Gavin Williamson doesn't turn up in person to Universities UK conference in Newcastle - but uses his videolink speech to warn universities to get back to in person teaching....
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
To take this one step further, it is especially about those who have such sentiments wanting to get one (another one!) over on those who criticise such views. It has very little to do with the practical impacts of asylum and is mostly another symptom of the Brexit divide and culture war.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
Give it some due consideration and look into why the Social Democrats in Denmark, the United Nations, and others are already doing this or looking into it.
Perhaps the Social Democrats, the sister party of the Labour Party with a red rose for its logo, party of former Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt (aka Mrs Stephen Kinnock), is a xenophobic extremist party that has been taken over by racists like Corbyn. But I've not seen any evidence of that, so if its the case I'll give that due consideration too.
It's an issue punching above its weight imo given the number of asylum seekers we take. And like I said to Sandpit, 'Rwanda' type proposals smack of making a point (about asylum seekers) rather than the creative and pragmatic solution they purport to be.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
88%.
45%.
This is just childish on any number of levels. There are xenophobes in Scotland, there are xenophobes in England, and what point are you making by misspelling foreign?
I'm taking the piss out of how people used to say the word when I was on Teesside. When you're knocking on doors in the self-styled "biggest village in England" which is hugely white and are told that we have to have Brexit because there's too many forriners taking the jobs and benefits, it does stick in the brain.
But that's feeble. The gag is, the bloke is middle class and therefore not personally directly affected by immigration. I could say the same - I live in a private house, and the Galenic studies market is not being undercut by Poles. But other people rely on council housing, and more people = less of a supply per person. And if you work in an industry where migrants compete, the system is arbitraging against you if you think about it. Money only has value for what you can buy with it. If you pay the same wage to a UK resident and a Rumanian, you are paying the UK bloke .01% of a house and the Romanian 1% of a house. The HGV driver crisis is what happens when this injustice is rectified.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
88%.
45%.
This is just childish on any number of levels. There are xenophobes in Scotland, there are xenophobes in England, and what point are you making by misspelling foreign?
I'm taking the piss out of how people used to say the word when I was on Teesside. When you're knocking on doors in the self-styled "biggest village in England" which is hugely white and are told that we have to have Brexit because there's too many forriners taking the jobs and benefits, it does stick in the brain.
I would just gently suggest that some bigots that you have come in contact with do not represent the attitude of the vast majority of English as well as Scots and Welsh voters
For anyone watching BBC news the Paul Gambaccini interview with Victoria Derbyshire is real car crash TV. Not sure who it is car crash for but it is quite something.
And for those of us not watching BBC News?
OK they are talking about the Met and Kafka-esque justice, wrt to Cressida Dick covering up Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan. Then it descends into a row about the BBC.
Someone was asking what it would take for Cressida to get the sack. My thoughts -
- A tape uncovers that during the chaotic screwup that was the shooting of De Mendes, she order a subordinate to get her a "black coffee" rather than a "coffee without milk" - A tape uncovers that during the Stephen Lawerence sweeping-stuff-under-the-carpet* she assumed someone's pronoun was "he"
When I was growing up in Oxford, a friend ended up in court over an assault by said policeman. Despite the matter ending badly for the policeman he was retained by the force. He was, of course, a member of all the right cliques and groups....
In same the Oxford Times that had the announcement of the result (in small print), was a short article about another policeman who had *had* to be fired. Over an expenses matter. Said expenses were literally 1 or 2 pounds.
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
88%.
45%.
This is just childish on any number of levels. There are xenophobes in Scotland, there are xenophobes in England, and what point are you making by misspelling foreign?
I'm taking the piss out of how people used to say the word when I was on Teesside. When you're knocking on doors in the self-styled "biggest village in England" which is hugely white and are told that we have to have Brexit because there's too many forriners taking the jobs and benefits, it does stick in the brain.
I would just gently suggest that some bigots that you have come in contact with do not represent the attitude of the vast majority of English as well as Scots and Welsh voters
Indeed! Which is why we don't have the Home Secretary assuring the right wing press that she will find new solutions to remove these forrin invaders...
For anyone watching BBC news the Paul Gambaccini interview with Victoria Derbyshire is real car crash TV. Not sure who it is car crash for but it is quite something.
And for those of us not watching BBC News?
OK they are talking about the Met and Kafka-esque justice, wrt to Cressida Dick covering up Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan. Then it descends into a row about the BBC.
Someone was asking what it would take for Cressida to get the sack. My thoughts -
- A tape uncovers that during the chaotic screwup that was the shooting of De Mendes, she order a subordinate to get her a "black coffee" rather than a "coffee without milk" - A tape uncovers that during the Stephen Lawerence sweeping-stuff-under-the-carpet* she assumed someone's pronoun was "he"
When I was growing up in Oxford, a friend ended up in court over an assault by said policeman. Despite the matter ending badly for the policeman he was retained by the force. He was, of course, a member of all the right cliques and groups....
In same the Oxford Times that had the announcement of the result (in small print), was a short article about another policeman who had *had* to be fired. Over an expenses matter. Said expenses were literally 1 or 2 pounds.
*Not a cover up. No sir.
Even worse, is that Ms Dick appears to be on a fixed-term contract.
So at this point keeping her on is the active decision, and letting her go the passive one.
If Ms Patel can’t see that letting the Commissioner go is the correct thing, then perhaps she should consider her own position?
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
One issue that never seems to get discussed is that it is not a case of "pure" asylum vs "pure" economic migration.
For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
I would just say that I have consistently argued that the Scots would vote for the Union
Furthermore, I have also said that there are SNP supporters who back the union (and I know several) and apparently 20% in this poll would support the union
Historically Scotland was all labour but the SNP have cleverly positioned themselves on the left subsuming labour into their party, but they have not managed to convert all those who were labour but remain very much pro union
For anyone watching BBC news the Paul Gambaccini interview with Victoria Derbyshire is real car crash TV. Not sure who it is car crash for but it is quite something.
And for those of us not watching BBC News?
OK they are talking about the Met and Kafka-esque justice, wrt to Cressida Dick covering up Stephen Lawrence and Daniel Morgan. Then it descends into a row about the BBC.
Someone was asking what it would take for Cressida to get the sack. My thoughts -
- A tape uncovers that during the chaotic screwup that was the shooting of De Mendes, she order a subordinate to get her a "black coffee" rather than a "coffee without milk" - A tape uncovers that during the Stephen Lawerence sweeping-stuff-under-the-carpet* she assumed someone's pronoun was "he"
When I was growing up in Oxford, a friend ended up in court over an assault by said policeman. Despite the matter ending badly for the policeman he was retained by the force. He was, of course, a member of all the right cliques and groups....
In same the Oxford Times that had the announcement of the result (in small print), was a short article about another policeman who had *had* to be fired. Over an expenses matter. Said expenses were literally 1 or 2 pounds.
*Not a cover up. No sir.
Even worse, is that Ms Dick appears to be on a fixed-term contract.
So at this point keeping her on is the active decision, and letting her go the passive one.
If Ms Patel can’t see that letting the Commissioner go is the correct thing, then perhaps she should consider her own position?
The problem you get is that this is then seen by the Police as a "hostile act"
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
One issue that never seems to get discussed is that it is not a case of "pure" asylum vs "pure" economic migration.
For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
One issue that never seems to get discussed is that it is not a case of "pure" asylum vs "pure" economic migration.
For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
Complainants about "economic migrants" often think the third world is a slightly exotic version of the first world and what these guys want is bigger AMOLED tellies, rather than not starving to death.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
88%.
45%.
This is just childish on any number of levels. There are xenophobes in Scotland, there are xenophobes in England, and what point are you making by misspelling foreign?
I'm taking the piss out of how people used to say the word when I was on Teesside. When you're knocking on doors in the self-styled "biggest village in England" which is hugely white and are told that we have to have Brexit because there's too many forriners taking the jobs and benefits, it does stick in the brain.
But that's feeble. The gag is, the bloke is middle class and therefore not personally directly affected by immigration. I could say the same - I live in a private house, and the Galenic studies market is not being undercut by Poles. But other people rely on council housing, and more people = less of a supply per person. And if you work in an industry where migrants compete, the system is arbitraging against you if you think about it. Money only has value for what you can buy with it. If you pay the same wage to a UK resident and a Rumanian, you are paying the UK bloke .01% of a house and the Romanian 1% of a house. The HGV driver crisis is what happens when this injustice is rectified.
HGV crisis? 20% of the supposed shortfall is because of EU drivers going back home. There has been a residual crisis of drivers for years and Brexit ie foreigners going home has just exacerbated it.
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
On the channel I am opposed to sending migrants to any foreign country, other than back to France
I do not know how this is resolved as France is lukewarm on taking them back, but all the migrants must be kept safe whenever entering UK waters either by the border force or RNLI
The idea of us exporting migrants to far away places is just unacceptable
Genuine question. Why is "exporting migrants to far away places" unacceptable? Trying to understand everyones position on this. I'm not doubting you have a moral/ethical/practical view on this, nor am I questioning the validity of such views....
Maybe exporting is too strong but I just do not like the idea that illegal migrants are sent to far away places and that we cannot find a compassionate solution to this very difficult problem
Send them to Scotland. If England has been overcome with xenophobia, Scotland hasn't. We don't have the devolved power to settle migrants and have asked for it.
40% of Scots think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, 33% negative.
By contrast 49% of Londoners think immigration to the UK has had a positive impact, only 24% negative.
London is the part of the UK most supportive of immigration, not Scotland
The Scottish government have just been re-elected to a 4th term. On a record turnout. With their highest ever vote tally.
Actual election results are worth more than a hypothetical opinion poll.
Its just that we're less xenophobic than you are.
No its just the Scottish government pandering to create differences on something they know full well they have no control over whatsoever.
Its worth noting in the real world that Scotland has considerably less immigration proportionately than England, so the Scottish government isn't actually being helpful to immigrants. Less than the English one is in fact.
So devolve the issue and let us be more helpful. Migrants arrive dahn sarf and then get allocated to places to be warehoused on murder row in homes that nobody will live in to exist on vouchers whilst awaiting the Home Office to take an eternity to make a decision.
Scotland wants to take more. If England (a) won't allow it and (b) won't send asylum seekers up here, how is that our fault?
The Scottish government is already in charge of housing, welfare etc that they offer. If they want to do more they already can do that.
That's not what Sturgeon wants though. She doesn't want to use the powers she already has to actually achieve anything, she's just looking to stoke a grievance and pretend the English are standing in the way. Which as you follow your journey from Labour Brexiteer, to ardent Remainer Lib Dem, through now to Scottish Nationalist you are gladly parroting.
I am not a Scottish Nationalist. I am also not xenophobic towards the forrin invaders like too many people are in England.
88%.
45%.
This is just childish on any number of levels. There are xenophobes in Scotland, there are xenophobes in England, and what point are you making by misspelling foreign?
I'm taking the piss out of how people used to say the word when I was on Teesside. When you're knocking on doors in the self-styled "biggest village in England" which is hugely white and are told that we have to have Brexit because there's too many forriners taking the jobs and benefits, it does stick in the brain.
But that's feeble. The gag is, the bloke is middle class and therefore not personally directly affected by immigration. I could say the same - I live in a private house, and the Galenic studies market is not being undercut by Poles. But other people rely on council housing, and more people = less of a supply per person. And if you work in an industry where migrants compete, the system is arbitraging against you if you think about it. Money only has value for what you can buy with it. If you pay the same wage to a UK resident and a Rumanian, you are paying the UK bloke .01% of a house and the Romanian 1% of a house. The HGV driver crisis is what happens when this injustice is rectified.
HGV crisis? 20% of the supposed shortfall is because of EU drivers going back home. There has been a residual crisis of drivers for years and Brexit ie foreigners going home has just exacerbated it.
How is that inconsistent with my point? We've been in the EU for years, haven't we? Here's a data point: my elder son contemplated getting an HGV about 6 years ago and didn't, because shit pay because (presumably) EU competition. So there's an extra driver you'd have now if pay had been better.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
I think Sturgeon has a lot of problems beyond the circular Indy debate to worry about.
Interesting reaction from her in regards to Murdo Fraser and the gender bill they are taking through at the moment
She seems to be abandoning the Salmond strategy of taking a middle course and keeping business on side. The coalition with the Greens is quite a significant moment in this respect - a sharp turn to the Left and radical politics. Surprising approach if you are trying to build a consensus around Indy...
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
I think I may speak for many when I say that I'm grateful that you do it, so I don't (feel that I) have to! Saves me a lot of time and pain (and saves that wall of mine some wear and tear).
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
Well well what? That's asylum seekers. How about refugees? And remember that when the Home Office tried to remove asylum seekers from Glasgow the community came out to physically stop the removal. As I assume the inference is actually Scotland is "nasty racist" wouldn't the reverse have been true?
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
I have no idea as I said IANAIL. But if the Brits are involved then I must believe that there will be some kind of obligation to act beyond redirecting them to a sub-Saharan African country.
And as per the Danish proposals, I can only find articles saying that asylum seekers will be processed abroad. Nothing that they will be given asylum abroad.
And if this was the case then I like the proposal even less.
Why would Brits have different obligations than the Danes, Aussies and others that have already done this or are looking into it? Plus of course Parliament is sovereign, if Parliament passes an Act saying this is the process and there is no right to appeal that before people have been put in a plane and transferred then that's the law and the courts should follow the rule of law.
Rwanda is being spoken about with Denmark because they're already doing it for other countries too, its something the Rwandan government is interested in because they view it as a way to get money into the country.
If Rwanda gets more development, if it keeps the rule of law (as nobody can be sent anywhere without the rule of law) and if people fleeing persecution get somewhere safe to be, and if people stop dying because dinghies crossing the Channel is deadly and unsafe then isn't that a win/win/win/win?
Of course if people don't want asylum in Rwanda they always have the option of not fleeing France in a dinghy - and the UK can take more genuine asylum seekers through safe, legitimate and legal routes.
As for not thinking that the Danes are proposing that those granted asylum remain in Rwanda what did you think the bold bit of your quote earlier meant: "to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country".
"possibly their protection in that country" is a long way from being granted asylum in that country. This is a political party floating a (controversial) policy proposal, not something inscribed upon tablets and found in the Ark of the Covenant.
But you are saying that you would prefer a system whereby potential asylum seekers are picked up by the UK and then sent to, say, Rwanda and essentially and for the right amount of money, forgotten about.
I don't prefer that system. At all.
I have no problem at all with putting illegal migrants on the first flight home back to where they came from.
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
Well well what? That's asylum seekers. How about refugees? And remember that when the Home Office tried to remove asylum seekers from Glasgow the community came out to physically stop the removal. As I assume the inference is actually Scotland is "nasty racist" wouldn't the reverse have been true?
So the people of Glasgow are happy to keep the asylum seekers who are already there so long as no more arrive and that makes them better than the English?
You're just as much of a flaming hypocrite as HYUFD.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
I have no idea as I said IANAIL. But if the Brits are involved then I must believe that there will be some kind of obligation to act beyond redirecting them to a sub-Saharan African country.
And as per the Danish proposals, I can only find articles saying that asylum seekers will be processed abroad. Nothing that they will be given asylum abroad.
And if this was the case then I like the proposal even less.
Why would Brits have different obligations than the Danes, Aussies and others that have already done this or are looking into it? Plus of course Parliament is sovereign, if Parliament passes an Act saying this is the process and there is no right to appeal that before people have been put in a plane and transferred then that's the law and the courts should follow the rule of law.
Rwanda is being spoken about with Denmark because they're already doing it for other countries too, its something the Rwandan government is interested in because they view it as a way to get money into the country.
If Rwanda gets more development, if it keeps the rule of law (as nobody can be sent anywhere without the rule of law) and if people fleeing persecution get somewhere safe to be, and if people stop dying because dinghies crossing the Channel is deadly and unsafe then isn't that a win/win/win/win?
Of course if people don't want asylum in Rwanda they always have the option of not fleeing France in a dinghy - and the UK can take more genuine asylum seekers through safe, legitimate and legal routes.
As for not thinking that the Danes are proposing that those granted asylum remain in Rwanda what did you think the bold bit of your quote earlier meant: "to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country".
"possibly their protection in that country" is a long way from being granted asylum in that country. This is a political party floating a (controversial) policy proposal, not something inscribed upon tablets and found in the Ark of the Covenant.
But you are saying that you would prefer a system whereby potential asylum seekers are picked up by the UK and then sent to, say, Rwanda and essentially and for the right amount of money, forgotten about.
I don't prefer that system. At all.
I have no problem at all with putting illegal migrants on the first flight home back to where they came from.
Isn't that already what we do when asylum claims are denied and their status is determined to be illegal?
Let's be totally honest, if we took every single refugee arriving on the shores of the UK it would make no material difference to the country at all, this idea they are the reason we are in a hole or that they are going to put us into one, is just nonsense.
There is an economic elite that doesn't play by the rules, breaks the law and destroys livelihoods but they're part of the Government.
Has anyone said they are the reason we are in a hole?
The only reason I would support this is to stop the dinghies which are causing people to drown in the Channel. It is a safe, legal and humane solution.
I also advocate for an increase in legal asylum seekers being brought into this country through safe channels. Not dinghies and people smugglers.
I'd agree with that, subject to a debate on numbers; the difference is control.
Right now, many people are taking the piss and crossing the channel and then claiming asylum to get round the economic migration rules they'd othersis not qualify for.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
I have no idea as I said IANAIL. But if the Brits are involved then I must believe that there will be some kind of obligation to act beyond redirecting them to a sub-Saharan African country.
And as per the Danish proposals, I can only find articles saying that asylum seekers will be processed abroad. Nothing that they will be given asylum abroad.
And if this was the case then I like the proposal even less.
Why would Brits have different obligations than the Danes, Aussies and others that have already done this or are looking into it? Plus of course Parliament is sovereign, if Parliament passes an Act saying this is the process and there is no right to appeal that before people have been put in a plane and transferred then that's the law and the courts should follow the rule of law.
Rwanda is being spoken about with Denmark because they're already doing it for other countries too, its something the Rwandan government is interested in because they view it as a way to get money into the country.
If Rwanda gets more development, if it keeps the rule of law (as nobody can be sent anywhere without the rule of law) and if people fleeing persecution get somewhere safe to be, and if people stop dying because dinghies crossing the Channel is deadly and unsafe then isn't that a win/win/win/win?
Of course if people don't want asylum in Rwanda they always have the option of not fleeing France in a dinghy - and the UK can take more genuine asylum seekers through safe, legitimate and legal routes.
As for not thinking that the Danes are proposing that those granted asylum remain in Rwanda what did you think the bold bit of your quote earlier meant: "to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country".
"possibly their protection in that country" is a long way from being granted asylum in that country. This is a political party floating a (controversial) policy proposal, not something inscribed upon tablets and found in the Ark of the Covenant.
But you are saying that you would prefer a system whereby potential asylum seekers are picked up by the UK and then sent to, say, Rwanda and essentially and for the right amount of money, forgotten about.
I don't prefer that system. At all.
I have no problem at all with putting illegal migrants on the first flight home back to where they came from.
Isn't that already what we do when asylum claims are denied and their status is determined to be illegal?
Exactly, what some people are saying is actually that they shouldn't come here at all, which by implication means we shall not be bound by our obligations under the Refugee Convention
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
Well well what? That's asylum seekers. How about refugees? And remember that when the Home Office tried to remove asylum seekers from Glasgow the community came out to physically stop the removal. As I assume the inference is actually Scotland is "nasty racist" wouldn't the reverse have been true?
“The Community” in question, being a xenophobic mob who didn’t want “English” Home Office police working in Glasgow.
Let's be totally honest, if we took every single refugee arriving on the shores of the UK it would make no material difference to the country at all, this idea they are the reason we are in a hole or that they are going to put us into one, is just nonsense.
There is an economic elite that doesn't play by the rules, breaks the law and destroys livelihoods but they're part of the Government.
Has anyone said they are the reason we are in a hole?
The only reason I would support this is to stop the dinghies which are causing people to drown in the Channel. It is a safe, legal and humane solution.
I also advocate for an increase in legal asylum seekers being brought into this country through safe channels. Not dinghies and people smugglers.
I'd agree with that, subject to a debate on numbers; the difference is control.
Right now, many people are taking the piss and crossing the channel and then claiming asylum to get round the economic migration rules they'd othersis not qualify for.
Which people know full well which is why the abject horror at otherwise perfectly reasonable solutions like getting asylum in safe countries like Rwanda.
It isn't that people fleeing France need somewhere safe to live, its that they want to live in the UK. If they want to live in the UK there's a process to follow.
Let's be totally honest, if we took every single refugee arriving on the shores of the UK it would make no material difference to the country at all, this idea they are the reason we are in a hole or that they are going to put us into one, is just nonsense.
There is an economic elite that doesn't play by the rules, breaks the law and destroys livelihoods but they're part of the Government.
I think that's naive.
We have a real life case study of what happens when you try that: Merkel said similar in 2015 and received over a million migrants in less than 18 months.
It would have been far more too, had she not then turned the tap off and done a deal with Turkey.
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
Well well what? That's asylum seekers. How about refugees? And remember that when the Home Office tried to remove asylum seekers from Glasgow the community came out to physically stop the removal. As I assume the inference is actually Scotland is "nasty racist" wouldn't the reverse have been true?
So the people of Glasgow are happy to keep the asylum seekers who are already there so long as no more arrive and that makes them better than the English?
You're just as much of a flaming hypocrite as HYUFD.
They need more money. You know how asylum seekers are placed? A clue - it isn't by the council. And I remember the exact same problems in Middlesbrough a few years back - lack of money stopped placements. You need actual accommodation for asylum seekers unless you want to put them in tents.
Border Force authorised to turn back migrants, 50 years of Genesis and Radacando! Another day in Normalania.
Will there now be a race between BF vessels and the RNLI to reach the boat people?
I should imagine that the Border Force boats will patrol the maritime boundary to try to catch the dinghies, the occupants of the dinghies will throw themselves into the water (or just fall in when the authorities try to shunt or tow their pathetic, flimsy vessels back towards France,) and the Border Force officers will then be obliged to fish them out.
Any that get through the screen will then be met by RNLI welcome committees instead. So, it'll make no difference to anything. Just one more example of something-must-be-done-ism.
Its stupid and dangerous to be messing around with people in the water. Anyone in the water should be removed from the water.
The only sustainable way to deal with it is to determine what happens next once they're out of the water. If they know they'll end up in the UK, people will continue doing it, risking more lives on a very dangerous and deadly crossing.
If they know that they'll end up in somewhere like Nauru or Papua New Guinea as has been done by the Australian Labor and Liberal governments, or Rwanda as has been proposed by Denmark's Social Democrat government, then that would actually stop the dinghies getting in the water in the first place.
Yes, but as I understand it neither PNG nor Rwanda are willing.
If Rwanda are willing would you be happy for the UK to follow Denmark's Social Democrat government in doing that?
Why Rwanda? Why not Ramsgate?
What would the function be? To determine whether they have a legitimate claim to be in the UK.
Yes? Stay. No? Whatever the protocol is.
Where this processing happens shouldn't worry you.
No, the proposal is to allow asylum-seekers the chance of a new life in Rwanda, paid for by the British government.
Because they’re fleeing persecution, rather than trying to become economic migrants, right?
I'm no international lawyer but I can't see British involvement, if it is necessary, being limited to such a role.
Its a policy already successfully implemented by the Australians (under both Liberals and Labor), and being developed by the Danish Social Democrats.
Why wouldn't it be suitable for Britain and what international courts would challenge it under international law?
I have no idea as I said IANAIL. But if the Brits are involved then I must believe that there will be some kind of obligation to act beyond redirecting them to a sub-Saharan African country.
And as per the Danish proposals, I can only find articles saying that asylum seekers will be processed abroad. Nothing that they will be given asylum abroad.
And if this was the case then I like the proposal even less.
Why would Brits have different obligations than the Danes, Aussies and others that have already done this or are looking into it? Plus of course Parliament is sovereign, if Parliament passes an Act saying this is the process and there is no right to appeal that before people have been put in a plane and transferred then that's the law and the courts should follow the rule of law.
Rwanda is being spoken about with Denmark because they're already doing it for other countries too, its something the Rwandan government is interested in because they view it as a way to get money into the country.
If Rwanda gets more development, if it keeps the rule of law (as nobody can be sent anywhere without the rule of law) and if people fleeing persecution get somewhere safe to be, and if people stop dying because dinghies crossing the Channel is deadly and unsafe then isn't that a win/win/win/win?
Of course if people don't want asylum in Rwanda they always have the option of not fleeing France in a dinghy - and the UK can take more genuine asylum seekers through safe, legitimate and legal routes.
As for not thinking that the Danes are proposing that those granted asylum remain in Rwanda what did you think the bold bit of your quote earlier meant: "to asylum centres in a partner country for case reviews and possibly their protection in that country".
"possibly their protection in that country" is a long way from being granted asylum in that country. This is a political party floating a (controversial) policy proposal, not something inscribed upon tablets and found in the Ark of the Covenant.
But you are saying that you would prefer a system whereby potential asylum seekers are picked up by the UK and then sent to, say, Rwanda and essentially and for the right amount of money, forgotten about.
I don't prefer that system. At all.
I have no problem at all with putting illegal migrants on the first flight home back to where they came from.
How do you know if they are illegal until you've processed them?
Thanks all. Excited (and slightly apprehensive since I'm going to be a Director with a multi-million revenue target) but everyone is very confident in me and I feel the time is ripe!
Let's be totally honest, if we took every single refugee arriving on the shores of the UK it would make no material difference to the country at all, this idea they are the reason we are in a hole or that they are going to put us into one, is just nonsense.
There is an economic elite that doesn't play by the rules, breaks the law and destroys livelihoods but they're part of the Government.
I think that's naive.
We have a real life case study of what happens when you try that: Merkel said similar in 2015 and received over a million migrants in less than 18 months.
It would have been far more too, had she not then turned the tap off and done a deal with Turkey.
Hundreds or thousands of people died during the journey Merkel encouraged too, it was completely irresponsible.
Its not like people can just walk across the border from France to the UK. The Channel is deadly and dangerous. Anyone wanting more dinghy crossings is off their rocker - at least come up with another alternative if you're not happy with the proposed solutions.
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
Well well what? That's asylum seekers. How about refugees? And remember that when the Home Office tried to remove asylum seekers from Glasgow the community came out to physically stop the removal. As I assume the inference is actually Scotland is "nasty racist" wouldn't the reverse have been true?
So the people of Glasgow are happy to keep the asylum seekers who are already there so long as no more arrive and that makes them better than the English?
You're just as much of a flaming hypocrite as HYUFD.
They need more money. You know how asylum seekers are placed? A clue - it isn't by the council. And I remember the exact same problems in Middlesbrough a few years back - lack of money stopped placements. You need actual accommodation for asylum seekers unless you want to put them in tents.
The Scottish Government has money, its a devolved matter. If the Scottish Government wants more migrants being settled in Glasgow or Edinburgh or anywhere else then it can use some of its budget to pay for that.
But they don't. They just want a fight with the English.
Poll in the Mail showing a majority of voters support the NI rise.
Breaking manifesto pledges and putting a tax on jobs? No problem!
Boris is absolute Teflon isn't he lol?
No wonder he drives lefties (and his enemies in the Tory Party) crazy. No one can touch him!
People will understand that stuff has to be paid for. "Who will pay" being the endless question for literally any scheme even when its something that we absolutely need like schools.
So I'm not surprised that there is support here and now. Its when people realise that its THEIR tax bill thats just gone up and BY HOW MUCH??? And then realise they still need to wait in pain for months for that operation. Ask them later how they feel.
Thanks all. Excited (and slightly apprehensive since I'm going to be a Director with a multi-million revenue target) but everyone is very confident in me and I feel the time is ripe!
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Terminology matters. There are probably three vague classes of people coming over: asylum seekers, refugees, and economic migrants. To confuse matters, people may have multiple reasons for coming, e.g. an asylum seeker hoping to become a refugee, but who also knows the UK might offer a much better quality of life over other countries they could try to claim asylum in.
There is a lot of sympathy for refugees: people who have been proved to flee genuine persecution - the Afghanis who have helped us being a classic example. There is some sympathy for asylum seekers. There is very little for economic migrants.
For this reason, it is in the interests of people playing political football with this topic to refer to them in a way that matters most for them: e.g. calling them all 'refugees' if you think they should all come in. Or calling them all 'economic migrants' if you don't want them.
Yes, language is bent to suit. For me, the best way to look at this is "Push vs Pull". Which factor is dominating? Is this person mainly wanting to get into the UK or mainly wanting to escape XYZ? The latter imo gives the stronger case for entry and residence. Of course this isn't straightforward, eg the Push and the Pull are related.
Poll in the Mail showing a majority of voters support the NI rise.
Breaking manifesto pledges and putting a tax on jobs? No problem!
Boris is absolute Teflon isn't he lol?
No wonder he drives lefties (and his enemies in the Tory Party) crazy. No one can touch him!
People will understand that stuff has to be paid for. "Who will pay" being the endless question for literally any scheme even when its something that we absolutely need like schools.
So I'm not surprised that there is support here and now. Its when people realise that its THEIR tax bill thats just gone up and BY HOW MUCH??? And then realise they still need to wait in pain for months for that operation. Ask them later how they feel.
For too many voters their taxes aren't going up - and they couldn't care less (though they may say they do) that their grandchildren's or tenant's taxes have gone up instead.
Poll in the Mail showing a majority of voters support the NI rise.
Breaking manifesto pledges and putting a tax on jobs? No problem!
Boris is absolute Teflon isn't he lol?
No wonder he drives lefties (and his enemies in the Tory Party) crazy. No one can touch him!
People will understand that stuff has to be paid for. "Who will pay" being the endless question for literally any scheme even when its something that we absolutely need like schools.
So I'm not surprised that there is support here and now. Its when people realise that its THEIR tax bill thats just gone up and BY HOW MUCH??? And then realise they still need to wait in pain for months for that operation. Ask them later how they feel.
Maybe. But time and time again over the past 15 years or so people have waited for Boris' popularity to wane... and yet somehow or other it just doesn't happen (though I suppose if he tried to stand as Mator of London now he's get short shrift lol)
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
Well well what? That's asylum seekers. How about refugees? And remember that when the Home Office tried to remove asylum seekers from Glasgow the community came out to physically stop the removal. As I assume the inference is actually Scotland is "nasty racist" wouldn't the reverse have been true?
So the people of Glasgow are happy to keep the asylum seekers who are already there so long as no more arrive and that makes them better than the English?
You're just as much of a flaming hypocrite as HYUFD.
They need more money. You know how asylum seekers are placed? A clue - it isn't by the council. And I remember the exact same problems in Middlesbrough a few years back - lack of money stopped placements. You need actual accommodation for asylum seekers unless you want to put them in tents.
The Scottish Government has money, its a devolved matter. If the Scottish Government wants more migrants being settled in Glasgow or Edinburgh or anywhere else then it can use some of its budget to pay for that.
But they don't. They just want a fight with the English.
I'm not out to defend the SNP. But that isn't how the scheme works. Home Office contracts out accommodation to the likes of G4S. The Glasgow row is because G4S et al aren't paying what is needed for accommodation.
If it is for the devolved administration to pay then that would be the system - it isn't. Or the non-SNP parties would be calling for cash to be ponied up - they aren't.
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Terminology matters. There are probably three vague classes of people coming over: asylum seekers, refugees, and economic migrants. To confuse matters, people may have multiple reasons for coming, e.g. an asylum seeker hoping to become a refugee, but who also knows the UK might offer a much better quality of life over other countries they could try to claim asylum in.
There is a lot of sympathy for refugees: people who have been proved to flee genuine persecution - the Afghanis who have helped us being a classic example. There is some sympathy for asylum seekers. There is very little for economic migrants.
For this reason, it is in the interests of people playing political football with this topic to refer to them in a way that matters most for them: e.g. calling them all 'refugees' if you think they should all come in. Or calling them all 'economic migrants' if you don't want them.
Yes, language is bent to suit. For me, the best way to look at this is "Push vs Pull". Which factor is dominating? Is this person mainly wanting to get into the UK or mainly wanting to escape XYZ? The latter imo gives the stronger case for entry and residence. Of course this isn't straightforward, eg the Push and the Pull are related.
If they're mainly wanting to escape XYZ then they won't be attempting to flee France on a dinghy and would be happy with settlement in Rwanda. Or they could be selected for safe and legal passage into the UK as our fair, safe and legal share of refugees.
If they're mainly wanting to get into the UK then they can apply for a visa.
Anyway, meanwhile in Norniron, the DUP are prepared to walk out of office rather than preside over the NI Protocol forcing them as an administration to impose standards and customs checks on trade within the UK
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
Anyway, meanwhile in Norniron, the DUP are prepared to walk out of office rather than preside over the NI Protocol forcing them as an administration to impose standards and customs checks on trade within the UK
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
And the issue has been put to bed.
It has? So the GB / NI border issue is settled and the NI government aren't about to quit?
Brexit - leaving the EU - is settled. What we do afterwards - including a trading arrangement with the EU - is far from settled.
Anyway, meanwhile in Norniron, the DUP are prepared to walk out of office rather than preside over the NI Protocol forcing them as an administration to impose standards and customs checks on trade within the UK
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
And the issue has been put to bed.
In a different bed to the one Dave thought it was going to sleep in.
Anyway, meanwhile in Norniron, the DUP are prepared to walk out of office rather than preside over the NI Protocol forcing them as an administration to impose standards and customs checks on trade within the UK
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Enjoy. I'm told the side roads are so much quieter, and therefore safer, than UK.
Anyway, meanwhile in Norniron, the DUP are prepared to walk out of office rather than preside over the NI Protocol forcing them as an administration to impose standards and customs checks on trade within the UK
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
And the issue has been put to bed.
It has? So the GB / NI border issue is settled and the NI government aren't about to quit?
Brexit - leaving the EU - is settled. What we do afterwards - including a trading arrangement with the EU - is far from settled.
Yes it has.
What we do afterwards is a new issue, its not the same issue. There will always be new issues.
Our ability to decide for ourselves, democratically, what we want to do with these new issues is part and parcel of our having taken back control. Its what you and I voted for five years ago, even if you've subsequently changed your mind.
If the Scots vote for independence then they'd put the issue of independence to bed. They'll open an entire can of worms of new issues to deal with instead.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Depends what you mean by softies. All self organised (I spend more time planning it than doing it), Mainly along greenways. Stay in B&B or small hotels. Consume huge quantities of booze and food. Cycle about 50 miles a day.
But I always pick flat routes. Can't do the hills with my Boris look alike physique.
Did Bordeaux to Biarritz just before the pandemic. It was excellent.
Anyway, meanwhile in Norniron, the DUP are prepared to walk out of office rather than preside over the NI Protocol forcing them as an administration to impose standards and customs checks on trade within the UK
The headline figure in today's @ScotlandinUnion poll of Remain in the UK 57; Leave 43, is in line with previous readings of this question and thus is consistent with other post-#SP21 polls of #indyref2 that have suggested no change.
I am astonished there are now a few polls like this showing MORE Scots want to stay in the UK now after Brexit than the 55% who wanted to stay in the UK before Brexit.
What a humiliation for Sturgeon!
Maybe you should hold a referendum while the figures are like that and put the issue to bed? 🤔
Good idea!
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
And the issue has been put to bed.
It has? So the GB / NI border issue is settled and the NI government aren't about to quit?
Brexit - leaving the EU - is settled. What we do afterwards - including a trading arrangement with the EU - is far from settled.
Yes it has.
What we do afterwards is a new issue, its not the same issue. There will always be new issues.
Our ability to decide for ourselves, democratically, what we want to do with these new issues is part and parcel of our having taken back control. Its what you and I voted for five years ago, even if you've subsequently changed your mind.
If the Scots vote for independence then they'd put the issue of independence to bed. They'll open an entire can of worms of new issues to deal with instead.
Poll in the Mail showing a majority of voters support the NI rise.
Breaking manifesto pledges and putting a tax on jobs? No problem!
Boris is absolute Teflon isn't he lol?
No wonder he drives lefties (and his enemies in the Tory Party) crazy. No one can touch him!
Yes. A hypothecated NHS tax is popular.
One of the major political struggles of the next decade will be over what to spend the proceeds on. Which taxes will be cut? Which white elephants built?
There's suddenly a lot of money politically available to buy a lot of votes with.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Enjoy. I'm told the side roads are so much quieter, and therefore safer, than UK.
I see unionists are fooling themselves again with Scotland in Union propaganda polling where they ask a question which will not be asked in Indyref2. Apparently 43% (don't knows removed) oppose Scotland leaving the United Kingdom.
Reminds me of nothing so much as the polling in the early stages of IndyRef1 in which the unionists fooled themselves (and, praise be) made their supporters complacent, by failing to eliminate the "Don't Knows" from the reporting of polling on independence.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
To take this one step further, it is especially about those who have such sentiments wanting to get one (another one!) over on those who criticise such views. It has very little to do with the practical impacts of asylum and is mostly another symptom of the Brexit divide and culture war.
That's exactly right imo.
Also "Why not Rwanda?" reminds me a little bit of stuff like "Why no Minister for MEN?" and "Why no Association of WHITE police officers?" and "Why isn't there an ENGLISH parliament?"
In most cases the sentiment being respectively expressed here is that there's too much of a damn fuss being made about wimmin and blacks and the damn Scots.
Thanks all. Excited (and slightly apprehensive since I'm going to be a Director with a multi-million revenue target) but everyone is very confident in me and I feel the time is ripe!
For anyone watching BBC news the Paul Gambaccini interview with Victoria Derbyshire is real car crash TV. Not sure who it is car crash for but it is quite something.
And for those of us not watching BBC News?
A group of people including Lady Britton, Paul Gambaccini, Stephen Lawrence's mum and others who have suffered from Met cover ups have written an open letter to Johnson asking him to remove Cressida Dick as head of the Met. Gambaccini was invited onto BBC news to discuss it and went off the deep end. With justification I think personally. He went after the BBC big time and their collusion (as claimed) in cover ups and the whole 10 minute or so interview was extremely acrimonious.
I could blame predictive text but that would be a lie :-).. My earlier comment should have said "Apparently 43% (don't knows removed) SUPPORT Scotland leaving the United Kingdom "
The French MP laid it out on r4 the other day as to why economic migrants love to come to the UK, it's the complete lack of any sort of national ID scheme which makes illegal working very easy.
We need to choose as a nation, ID cards or immigrants jumping the queues.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Depends what you mean by softies. All self organised (I spend more time planning it than doing it), Mainly along greenways. Stay in B&B or small hotels. Consume huge quantities of booze and food. Cycle about 50 miles a day.
But I always pick flat routes. Can't do the hills with my Boris look alike physique.
Did Bordeaux to Biarritz just before the pandemic. It was excellent.
I could blame predictive text but that would be a lie :-).. My earlier comment should have said "Apparently 43% (don't knows removed) SUPPORT Scotland leaving the United Kingdom "
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
Poll in the Mail showing a majority of voters support the NI rise.
Breaking manifesto pledges and putting a tax on jobs? No problem!
Boris is absolute Teflon isn't he lol?
No wonder he drives lefties (and his enemies in the Tory Party) crazy. No one can touch him!
For a while my Teflon frying pan was brilliant, nothing stuck. As time moves on it is proving less so. Soon it will be completely useless and need replacing.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
To take this one step further, it is especially about those who have such sentiments wanting to get one (another one!) over on those who criticise such views. It has very little to do with the practical impacts of asylum and is mostly another symptom of the Brexit divide and culture war.
That's exactly right imo.
Also "Why not Rwanda?" reminds me a little bit of stuff like "Why no Minister for MEN?" and "Why no Association of WHITE police officers?" and "Why isn't there an ENGLISH parliament?"
In most cases the sentiment being respectively expressed here is that there's too much of a damn fuss being made about wimmin and racism and the damn Scots.
Agreed. On the proposed policy of using a third country, I dont see any problem with starting a small trial scheme and seeing if it works and is scalable. I doubt it will be any sort of panacea and probably is not workable at all, but if it is, then so be it. If we can't find anyone willing to do this even as a trial, then the idea can be put to bed.
The French MP laid it out on r4 the other day as to why economic migrants love to come to the UK, it's the complete lack of any sort of national ID scheme which makes illegal working very easy.
We need to choose as a nation, ID cards or immigrants jumping the queues.
Given the current issues with a shortage of willing workforce that seems to me to be an easy choice to make. Others may have different views of course
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
Quite possible. The ramifications might not be optimal however. Johnson has had his eye off the Northern Ireland ball since his two letter stunt.
The French MP laid it out on r4 the other day as to why economic migrants love to come to the UK, it's the complete lack of any sort of national ID scheme which makes illegal working very easy.
We need to choose as a nation, ID cards or immigrants jumping the queues.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
To take this one step further, it is especially about those who have such sentiments wanting to get one (another one!) over on those who criticise such views. It has very little to do with the practical impacts of asylum and is mostly another symptom of the Brexit divide and culture war.
That's exactly right imo.
Also "Why not Rwanda?" reminds me a little bit of stuff like "Why no Minister for MEN?" and "Why no Association of WHITE police officers?" and "Why isn't there an ENGLISH parliament?"
In most cases the sentiment being respectively expressed here is that there's too much of a damn fuss being made about wimmin and blacks and the damn Scots.
During the Blair government (IIRC) there was a proposal to distribute asylum seekers, rather than just trying to house them all in London. Which was already very expensive for housing costs.
IIRC a Human Rights group took this to court (or threatened to) on the grounds that it infringed the rights of the asylum seekers to be sent to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
I remember thinking that that was a bit sharp towards our brethren in Scotland....
Thanks all. Excited (and slightly apprehensive since I'm going to be a Director with a multi-million revenue target) but everyone is very confident in me and I feel the time is ripe!
Does that mean more or less time on PB?
The greater the seniority the more time available for PB and Candy Crush Saga.
Mr. Pulpstar, I don't accept that. The non-contributory benefits system and fact that even if you commit vile crimes people will argue against deportation are bigger factors.
ID cards and vaccine passports are the road to social credit and state tyranny.
I'm off cycling France for a week this weekend so you will all be pleased to know I (probably) won't be challenging HYUFD's unique application of the use of statistics, numbers and logic for a bit.
Stop cheering at the back.
Cycling for Softies? I did one of those in the Loire - absolutely fantastic although I do remember at one stage tearing* along what must be the equivalent of their A1(M) in torrential rain to get to my next stop.
Depends what you mean by softies. All self organised (I spend more time planning it than doing it), Mainly along greenways. Stay in B&B or small hotels. Consume huge quantities of booze and food. Cycle about 50 miles a day.
But I always pick flat routes. Can't do the hills with my Boris look alike physique.
Did Bordeaux to Biarritz just before the pandemic. It was excellent.
Was great fun and they take your bags to each hotel.
Well done for self-organising I presume your panniers are the size of small cars?
In my long-ago youth I used to cycle tour in UK. If you organise yourself you don't need a lot of luggage. And a couple of late-middle-aged friends went round the world about ten years ago with only hand luggage. Plenty of markets sell very cheap tee shirts etc.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP anyway.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to jointly agree to reimpose Westminster direct rule on NI for the foreseeable future with some input from Dublin
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
One issue that never seems to get discussed is that it is not a case of "pure" asylum vs "pure" economic migration.
For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
The French MP laid it out on r4 the other day as to why economic migrants love to come to the UK, it's the complete lack of any sort of national ID scheme which makes illegal working very easy.
We need to choose as a nation, ID cards or immigrants jumping the queues.
Given the current issues with a shortage of willing workforce that seems to me to be an easy choice to make. Others may have different views of course
Nooo! Incoming vanity by-election for Haltemprice and Howden.
Mr. Pulpstar, I don't accept that. The non-contributory benefits system and fact that even if you commit vile crimes people will argue against deportation are bigger factors.
ID cards and vaccine passports are the road to social credit and state tyranny.
Plus its utter madness to house people in the UK and then tell them they're not allowed to work. That means either they're compelled to rely upon the state without contributing, or they work illegally.
Anyone allowed in the country should be allowed to work while their case is heard.
The French MP laid it out on r4 the other day as to why economic migrants love to come to the UK, it's the complete lack of any sort of national ID scheme which makes illegal working very easy.
We need to choose as a nation, ID cards or immigrants jumping the queues.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
One issue that never seems to get discussed is that it is not a case of "pure" asylum vs "pure" economic migration.
For example, my wife left her country to emigrate here, partly for economic opportunity, and partly because the process of killing the Moaists who were trying to blow up everything was running into the usual issues with government projects.
Yes, the grey area must be huge. All you can say with confidence about every person who makes a long and arduous (often perilous) journey seeking to resettle in a country far from their own is that they'll have a good reason for it.
I completely agree with that.
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
No. I await the killer follow-up with great interest and not a little trepidation.
If we facilitate easy migration for those paying thousands to criminal gangs, how do you facilitate migration for those that don't? Or are we delegating our responsibilities to the gangs?
The French MP laid it out on r4 the other day as to why economic migrants love to come to the UK, it's the complete lack of any sort of national ID scheme which makes illegal working very easy.
We need to choose as a nation, ID cards or immigrants jumping the queues.
This is absolutely fascinating. Though I would gently query its accuracy, given that we don't appear to know how many immigrants there are here.
Fascinating too that Ireland is still, apparently, a net exporter of people. While South Sudan is a net importer.
EDIT: Also New Zealand is a net exporter of people! All going to Australia. As someone who has never ventured into the southern hemisphere, this baffles me. How much better than New Zealand can Australia's economic prospects be for it to justify sunburn and poisonous spiders?
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Being an economic migrant doesn't mean "on the make" though does it. It just means that you want to live where you choose without regard for the entry laws of the country that you want to move to.
If you are happy to accept, say, 1000 migrants now (I assume you are) then what about the next 1000 and what about the 1000 after that. Logically, there must be a limit to your position surely (small island and all that). And if logically you do have a limit then at that point you must be in favour of applying the laws and our boundary defences to ensure that "your" limit is not breached?
And if that is the case why not do that now?
It means seeking a better life and most come legally under our Immigration system (which we have to have since the nirvana of global open borders is a long way off). Then you have the people - also seeking a better life - who are in addition fleeing something, ie the push factor is bigger than the pull. Asylum seekers, refugees, ad hoc (rather than formalized) economic migrants, with these categories overlapping and muddy in reality as opposed to what the boxes on forms say. I think we should take more of these people than we do, and so should other rich countries, which needs a degree of co-operation that seems lacking for one reason or another.
When we can ask the following and get sensible answers, then we can have a proper national conversation on immigration...
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future? - What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population? - What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
Mr. Pulpstar, I don't accept that. The non-contributory benefits system and fact that even if you commit vile crimes people will argue against deportation are bigger factors.
ID cards and vaccine passports are the road to social credit and state tyranny.
Plus its utter madness to house people in the UK and then tell them they're not allowed to work. That means either they're compelled to rely upon the state without contributing, or they work illegally.
Anyone allowed in the country should be allowed to work while their case is heard.
They are allowed to work once asylum has been granted.
The root cause, is that cases take too long to come to the tribunal because the people need to be identified and have no documents. Their lawyers then convince them to keep appealing every decision that goes against them.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Terminology matters. There are probably three vague classes of people coming over: asylum seekers, refugees, and economic migrants. To confuse matters, people may have multiple reasons for coming, e.g. an asylum seeker hoping to become a refugee, but who also knows the UK might offer a much better quality of life over other countries they could try to claim asylum in.
There is a lot of sympathy for refugees: people who have been proved to flee genuine persecution - the Afghanis who have helped us being a classic example. There is some sympathy for asylum seekers. There is very little for economic migrants.
For this reason, it is in the interests of people playing political football with this topic to refer to them in a way that matters most for them: e.g. calling them all 'refugees' if you think they should all come in. Or calling them all 'economic migrants' if you don't want them.
Yes, language is bent to suit. For me, the best way to look at this is "Push vs Pull". Which factor is dominating? Is this person mainly wanting to get into the UK or mainly wanting to escape XYZ? The latter imo gives the stronger case for entry and residence. Of course this isn't straightforward, eg the Push and the Pull are related.
If they're mainly wanting to escape XYZ then they won't be attempting to flee France on a dinghy and would be happy with settlement in Rwanda. Or they could be selected for safe and legal passage into the UK as our fair, safe and legal share of refugees.
If they're mainly wanting to get into the UK then they can apply for a visa.
Our 'fair and legal share' is what this is about. Nobody other than utopians say it should be a free-for-all, nobody other than genuinely nasty people say we should turn our back on the problem.
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
Is that how it works? I thought the first and deputy first ministers had to be a nationalist and a unionist, so the Alliance cannot take it up.
Reserving places and power for specific groups is a very short term option.
Not to rule things out without due consideration but this has an air of taking the piss.
If they’re escaping persecution, they will be happy to be given an opportunity of a new life in a safe country.
If they’re primarily economic migrants, desparate specifically to get to the UK, on the other hand…
Yes. This proposal is imo mainly about expressing the following 2 sentiments: Most asylum seekers are on the make rather than fleeing persecution. They should be grateful for anything they get, aka 'beggars can't be choosers'.
Terminology matters. There are probably three vague classes of people coming over: asylum seekers, refugees, and economic migrants. To confuse matters, people may have multiple reasons for coming, e.g. an asylum seeker hoping to become a refugee, but who also knows the UK might offer a much better quality of life over other countries they could try to claim asylum in.
There is a lot of sympathy for refugees: people who have been proved to flee genuine persecution - the Afghanis who have helped us being a classic example. There is some sympathy for asylum seekers. There is very little for economic migrants.
For this reason, it is in the interests of people playing political football with this topic to refer to them in a way that matters most for them: e.g. calling them all 'refugees' if you think they should all come in. Or calling them all 'economic migrants' if you don't want them.
Yes, language is bent to suit. For me, the best way to look at this is "Push vs Pull". Which factor is dominating? Is this person mainly wanting to get into the UK or mainly wanting to escape XYZ? The latter imo gives the stronger case for entry and residence. Of course this isn't straightforward, eg the Push and the Pull are related.
If they're mainly wanting to escape XYZ then they won't be attempting to flee France on a dinghy and would be happy with settlement in Rwanda. Or they could be selected for safe and legal passage into the UK as our fair, safe and legal share of refugees.
If they're mainly wanting to get into the UK then they can apply for a visa.
Our 'fair and legal share' is what this is about. Nobody other than utopians say it should be a free-for-all, nobody other than genuinely nasty people say we should turn our back on the problem.
That is true, though sometimes people do imply a free for all, probably unintentionally, and so hurt their case (eg talking about people looking for opportunity and wouldn't we do the same in that position, which implies it's wrong to say no to anyone).
Mr. kle4, people might also have more patience with such a position if we didn't have political leaders who are short termist idiots (currently), deceitful over manifesto promises (Lisbon, in the recent past) or throw away money in 'solidarity' (Blair and half the rebate).
If the DUP walk out of the power-sharing exec., and there are new elections, what are the chances, given the divisions in Unionism, that SF will end up with the most seats and therefore provide the First Minister? With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
If the DUP walk out there might be new elections but even if SF win most seats it will make little difference, if the Unionist parties refuse to cooperate there would be no working FM or Deputy FM and no NI executive.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed then effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to agree to reimpose direct rule for the foreseeable future
Simples!
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Other than SF and smaller groups like the Greens and People Before Profit the percentages are all within easy touching distance and a nasty storm (of some sort) on, or just before, polling day could easily move things a point or two in several directions.
Comments
https://twitter.com/nicolawoolcock/status/1435893619504861187?s=20
Interesting reaction from her in regards to Murdo Fraser and the gender bill they are taking through at the moment
- A tape uncovers that during the chaotic screwup that was the shooting of De Mendes, she order a subordinate to get her a "black coffee" rather than a "coffee without milk"
- A tape uncovers that during the Stephen Lawerence sweeping-stuff-under-the-carpet* she assumed someone's pronoun was "he"
When I was growing up in Oxford, a friend ended up in court over an assault by said policeman. Despite the matter ending badly for the policeman he was retained by the force. He was, of course, a member of all the right cliques and groups....
In same the Oxford Times that had the announcement of the result (in small print), was a short article about another policeman who had *had* to be fired. Over an expenses matter. Said expenses were literally 1 or 2 pounds.
*Not a cover up. No sir.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/alastair-campbell-dream-tory-cabinet/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-57448267#:~:text=Glasgow City Council is the,the UK government's dispersal scheme.&text=Glasgow City Council announced the,being used as asylum accommodation.
The temporary ban on accepting new asylum seekers into Scotland could last for years, the BBC has learned.
Glasgow City Council is the only local authority in the country to take in asylum seekers through the UK government's dispersal scheme.
There are more than 200 asylum seekers living in hotel accommodation across the city due to insufficient housing.
Council leader Susan Aitken told the BBC the ban would continue while the scheme was run "on the cheap".
The Home Office said the use of temporary accommodation was necessary to manage increased demand and it encouraged other local authorities to take part in the programme.
Glasgow City Council announced the temporary ban in July last year to "ease pressures" after a mass stabbing at a city centre hotel which was being used as asylum accommodation.
Stop cheering at the back.
So at this point keeping her on is the active decision, and letting her go the passive one.
If Ms Patel can’t see that letting the Commissioner go is the correct thing, then perhaps she should consider her own position?
Furthermore, I have also said that there are SNP supporters who back the union (and I know several) and apparently 20% in this poll would support the union
Historically Scotland was all labour but the SNP have cleverly positioned themselves on the left subsuming labour into their party, but they have not managed to convert all those who were labour but remain very much pro union
And this is with Boris do not forget
Are those who make the arduous and perilous journey and are willing and able to pay thousands to criminal people smuggling gangs more worthy than those who make arduous and perilous journeys but are neither willing nor able to pay smugglers?
*not in the @Dura_Ace sense of tearing along.
Talking of which, no news of a reshuffle yet I take it.
At what point does "no news of reshuffle" become "news of no reshuffle"?
Enjoy the cycling
Congratulations and good luck
You're just as much of a flaming hypocrite as HYUFD.
Right now, many people are taking the piss and crossing the channel and then claiming asylum to get round the economic migration rules they'd othersis not qualify for.
It isn't that people fleeing France need somewhere safe to live, its that they want to live in the UK. If they want to live in the UK there's a process to follow.
We have a real life case study of what happens when you try that: Merkel said similar in 2015 and received over a million migrants in less than 18 months.
It would have been far more too, had she not then turned the tap off and done a deal with Turkey.
Breaking manifesto pledges and putting a tax on jobs? No problem!
Boris is absolute Teflon isn't he lol?
No wonder he drives lefties (and his enemies in the Tory Party) crazy. No one can touch him!
Its not like people can just walk across the border from France to the UK. The Channel is deadly and dangerous. Anyone wanting more dinghy crossings is off their rocker - at least come up with another alternative if you're not happy with the proposed solutions.
But they don't. They just want a fight with the English.
So I'm not surprised that there is support here and now. Its when people realise that its THEIR tax bill thats just gone up and BY HOW MUCH??? And then realise they still need to wait in pain for months for that operation. Ask them later how they feel.
If it is for the devolved administration to pay then that would be the system - it isn't. Or the non-SNP parties would be calling for cash to be ponied up - they aren't.
Dave called EURef. to put the issue to bed once and for all of course.
If they're mainly wanting to get into the UK then they can apply for a visa.
Brexit - leaving the EU - is settled. What we do afterwards - including a trading arrangement with the EU - is far from settled.
What we do afterwards is a new issue, its not the same issue. There will always be new issues.
Our ability to decide for ourselves, democratically, what we want to do with these new issues is part and parcel of our having taken back control. Its what you and I voted for five years ago, even if you've subsequently changed your mind.
If the Scots vote for independence then they'd put the issue of independence to bed. They'll open an entire can of worms of new issues to deal with instead.
But I always pick flat routes. Can't do the hills with my Boris look alike physique.
Did Bordeaux to Biarritz just before the pandemic. It was excellent.
One of the major political struggles of the next decade will be over what to spend the proceeds on. Which taxes will be cut? Which white elephants built?
There's suddenly a lot of money politically available to buy a lot of votes with.
Reminds me of nothing so much as the polling in the early stages of IndyRef1 in which the unionists fooled themselves (and, praise be) made their supporters complacent, by failing to eliminate the "Don't Knows" from the reporting of polling on independence.
Also "Why not Rwanda?" reminds me a little bit of stuff like "Why no Minister for MEN?" and "Why no Association of WHITE police officers?" and "Why isn't there an ENGLISH parliament?"
In most cases the sentiment being respectively expressed here is that there's too much of a damn fuss being made about wimmin and blacks and the damn Scots.
Migration map for the world.
The French MP laid it out on r4 the other day as to why economic migrants love to come to the UK, it's the complete lack of any sort of national ID scheme which makes illegal working very easy.
We need to choose as a nation, ID cards or immigrants jumping the queues.
Was great fun and they take your bags to each hotel.
Well done for self-organising I presume your panniers are the size of small cars?
With, possibly Alliance coming second and therefore providing the Deputy?
IIRC a Human Rights group took this to court (or threatened to) on the grounds that it infringed the rights of the asylum seekers to be sent to Glasgow or Edinburgh.
I remember thinking that that was a bit sharp towards our brethren in Scotland....
ID cards and vaccine passports are the road to social credit and state tyranny.
And a couple of late-middle-aged friends went round the world about ten years ago with only hand luggage. Plenty of markets sell very cheap tee shirts etc.
The combined Unionist Parties ie DUP, TUV and UUP will still win more seats combined than SF and the SDLP anyway.
On the latest poll both the UUP on 16% and TUV on 14% were ahead of the Alliance on 13% so highly unlikely now the Alliance would come second. Indeed on the last poll the Alliance, DUP and SDLP were all tied on 4th on 13%.
Then if the Unionist parties refuse to join the NI executive until the Irish Sea Border is removed effectively the NI executive will be over and London and Dublin will have to jointly agree to reimpose Westminster direct rule on NI for the foreseeable future with some input from Dublin
Anyone allowed in the country should be allowed to work while their case is heard.
P.S. If only life were as carefree as your political commentary.
Fascinating too that Ireland is still, apparently, a net exporter of people. While South Sudan is a net importer.
EDIT: Also New Zealand is a net exporter of people! All going to Australia.
As someone who has never ventured into the southern hemisphere, this baffles me. How much better than New Zealand can Australia's economic prospects be for it to justify sunburn and poisonous spiders?
- What is the intended population of the county 10, 20, 30, 50 years into the future?
- What is the plan for matching the housing and other infrastructure to that population?
- What is the difference between the intended population (and in what demographics/skills) and the population that will be present in the country already.
The root cause, is that cases take too long to come to the tribunal because the people need to be identified and have no documents. Their lawyers then convince them to keep appealing every decision that goes against them.
Reserving places and power for specific groups is a very short term option.