seekers coming here, I'd welcome more coming here. What I want is fewer deaths in the Channel. What part of that do you object to precisely? Do you champion the fact people are dying drowning in the Channel?
I want fewer asylum seekers dying also. We are as one. 15 a year over the past 20 years is 300 too many. But it is a risk that asylum seekers are prepared to take and, as we have discussed endlessly on here, people have various levels of risk tolerance.
You simply won't stop them coming by keeping them in France or Denmark as that is cloud cuckoo land. Why are you trying for a zero-asylum death in the channel policy? It would surely be hugely cost-ineffective.
And do you think there wouldn't be criminality, profiteering and likely deaths in the Turkish camps if that was the solution that came about?
It wouldn't be remotely cost-ineffective. The solution is not just possible, it exists and has been demonstrated to work. If people know that coming via boat is not a ticket into the country, then they will stop bothering to come via boat.
The year-to-date number of people reaching Australia by boat like that is zero for the whole of 2021 to date. That's not zero to the nearest hundred, or nearest thousand, that's zero people. Source: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-boats-statistics/
So excluding (or including?) our Crown dependencies which country would be your first call to take these people?
And what about stopping people coming from 20 miles from France rather than the hundreds (thousands?) of miles to Australia.
Anywhere poor that wants money in exchange for taking not many people. Considering it will drop to virtually zero the moment its agreed and implemented.
Which countries do you think will agree to receive money in exchange for doing not very much in return?
If, like me and mine, you cook an enormous bowl of pasta - spaghetti or linguini or whatever - which even with our greediness, we cannot finish, you will have leftover pasta.
Do not throw it away.
Put it in a large bowl. Beat a couple of eggs, more if there is lots of pasta. You need enough eggs to bind the pasta together but not so many that it becomes slimy.
Then add other leftovers eg if there is cooked meat from your Sunday roast - you can chop it into little bits. Or some ham or salami. And mozzarella - again chopped up - or another piquant cheese - provolone for example. Peas are a nice addition too. And Parmesan. Plus seasoning.
Mix it all together. Then mix it with the pasta so it is all nicely coated.
Get a large frying pan. Add a touch of olive oil. When it is hot, pour the pasta mixture into the pan. Cook until browned on one side then put a plate over the pan and flip over so that you can cook and brown on the other side.
Cut into slices and enjoy. You can let it cool and take it on picnics or into the office. It is essentially a neat way of cooking leftovers.
Sounds delightful! Lunch, or emergency starter for unexpected dinner guests, per person:
1. Cook 100g of short pasta al dente, drain. Farfalle is nice. 2. Stir in contents of tin of mussels in escabeche (sometimes sold as "Mussels in Galician Sauce" in supermarkets) and allow to warm through. 3. Add something on top if desired (pepper, parmesan, parsley etc.) and serve.
I thought it wasn't done to put parmesan on fish or seafood pasta.
It's not. But since parmesan goes into seafood risotto, I've never seen the harm.
I got the impression last year that those hostile to private schools were the most supportive of grade inflation - presumably because if everyone got As then the private sector differential would end.
Reality has turned out differently:
A charity has raised concerns that the coronavirus crisis has widened the gap between independent and state schools after it was revealed that just over 70% of all A-level entries from private schools in England were awarded an A grade or higher this year.
Analysis of entries by exams regulator Ofqual found that 70.1% of pupils at fee-paying schools achieved the top grades, compared with 44% in 2019, when exams last took place, and 60.8% last year.
"Hear the teachers are doing the A level grades this year. So, not to interfere or anything, but you know those fees we all pay ..."
Yes (he who pays the piper) but that applies in state schools as well - pressure from parents and league tables.
Self-selection bias.
Any parents paying fees almost certainly care a lot about their kids education.
While that will be true for many state school parents, it will not by any means be true for all or as many.
No, I don't hold with this. I don't think there's a correlation between not sending your kids to private school and not caring much about their education. It's only a small minority of people who can afford school fees for their offspring and of these a fair proportion go that route only because it's the done thing in this country for their social class.
And for those that board it gies the parents peace from the wee shites. When you look at the grown up products of this outsourcing of parenting currently governing us, one can see that this might be a not inconsiderable benefit.
This was quite a good analysis of why are these ****s like this.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
Why should we only welcome those who pay people smugglers and risk their lives instead of being welcoming to others?
We need to set up processing centres for asylum seekers in Europe. Five or six of them. Allow these poor people to apply in Europe. We should take their request. Assess it, approve it then bring them over to the UK and safety and freedom.
Any coming on boats just return.
a) where would we return them to; and b) what would the unsuccessful ones do - say ok then and head back to Syria, or....
(A) Anywhere that will take them. Australia made an agreement with the small Polynesian state of Nauru.
(B) They can do as they please. They could choose to go home, or attempt to move on to France or anywhere else. They could stay wherever we reached an agreement with to send them. They could seek legitimate migration. That's on them its their life. Their choice. If they come back to the UK via boats again they'd get a one way ticket back out again though, so they probably wouldn't try that.
Hmm quite an ugly sentiment. So I ask again, where would you have in mind to pay to take them.
How is it ugly? Its practical.
What's ugly is saying "get here by yourself or die trying" and screw everyone else.
Anywhere poor that wants a big chunk of money. There's plenty of microstates that a billion or two would go a very long way for - and I would account for it from the international aid budget so it doesn't cost us any money since we're planning on using that for aid anyway.
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
There we go Topping. Rwanda.
If they agree to take ours too, we should offer a couple of billion pounds over a ten year period to Rwanda from our international aid budget.
The drownings stop overnight - that's a win. The plight of poor people in Rwanda is improved - that's a win. The plight of legitimate refugees getting crowded out by people smugglers gets improved - that's a win.
No ugliness whatsoever. Wins all around. Anyone who comes here, can get sanctuary from Rwanda.
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
It's one of the curiosities of current politics that liberal-left gold-standard Denmark, under a female Social Democrat PM, out-Philip-Thompsons @Philip_Thompson on this issue.
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
It's one of the curiosities of current politics that liberal-left gold-standard Denmark, under a female Social Democrat PM, out-Philip-Thompsons @Philip_Thompson on this issue.
The funny thing is that this offshore processing isn't a left-right issue. It has been done successfully under both Labour and Liberal governments in Australia.
Furthermore its not a Brexit/Remain issue either. The core of the policy I support - bringing in asylum seekers safely, securely and not via people smugglers was proposed many years ago by David Cameron. It was rightly backed at the time by many people, including yourself from memory unless my memory betrays me. Do you still agree with that?
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
There we go Topping. Rwanda.
If they agree to take ours too, we should offer a couple of billion pounds over a ten year period to Rwanda from our international aid budget.
The drownings stop overnight - that's a win. The plight of poor people in Rwanda is improved - that's a win. The plight of legitimate refugees getting crowded out by people smugglers gets improved - that's a win.
No ugliness whatsoever. Wins all around. Anyone who comes here, can get sanctuary from Rwanda.
Refugee camps in Rwanda (not signed yet btw). I'm sure that will lead to NO UGLINESS WHATSOEVER. Feel all warm and cuddly if that happens, then?
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
There we go Topping. Rwanda.
If they agree to take ours too, we should offer a couple of billion pounds over a ten year period to Rwanda from our international aid budget.
The drownings stop overnight - that's a win. The plight of poor people in Rwanda is improved - that's a win. The plight of legitimate refugees getting crowded out by people smugglers gets improved - that's a win.
No ugliness whatsoever. Wins all around. Anyone who comes here, can get sanctuary from Rwanda.
Refugee camps in Rwanda (not signed yet btw). I'm sure that will lead to NO UGLINESS WHATSOEVER. Feel all warm and cuddly if that happens, then?
What ugliness are you expecting?
And how does it compare to the existing refugee camps in Turkey and elsewhere that we could be doing more to help, if all our asylum aid wasn't taken up by people paying people smugglers instead of having a case for asylum?
Plus of course if people don't want to go to Rwanda, then they don't need to cross the Channel. They will know up front that crossing the Channel means ending up in Rwanda, so if they proceed to do that, it will be their own choice.
I got the impression last year that those hostile to private schools were the most supportive of grade inflation - presumably because if everyone got As then the private sector differential would end.
Reality has turned out differently:
A charity has raised concerns that the coronavirus crisis has widened the gap between independent and state schools after it was revealed that just over 70% of all A-level entries from private schools in England were awarded an A grade or higher this year.
Analysis of entries by exams regulator Ofqual found that 70.1% of pupils at fee-paying schools achieved the top grades, compared with 44% in 2019, when exams last took place, and 60.8% last year.
"Hear the teachers are doing the A level grades this year. So, not to interfere or anything, but you know those fees we all pay ..."
Yes (he who pays the piper) but that applies in state schools as well - pressure from parents and league tables.
Self-selection bias.
Any parents paying fees almost certainly care a lot about their kids education.
While that will be true for many state school parents, it will not by any means be true for all or as many.
No, I don't hold with this. I don't think there's a correlation between not sending your kids to private school and not caring much about their education. It's only a small minority of people who can afford school fees for their offspring and of these a fair proportion go that route only because it's the done thing in this country for their social class.
UCS, Highgate, Haberdashers, NLCS, South Hampstead.
Must have been tempting and well done you to avoid all that for your children.
I sense you're asking me if I sent my offspring to private school? No. Certainly not. But as I've said before, I don't blame anybody who does, and I don't see it as relevant to the question of whether they are a net positive or negative for society. You can use them and be anti, you can not use them and be pro, it's all the same to me. The personalization of this topic is something I try and avoid.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Invade and steal their oil.
But... they haven't got any oil.
That’s where you are wrong: there are three highly prospective areas for oil extraction in France.
Unfortunately, by far the biggest of these is the Paris basin, and apparently some idiot built a whole bunch of houses and offices there.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum is about necessity, not ambition. If ambition is involved, regular processes should be used.
Necessity then. Same applies.
No the same does not apply.
The person who has gone from Syria to Turkey and claimed aslyum needed it.
The person who has gone from who knows where, to France, to Denmark, to the Channel, did not "need" to do that. It was not "necessary".
Surely it is a matter of national pride they see the U.K. as a safe, tolerant and welcoming nation and wish to make their new homes here.
We should welcome them and be glad they are safe.
Why should we only welcome those who pay people smugglers and risk their lives instead of being welcoming to others?
We need to set up processing centres for asylum seekers in Europe. Five or six of them. Allow these poor people to apply in Europe. We should take their request. Assess it, approve it then bring them over to the UK and safety and freedom.
Any coming on boats just return.
a) where would we return them to; and b) what would the unsuccessful ones do - say ok then and head back to Syria, or....
(A) Anywhere that will take them. Australia made an agreement with the small Polynesian state of Nauru.
(B) They can do as they please. They could choose to go home, or attempt to move on to France or anywhere else. They could stay wherever we reached an agreement with to send them. They could seek legitimate migration. That's on them its their life. Their choice. If they come back to the UK via boats again they'd get a one way ticket back out again though, so they probably wouldn't try that.
Spain has an agreement woth at least one African country on the west coast. Not solved the problem completely but it helps. The Socialist government of Sanchez has been rather weaker thus fuelling the irse of the right -wing Vox party.
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
It's one of the curiosities of current politics that liberal-left gold-standard Denmark, under a female Social Democrat PM, out-Philip-Thompsons @Philip_Thompson on this issue.
The funny thing is that this offshore processing isn't a left-right issue. It has been done successfully under both Labour and Liberal governments in Australia.
Furthermore its not a Brexit/Remain issue either. The core of the policy I support - bringing in asylum seekers safely, securely and not via people smugglers was proposed many years ago by David Cameron. It was rightly backed at the time by many people, including yourself from memory unless my memory betrays me. Do you still agree with that?
Yes, definitely, Cameron's policy was a good one. Not a total solution, though; I'm not sure there is one. I do agree we can't just keep incentivising people to attempt the Channel crossing, and helping the people smugglers' sales pitch, which will be the unwanted side effects of making it clear that we'll pick up anyone who gets to UK waters and bring them safely to the UK with no penalty.
If, like me and mine, you cook an enormous bowl of pasta - spaghetti or linguini or whatever - which even with our greediness, we cannot finish, you will have leftover pasta.
Do not throw it away.
Put it in a large bowl. Beat a couple of eggs, more if there is lots of pasta. You need enough eggs to bind the pasta together but not so many that it becomes slimy.
Then add other leftovers eg if there is cooked meat from your Sunday roast - you can chop it into little bits. Or some ham or salami. And mozzarella - again chopped up - or another piquant cheese - provolone for example. Peas are a nice addition too. And Parmesan. Plus seasoning.
Mix it all together. Then mix it with the pasta so it is all nicely coated.
Get a large frying pan. Add a touch of olive oil. When it is hot, pour the pasta mixture into the pan. Cook until browned on one side then put a plate over the pan and flip over so that you can cook and brown on the other side.
Cut into slices and enjoy. You can let it cool and take it on picnics or into the office. It is essentially a neat way of cooking leftovers.
Sounds delightful! Lunch, or emergency starter for unexpected dinner guests, per person:
1. Cook 100g of short pasta al dente, drain. Farfalle is nice. 2. Stir in contents of tin of mussels in escabeche (sometimes sold as "Mussels in Galician Sauce" in supermarkets) and allow to warm through. 3. Add something on top if desired (pepper, parmesan, parsley etc.) and serve.
I thought it wasn't done to put parmesan on fish or seafood pasta.
It's not. But since parmesan goes into seafood risotto, I've never seen the harm.
We had vegetable risotto yesterday. No Parmigiano-Reggiano in the house, so (being in Yorkshire) we used Wensleydale.
Yes it is a pretty brutal business which doesn't detract from the desperation of those seeking asylum.
Who's more worthy of asylum?
A woman in an asylum camp in Turkey with young children who has seen her husband be brutally murdered and fears for her own life and that's why she is at an asylum camp?
Or a healthy young man who wants a better life for himself which is why he's paying people smugglers to get him from France to the UK?
Mr Libertarian is now deciding on the value of peoples' ambitions. Have I got that right?
Asylum-seeker: "I NEED to get to the nearest safe country, PDQ!" Not an asylum-seeker: "I WANT to get to the UK, even if it means WEEKS or MONTHS hanging around in Calais!"
France is obviously a failed state - hence the need for asylum seekers to escape from there. We should do what we always do with failed states.
Invade and steal their oil.
But... they haven't got any oil.
That’s where you are wrong: there are three highly prospective areas for oil extraction in France.
Unfortunately, by far the biggest of these is the Paris basin, and apparently some idiot built a whole bunch of houses and offices there.
I am quite sure that we can do some "slum clearance (accidentally)" during the invasion....
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
It's one of the curiosities of current politics that liberal-left gold-standard Denmark, under a female Social Democrat PM, out-Philip-Thompsons @Philip_Thompson on this issue.
Nah, it’s symptomatic of the difference between us and Europe. Lefties in Europe have no problem with the concept of borders.
You’re not a lefty, but you are bitter about Brexit. You see this as a problem for the government so aren’t happy that they might solve it.
If, like me and mine, you cook an enormous bowl of pasta - spaghetti or linguini or whatever - which even with our greediness, we cannot finish, you will have leftover pasta.
Do not throw it away.
Put it in a large bowl. Beat a couple of eggs, more if there is lots of pasta. You need enough eggs to bind the pasta together but not so many that it becomes slimy.
Then add other leftovers eg if there is cooked meat from your Sunday roast - you can chop it into little bits. Or some ham or salami. And mozzarella - again chopped up - or another piquant cheese - provolone for example. Peas are a nice addition too. And Parmesan. Plus seasoning.
Mix it all together. Then mix it with the pasta so it is all nicely coated.
Get a large frying pan. Add a touch of olive oil. When it is hot, pour the pasta mixture into the pan. Cook until browned on one side then put a plate over the pan and flip over so that you can cook and brown on the other side.
Cut into slices and enjoy. You can let it cool and take it on picnics or into the office. It is essentially a neat way of cooking leftovers.
Sounds delightful! Lunch, or emergency starter for unexpected dinner guests, per person:
1. Cook 100g of short pasta al dente, drain. Farfalle is nice. 2. Stir in contents of tin of mussels in escabeche (sometimes sold as "Mussels in Galician Sauce" in supermarkets) and allow to warm through. 3. Add something on top if desired (pepper, parmesan, parsley etc.) and serve.
I thought it wasn't done to put parmesan on fish or seafood pasta.
It's not. But since parmesan goes into seafood risotto, I've never seen the harm.
We had vegetable risotto yesterday. No Parmigiano-Reggiano in the house, so (being in Yorkshire) we used Wensleydale.
Second portion of risotto for my tea tonight.
You have three types of balsamic vinegar but no Parmigiano-Reggiano in the house? Time for a review of priorities.
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
There we go Topping. Rwanda.
If they agree to take ours too, we should offer a couple of billion pounds over a ten year period to Rwanda from our international aid budget.
The drownings stop overnight - that's a win. The plight of poor people in Rwanda is improved - that's a win. The plight of legitimate refugees getting crowded out by people smugglers gets improved - that's a win.
No ugliness whatsoever. Wins all around. Anyone who comes here, can get sanctuary from Rwanda.
Refugee camps in Rwanda (not signed yet btw). I'm sure that will lead to NO UGLINESS WHATSOEVER. Feel all warm and cuddly if that happens, then?
What ugliness are you expecting?
And how does it compare to the existing refugee camps in Turkey and elsewhere that we could be doing more to help, if all our asylum aid wasn't taken up by people paying people smugglers instead of having a case for asylum?
Plus of course if people don't want to go to Rwanda, then they don't need to cross the Channel. They will know up front that crossing the Channel means ending up in Rwanda, so if they proceed to do that, it will be their own choice.
"How does that compare to existing refugee camps" well indeed. Pretty gruesome I have no doubt.
Look it's fine, Philip. Denmark wants to do it, you want to do it. You want to send our asylum seekers to be managed by Rwanda, which we will pay in return.
Makes me feel slightly uneasy but if you think it will all be tickety-boo, fresh linen,hospital corners on the beds and spit spot then that is absolutely your right to hold that opinion.
If, like me and mine, you cook an enormous bowl of pasta - spaghetti or linguini or whatever - which even with our greediness, we cannot finish, you will have leftover pasta.
Do not throw it away.
Put it in a large bowl. Beat a couple of eggs, more if there is lots of pasta. You need enough eggs to bind the pasta together but not so many that it becomes slimy.
Then add other leftovers eg if there is cooked meat from your Sunday roast - you can chop it into little bits. Or some ham or salami. And mozzarella - again chopped up - or another piquant cheese - provolone for example. Peas are a nice addition too. And Parmesan. Plus seasoning.
Mix it all together. Then mix it with the pasta so it is all nicely coated.
Get a large frying pan. Add a touch of olive oil. When it is hot, pour the pasta mixture into the pan. Cook until browned on one side then put a plate over the pan and flip over so that you can cook and brown on the other side.
Cut into slices and enjoy. You can let it cool and take it on picnics or into the office. It is essentially a neat way of cooking leftovers.
Sounds delightful! Lunch, or emergency starter for unexpected dinner guests, per person:
1. Cook 100g of short pasta al dente, drain. Farfalle is nice. 2. Stir in contents of tin of mussels in escabeche (sometimes sold as "Mussels in Galician Sauce" in supermarkets) and allow to warm through. 3. Add something on top if desired (pepper, parmesan, parsley etc.) and serve.
I thought it wasn't done to put parmesan on fish or seafood pasta.
Just as well - there's barely a flake of Parmesan left in the country because of Brexit or something.
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
It's one of the curiosities of current politics that liberal-left gold-standard Denmark, under a female Social Democrat PM, out-Philip-Thompsons @Philip_Thompson on this issue.
Nah, it’s symptomatic of the difference between us and Europe. Lefties in Europe have no problem with the concept of borders.
You’re not a lefty, but you are bitter about Brexit. You see this as a problem for the government so aren’t happy that they might solve it.
Eh? I'd be delighted if they solve it, but it's extremely difficult.
I got the impression last year that those hostile to private schools were the most supportive of grade inflation - presumably because if everyone got As then the private sector differential would end.
Reality has turned out differently:
A charity has raised concerns that the coronavirus crisis has widened the gap between independent and state schools after it was revealed that just over 70% of all A-level entries from private schools in England were awarded an A grade or higher this year.
Analysis of entries by exams regulator Ofqual found that 70.1% of pupils at fee-paying schools achieved the top grades, compared with 44% in 2019, when exams last took place, and 60.8% last year.
"Hear the teachers are doing the A level grades this year. So, not to interfere or anything, but you know those fees we all pay ..."
Yes (he who pays the piper) but that applies in state schools as well - pressure from parents and league tables.
Self-selection bias.
Any parents paying fees almost certainly care a lot about their kids education.
While that will be true for many state school parents, it will not by any means be true for all or as many.
No, I don't hold with this. I don't think there's a correlation between not sending your kids to private school and not caring much about their education. It's only a small minority of people who can afford school fees for their offspring and of these a fair proportion go that route only because it's the done thing in this country for their social class.
UCS, Highgate, Haberdashers, NLCS, South Hampstead.
Must have been tempting and well done you to avoid all that for your children.
I sense you're asking me if I sent my offspring to private school? No. Certainly not. But as I've said before, I don't blame anybody who does, and I don't see it as relevant to the question of whether they are a net positive or negative for society. You can use them and be anti, you can not use them and be pro, it's all the same to me. The personalization of this topic is something I try and avoid.
I don't think you can use them and be anti that would be pretty bonkers (hiya Diane). A bit like @felix living in Spain while "loathing" the EU. Just a bit bonkers imo.
Comments
Plus the olive, lavender, etc. stuff.
What is everyone's guess?
If the whole of Afghanistan falls back to the Taliban and Al Qaeda return and use it as a launchpad for further terrorist attacks on New York or another US major city resulting in thousands of American deaths they may change their mind
A fantastic figure. Completely destroys the Alistair Half Baked Theory.
Guessing after 4pm is cheating.
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases
Looks like the slow increase is slowing.
Edit: Ah, no Wales. So roughly 1000 more than last week.
Mind you, even if there isn't much oil, can't we crib from a PhD thesis and a story from a cab driver that there is tons of oil in France?
If we did a flight exchange sending back people who have come via smuggling we should welcome even MORE people from legitimate camps etc.
David Cameron's solution years ago, it was right then and it is still right now.
Your future beckons...
http://www.pillbox.org.uk/blog/216696/
edit: http://www.pillbox.org.uk/blog/216645/
NI 1040 -> 1467
Scotland 1271 -> 1498
Wales 608 -> ???
If, like me and mine, you cook an enormous bowl of pasta - spaghetti or linguini or whatever - which even with our greediness, we cannot finish, you will have leftover pasta.
Do not throw it away.
Put it in a large bowl. Beat a couple of eggs, more if there is lots of pasta. You need enough eggs to bind the pasta together but not so many that it becomes slimy.
Then add other leftovers eg if there is cooked meat from your Sunday roast - you can chop it into little bits. Or some ham or salami. And mozzarella - again chopped up - or another piquant cheese - provolone for example. Peas are a nice addition too. And Parmesan. Plus seasoning.
Mix it all together. Then mix it with the pasta so it is all nicely coated.
Get a large frying pan. Add a touch of olive oil. When it is hot, pour the pasta mixture into the pan. Cook until browned on one side then put a plate over the pan and flip over so that you can cook and brown on the other side.
Cut into slices and enjoy. You can let it cool and take it on picnics or into the office. It is essentially a neat way of cooking leftovers.
The 9/11 operation was planned by Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Afghanistan. Bin Laden financed and selected the terrorists and they were trained in Afghanistan before going to the US, including those from the Hamburg cell.
Note a partisan divide on the issue too even as most Americans back the withdrawal for now, while 81% of Democrats support the withdrawal only 61% of Republicans do.
If Biden's gamble goes wrong and Kabul falls and a US city is attacked again in a major terrorist attack for the first time since 9/11 expect a clear swing to the GOP
Sheffield still has a headache, according to my Godmother.
In other cookbooks, I enjoy the Carb and Cals series.
I'll try your omelette, as I have some batch-frozen heggs in the freezer.
It is unknown if he was actually an Albanian black cab driver *possing* as an Iraqi, though....
Not a wholly bad system but we are where we are and even if we had that system we would have the problem we have now which is an armada of little boats with desperate people having paid some criminals perhaps all their life savings to get to the UK. From France.
When you are PM things will change as you seek to blow the boats out of the water or whatever but until then we are where we are. And again, you as a "libertarian" should be championing such enterprise.
https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/12/18/iran-in-transition-implications-of-islamic-republic-s-changing-demographics-pub-75042
If you make it into landing on a snake in the game of snakes and ladders, then less people will come that way.
Given the probable numbers drowning each day.....
Even if it still trails on gdp per capita on pure gdp that will inevitably also drive significant economic growth in Africa
And it looks as if it will freeze well.
Reminds me that I need to get to a country show to get some high end cheese.
We have a situation today where the government doesn't want to patrol 24/7 the UK coastline (or perhaps they do already) and hence we have these boats. Run by criminals exploiting very needy people who have decided, as is their legal right, that they want to come to the UK.
Send them to a poor country, people cry, but I am interested in the practicalities. Are you saying the UK should enter into negotiations with XXXX (you tell me) to offload all the asylum seekers picked up on our coasts? I just can't see it happening.
So then what? Choose them in Turkey. But plenty won't want to play ball and will try to come here anyway.
So we have the problem of what to do with them once they are here. And of course the RNLI's role in it all. Our only option is to try to process them here to determine the validity of their claims and then if possible, for those who do not meet our asylum criteria, to take action to return them to their homeland. For those where this is impossible then we have a dilemma - integrate them into society or keep them locked up in Asylum Centres.
We are a big country with lots of space and I'm guessing the number of asylum seekers is small but I have no idea.
it is not easy but some of the solutions posited here today are frankly ridiculous.
I don't want fewer asylum seekers coming here, I'd welcome more coming here. What I want is fewer deaths in the Channel. What part of that do you object to precisely? Do you champion the fact people are dying drowning in the Channel?
Once you have picked them up, you can
- Dump them on the shores of France, illegally
- Bring them ashore in the UK.
- Conscript them into the Royal Navy (my favourite)
There are already countries taking such migrants, cash per head....
If you make arriving here by small boat a one way ticket to X, all expenses paid, then you will see a decrease in people crossing the Channel in small boats.
In 2001 there was still a gap but on the other side, while 61% of Americans overall strongly backed the invasion, including 69% of Republicans who strongly supported it, only 51% of Democrats said the same. So a still significant 18% gap. (A further 21% reluctantly supported it with only 18% opposed, albeit 25% of Democrats opposed it).
So if and when the first skyscraper falls in a major US city since 9/11 on Biden's watch thanks to a terrorist attack launched from Afghanistan, expect those numbers to shift rapidly
https://news.gallup.com/poll/5029/eight-americans-support-ground-war-afghanistan.aspx
Any coming on boats just return.
And then we take other asylum seekers direct through safe and legal routes that don't lead to deaths at sea or the paying of criminal people smuggling gangs.
We could have more asylum seekers come here, every single one of them coming here safely on airplanes instead of dinghies.
1. Cook 100g of short pasta al dente, drain. Farfalle is nice.
2. Stir in contents of tin of mussels in escabeche (sometimes sold as "Mussels in Galician Sauce" in supermarkets) and allow to warm through.
3. Add something on top if desired (pepper, parmesan, parsley etc.) and serve.
Geronimo: Sir Keir Starmer says there's 'no alternative' to alpaca's slaughter
https://twitter.com/forwardnotback/status/1425478415004614657
And America does take protection against terrorism very, very seriously now which it most certainly didn't pre-9/11, despite Oklahoma City and the WTC garage bombing. I recall in the late '90s being approached by a beggar at the gate at Philly airport. Of course, the terrorists only have to be lucky once, but I think the risk of another 9/11-scale spectacular being pulled off is a lot less these days.
You simply won't stop them coming by keeping them in France or Denmark as that is cloud cuckoo land. Why are you trying for a zero-asylum death in the channel policy? It would surely be hugely cost-ineffective.
And do you think there wouldn't be criminality, profiteering and likely deaths in the Turkish camps if that was the solution that came about?
b) what would the unsuccessful ones do - say ok then and head back to Syria, or....
The lobbying regulator is investigating Philip Hammond.
https://twitter.com/kadhim/status/1425473946741264385?s=21
The year-to-date number of people reaching Australia by boat like that is zero for the whole of 2021 to date.
That's not zero to the nearest hundred, or nearest thousand, that's zero people. Source: https://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/asylum-boats-statistics/
Must have been tempting and well done you to avoid all that for your children.
That says it all, even after 20 years of US forces in Afghanistan fewer US troops have been killed than the number of US civilians killed on 1 day in 2001 on US soil after a terrorist attack launched from Afghanistan. Whatever his mistakes on Iraq it was thanks to Bush's hard headed response to the attacks to remove the Taliban and Al Qaeda from Afghanistan followed up by Obama's killing of Bin Laden no further major attacks have occurred again since.
The US is vast, as you say it only takes 1 terrorist cell to sneak through once and we are back to square 1 again.
And what about stopping people coming from 20 miles from France rather than the hundreds (thousands?) of miles to Australia.
(B) They can do as they please. They could choose to go home, or attempt to move on to France or anywhere else. They could stay wherever we reached an agreement with to send them. They could seek legitimate migration. That's on them its their life. Their choice. If they come back to the UK via boats again they'd get a one way ticket back out again though, so they probably wouldn't try that.
When you look at the grown up products of this outsourcing of parenting currently governing us, one can see that this might be a not inconsiderable benefit (to the parents if not the rest of us).
This was quite a good analysis of why are these ****s like this.
https://twitter.com/nickduffell/status/1424306917032202241?s=20
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57343572
The suggestion is that the UK might piggy-back that deal. Arrive from France on a boat, end up in Rwanda.
Which countries do you think will agree to receive money in exchange for doing not very much in return?
What's ugly is saying "get here by yourself or die trying" and screw everyone else.
Anywhere poor that wants a big chunk of money. There's plenty of microstates that a billion or two would go a very long way for - and I would account for it from the international aid budget so it doesn't cost us any money since we're planning on using that for aid anyway.
If they agree to take ours too, we should offer a couple of billion pounds over a ten year period to Rwanda from our international aid budget.
The drownings stop overnight - that's a win.
The plight of poor people in Rwanda is improved - that's a win.
The plight of legitimate refugees getting crowded out by people smugglers gets improved - that's a win.
No ugliness whatsoever. Wins all around. Anyone who comes here, can get sanctuary from Rwanda.
Furthermore its not a Brexit/Remain issue either. The core of the policy I support - bringing in asylum seekers safely, securely and not via people smugglers was proposed many years ago by David Cameron. It was rightly backed at the time by many people, including yourself from memory unless my memory betrays me. Do you still agree with that?
And how does it compare to the existing refugee camps in Turkey and elsewhere that we could be doing more to help, if all our asylum aid wasn't taken up by people paying people smugglers instead of having a case for asylum?
Plus of course if people don't want to go to Rwanda, then they don't need to cross the Channel. They will know up front that crossing the Channel means ending up in Rwanda, so if they proceed to do that, it will be their own choice.
Unfortunately, by far the biggest of these is the Paris basin, and apparently some idiot built a whole bunch of houses and offices there.
Second portion of risotto for my tea tonight.
On the other hand, the people haven’t put on a ton of weight, unlike most of Europe. An upside to poverty
You’re not a lefty, but you are bitter about Brexit. You see this as a problem for the government so aren’t happy that they might solve it.
Look it's fine, Philip. Denmark wants to do it, you want to do it. You want to send our asylum seekers to be managed by Rwanda, which we will pay in return.
Makes me feel slightly uneasy but if you think it will all be tickety-boo, fresh linen,hospital corners on the beds and spit spot then that is absolutely your right to hold that opinion.