politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » TMay’s decision to back the Syria raid without Commons approva

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rachelkennedy84/status/985836177172418560

This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.

It is not and has never been government policy for those with indefinite leave to remain to be deported.

As successive governments have moved the obligation onto the citizen to prove their status, this has only sought to highlight those groups of people who - despite having ILR - are unable to prove it.

Quite where you think the malice lies here, the truth is that once identified firm action needs to be taken. As ever, the government is slow to realise, slow to act, and slow to grasp the extent of the problem. Plus ca change.

I found this article useful

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/985812476766904320

Stephen Bush is [unusually] overstating it: this is a one-off, but very real, problem with an older generation, given that more recent (and future) immigrants and their children will all be documented...

In the meantime, you are talking about immigrants over a period of at least four decades. This is not a small problem.

Casino_Royale said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.

I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.

But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?

I don't think any of us are.

Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.

And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.

old_labour said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rachelkennedy84/status/985836177172418560

She must have read my comments

If you ever write on here that she needs to go, she will know her time is up.

BigJora would never turn on his "khaleesi".

CD13 said:

I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.

Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.

The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual.

I went to the 1968 Grosvenor Square demo and remember the small group of fanatics there who saw their aim as to incite as much violence as possible. Only then could you distinguish the true believers from the vague sympathisers who must be eliminated in the future.

Famine conditions in Vietnam spawned the rise of the Vietminh and the inevitable then happened. A small group of fanatics gained control. It seemed the same in 1917 Russia, but I speak only as an observer with a mere scientific training - thus no knowledge of false consciousness and all the other bollocks associated with sociology, a Mickey Mouse science if ever there was one.

Here's my hypothesis. Ignore anyone with a sociology or part sociology degree - they're probably bonkers. Karl should have been patted on the head and complimented on his analysis, but quietly ignored on his solution. "It won't work, Marx junior, all you'll do is invigorate a group of loons who believe that their mythical end justifies wholesale slaughter."

Is Jezza a true believer or a harmless and well-meaning amateur playing with his plant pots?

There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.

But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.

Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning...

In what respect ?

You'd think the other side of the argument was that were right to deport them, instead of what it is, which is just a discussion about how best to rectify the problem...

Well it's a problem which has been going on for several years owing to policies administered by a long serving Home Secretary who is now PM.
It is not something which she has just discovered; there has been a deliberate blind eye turned towards the problem up until now. The new willingness to address the problem appears to be entirely down to the recent public outcry.

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.

I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.

But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?

I don't think any of us are.

Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.

And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.

I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.

old_labour said:

So, we are supposed to be having closer relations with the Commonwealth countries before Brexit and we are treating their descendants like criminals. Not good.

For those who advocate Empire 2.0 and Canzuk, some Commonwealth countries are very definitely more important than others. There seems to be a litmus test, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Given the clusterfuck and Mrs May's tin ear over the Windrush generation can any Tories really tell me they want the Maybot to contest the next general election? #NothingHasChanged

The 40% the Tories are on under May in the latest Survation would still be the second highest Tory voteshare since 1992, the highest of course being achieved by May in 2017

Casino_Royale said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.

I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.

But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?

I don't think any of us are.

Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.

And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.

I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.

What's worse is we didn't need to see it *coming*.

If people have already been deported, then we could have seen it in action and still been miles quicker than we are.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Casino_Royale said:

CD13 said:

I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.

Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.

The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual.

I went to the 1968 Grosvenor Square demo and remember the small group of fanatics there who saw their aim as to incite as much violence as possible. Only then could you distinguish the true believers from the vague sympathisers who must be eliminated in the future.

Famine conditions in Vietnam spawned the rise of the Vietminh and the inevitable then happened. A small group of fanatics gained control. It seemed the same in 1917 Russia, but I speak only as an observer with a mere scientific training - thus no knowledge of false consciousness and all the other bollocks associated with sociology, a Mickey Mouse science if ever there was one.

Here's my hypothesis. Ignore anyone with a sociology or part sociology degree - they're probably bonkers. Karl should have been patted on the head and complimented on his analysis, but quietly ignored on his solution. "It won't work, Marx junior, all you'll do is invigorate a group of loons who believe that their mythical end justifies wholesale slaughter."

Is Jezza a true believer or a harmless and well-meaning amateur playing with his plant pots?

There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.

But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.

Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.

Cambodia would have been a very different place for better or worse.

In general, if military action works, people will see the war as just. If it doesn't work, people will see it as unjust.

If the Vietnam war had turned out like the Korean war, then people would people today would see it as a just war.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

bigjohnowls said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Good Morning BJO -

Your man is taking a beating right now and it is not a good look to be against your Country.

But on an issue that is important to you, have you seen the Government announcement that it is extending a trial scheme of 23,000 to approx 300,000 whereby those with dementia, disabled and with health issues will be paid directly for them to choose and pay direct for carers of their choice, be it family or other relatives and that payments will be authorized through their doctor to ensure no abuse of the scheme. Also gym membership, holidays and general personal counselling will be available

It is being announced as handing control directly to the patient over their own care.

Interesting at the very least

Interesting detail on the Disabled payments. Thanks for the info,

TBF Mrs BJ uses her money for the Social Care Providers of her choice already and her Carer (me) also gets Carers Allowance direct from the state already.

Not sure how the proposed scheme will impact.

The Holiday thing looks interesting as a £400 short break cost us nearly £3000 last year. End up paying for two sets of Social Carers. specialist transport, accommodation etc Its an absolute ball ache.

It does seem to be a genuine attempt to give control to the patients who know their need better than most.

It's something I know a bit about, this relates specifically to people receiving NHS funded care rather than local authority social care funding. The kind of choice BJO and family can already exercise is a rarity for people with NHS funding and this brings the same sort of arrangements into that sphere.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Casino_Royale said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.

I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.

But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?

I don't think any of us are.

Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.

And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.

I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.

What's worse is we didn't need to see it *coming*.

If people have already been deported, then we could have seen it in action and still been miles quicker than we are.

I agree - if some people have been deported unjustly then I agree that’s outrageous. They should have that immediately reversed, receive a full apology and compensation.

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.

Casino_Royale said:

CD13 said:

I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.

Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.

The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual...

There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.

But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.

Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.

I think there is a degree of truth in that, although the US probably 'lost' Vietnam before the war. It is notable that under Eisenhower, the US had made some efforts to address rural poverty and disease, which might have been more successful had they not picked a leader like Diem, who was both corrupt and incompetent.
They had an opportunity to win the peace before they even got into the war.

Just as, perhaps, in Afghanistan, and Iraq, there were no real plans to win the peace after the conflicts. Which rightly led to both being judged disasters.

OK, so here's a question: who else has the right to stay in the UK but can't evidence it?

Is it possible if you were a child to come to the UK from the EU (or EEC) and be in the same position potentially?

Sean_F said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Casino_Royale said:

CD13 said:

I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.

Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.

The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual.

I went to the 1968 Grosvenor Square demo and remember the small group of fanatics there who saw their aim as to incite as much violence as possible. Only then could you distinguish the true believers from the vague sympathisers who must be eliminated in the future.

Famine conditions in Vietnam spawned the rise of the Vietminh and the inevitable then happened. A small group of fanatics gained control. It seemed the same in 1917 Russia, but I speak only as an observer with a mere scientific training - thus no knowledge of false consciousness and all the other bollocks associated with sociology, a Mickey Mouse science if ever there was one.

Here's my hypothesis. Ignore anyone with a sociology or part sociology degree - they're probably bonkers. Karl should have been patted on the head and complimented on his analysis, but quietly ignored on his solution. "It won't work, Marx junior, all you'll do is invigorate a group of loons who believe that their mythical end justifies wholesale slaughter."

Is Jezza a true believer or a harmless and well-meaning amateur playing with his plant pots?

There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.

But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.

Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.

Cambodia would have been a very different place for better or worse.

In general, if military action works, people will see the war as just. If it doesn't work, people will see it as unjust.

If the Vietnam war had turned out like the Korean war, then people would people today would see it as a just war.

Precisely so. It’s a function of success.

Casino_Royale said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.

I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.

But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?

I don't think any of us are.

My impression is that most Tories see it as an injustice which should be rectified.

Pulpstar said:

HYUFD said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/985852045826646016

A sensible move which hopefully will resolve the issue and reassure the Windrush generation

The cost to some seems to have been absolubtely massive, beyond a paperwork filing fee. The Gov't needs to recompense those swiftly and fully, or they'll have a very embarrasing court case on their hands. They probably will anyway heading forward.

Agreed

AlastairMeeks said:

old_labour said:

So, we are supposed to be having closer relations with the Commonwealth countries before Brexit and we are treating their descendants like criminals. Not good.

For those who advocate Empire 2.0 and Canzuk, some Commonwealth countries are very definitely more important than others. There seems to be a litmus test, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Crudely, those parts of the world that lie between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".

TheScreamingEagles said:

I need to get my mind out of the gutter.

https://twitter.com/begumnadiya/status/985521482662137858?s=21

My company blocks Twitter, was that the spit roasting tweet?
The replies on that were awesomely entertaining

https://ibb.co/mkgw6n

tlg86 said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Casino_Royale said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

rkrkrk said:

Casino_Royale said:

I see some ultra-Remainers and Government critics are massively overplaying their hand on the Windrush issue this morning, guaranteeing Tories who shared some real concerns on this specific issue will now quickly swing back behind Theresa May.

I don't think that will happen because I have faith that there are principled Tory backbenchers out there who will force a government u-turn regardless.

But if it did - what does it say about those Tories that they are happy to leave fellow citizens in the lurch?

I don't think any of us are.

Well apologies if I misunderstood - but what I thought you meant was that Tories who would otherwise agree that what is happening is wrong, would decide to jettison their beliefs on this matter to support Theresa May, because they don't like the people who are criticising her.

And so they would ignore the situation of their fellow citizens because it is Remainers/critics who are making the criticisms.

I think you can criticise Theresa May for being slow and tone deaf here, on a serious side-effect of her policy she failed to see coming, without thinking she's a neo-Nazi.

What's worse is we didn't need to see it *coming*.

If people have already been deported, then we could have seen it in action and still been miles quicker than we are.

Guido's not impressed...

https://order-order.com/2018/04/16/yet-another-home-office-clusterfk

Reading through that list of cockups, the 33/1 available on Rudd next out of the Cabinet is looking exceedingly good value.

" />

Good to see this apparent u turn on the windrush cases. And also so much support from PBers.

old_labour said:

" />

Took me a while to remember how to upload an image to here.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I need to get my mind out of the gutter.

https://twitter.com/begumnadiya/status/985521482662137858?s=21

My company blocks Twitter, was that the spit roasting tweet?
The replies on that were awesomely entertaining

Yup, the spit roasting tweet.

I only saw about two replies that were about cooking.
The rest were all of the 'ooh matron' type of comment.
Fair okay to them for not deleting the tweet though.

TOPPING said:

Wasn't the idea of making employers liable for ensuring the legality of their employees an issue that united 98% of the PB intelligentsia?

That's the odd thing, this has been the legal position for well over a decade - it was brought in by the last Labour government. Who can forget this case?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/sep/22/lady-scotland-illegal-immigrant-brown

So it's odd that it has come up as an issue (in relation to the 'Windrush children') only now.

TheWhiteRabbit said:

TOPPING said:

Nigelb said:

Tissue_Price said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rachelkennedy84/status/985836177172418560

This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.

It is not and has never been government policy for those with indefinite leave to remain to be deported.

As successive governments have moved the obligation onto the citizen to prove their status, this has only sought to highlight those groups of people who - despite having ILR - are unable to prove it.

Quite where you think the malice lies here, the truth is that once identified firm action needs to be taken. As ever, the government is slow to realise, slow to act, and slow to grasp the extent of the problem. Plus ca change.

I found this article useful

https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/985812476766904320

Stephen Bush is [unusually] overstating it: this is a one-off, but very real, problem with an older generation, given that more recent (and future) immigrants and their children will all be documented...

In the meantime, you are talking about immigrants over a period of at least four decades. This is not a small problem.

Wasn't the idea of making employers liable for ensuring the legality of their employees an issue that united 98% of the PB intelligentsia?

May 2004. Let's check the archives...

I daren't mention who was one of the main advocates especially as he only recently posted the PB behaviour guide.

oh...

Dura_Ace said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

OK, so here's a question: who else has the right to stay in the UK but can't evidence it?

Is it possible if you were a child to come to the UK from the EU (or EEC) and be in the same position potentially?

After this hasty capitulation immigration policy is going to get pulled apart. One set of special cases at a time.

For good reasons. Go home or face arrest will be a regarded as a dark period of our history.
Consider it another positive consequence of Brexit.

HYUFD said:

Nigelb said:

Casino_Royale said:

CD13 said:

I watched the PBS documentary on Vietnam last night and found it balanced and interesting.

Ho Chi Minh came out quite well , apart from having the usual fanatical mindset, which meant he was always going to order mass executions of people who didn't totally agree with him.

The Americans retained the tendency to do the right thing for the wrong reason or the wrong thing for the right reason and thus cocked it up as usual...

There you are, it may be barmy, but that never stopped other barmpots from taking control if they're ruthless enough. Sadly I'm not.

But, Vietnam is another example. Interventions against communist insurgencies had worked in Malaya and Korea in the 1950s and early 1960s. So the assumption was that the same could be done with, at the very least, South Vietnam.

Had it been "won" fairly swiftly on those terms, South Vietnam would have probably become another affluent Asian tiger economy by the 1980s/1990s, in stark contrast to North Vietnam, and it would have been better for Cambodia and Laos as well.

I think there is a degree of truth in that, although the US probably 'lost' Vietnam before the war. It is notable that under Eisenhower, the US had made some efforts to address rural poverty and disease, which might have been more successful had they not picked a leader like Diem, who was both corrupt and incompetent.
They had an opportunity to win the peace before they even got into the war.

Just as, perhaps, in Afghanistan, and Iraq, there were no real plans to win the peace after the conflicts. Which rightly led to both being judged disasters.

The key aims in Afghanistan ie removing the Taliban and killing Bin Laden and in Iraq in terms of removing Saddam were achieved, trying to make them into prosperous and liberal democracies was an aim too far

Taking responsibility for not allowing them to collapse into chaos ought also to have been included in those "key aims", most especially in the case of Iraq, where the case for an invasion was shaky, to say the least.

prh47bridge said:

AlastairMeeks said:

notme said:

AlastairMeeks said:

rkrkrk said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/rachelkennedy84/status/985836177172418560

This can't be palmed off as an administrative bungle. This is a policy that has been rigorously followed through on. In the post-Brexit climate, this policy is the new normal.

It is a bit amusing that the Daily Mail and the Sun are now so opposed to it.
TM must feel a bit like they are moving the goalposts on her.

In a just world this should be terminal for Theresa May. It won't be though, because fundamentally Conservatives just don't really care very much about this side of immigration administration.

Post-Brexit, the government has been explicitly proceeding on the basis that it's fine to treat people as pawns in discussions about immigration. This is the logical conclusion of such a line of thought.

So the rules have changed in the last two years?

This whole approach, including the approach to enforcement, comes from the top. The post-Brexit climate determines how rules are enforced. 3 million European citizens in the UK are being left in limbo while the government uses them as counters to play games with. This is the new normal.

No they are not. The principles have been determined - see the Joint Report issued in December. The positions in that report are the indivisible foundation on which future negotiations are based. But, if that isn't enough for you, how about the 1.2 million UK citizens in Europe who are equally in limbo while the EU uses them as counters to play games with? Or how about the 4.2 million people affected who are in limbo because the EU refused the UK's offer to reach an early agreement on this subject?

I deplore the EU's approach on this subject also. The dehumanising effect of pandering to xenophobia is apparently contagious.

This is a new normal that crosses international boundaries. Leave's xenophobic campaign was one of the dominoes that fell when that new normal was being established.

The UK could and should act unilaterally to regularise the position of EU nationals in the UK. In practice is it proposing to have Windrush2 post-Brexit? If not, it should be acting now to allay the entirely justified fears of these people who are seeing yet again this week just how appallingly the British state treats longterm residents who can be otherised.

What would be the answer to the question,The US Government,under Trump,has become a force for evil in the world? My guess is that is probably equal and could exceed.Maybe someone should ask it.

BTW notable urofiliacs include, an American serial killer known as The Boogeyman and another boogieman called Chuck Berry.
Does boogie-woogi Donald like Chuck's boogi-woogie music? Is boogie-woogi the new bunga-bunga?
must go and flll the wife's bath up so she can have a nice soak.

AlastairMeeks said:

old_labour said:

So, we are supposed to be having closer relations with the Commonwealth countries before Brexit and we are treating their descendants like criminals. Not good.

For those who advocate Empire 2.0 and Canzuk, some Commonwealth countries are very definitely more important than others. There seems to be a litmus test, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Something to do with Anglo Saxon values and the deep feelings engendered by the English countryside ain't it? #askDanHannan

Richard_Nabavi said:

13:31 Bookmaker Betway has suspended betting on the next governor of the Bank of England after a flurry of bets on Andrew Bailey. The next governor, who will succeed Mark Carney in June 2019, is expected to be announced towards the end of the year.

Bailey, the chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority had been relatively unfancied at 9/1, but the online bookie received a sudden influx of bets on him succeeding Carney and has suspended betting as a result.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2018/apr/16/european-stock-markets-oil-falls-syria-fears-fade-business-live

Betway always confused me in terms of its offering of political bets.

Those damn Israelis have carried out another false flag operation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43781351

NorthofStoke said:

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".

Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.

One problem is that the Home Office regularly don't follow their own rules.

"often financed by the taxpayer..." What proportion of immigration cases are financed by the taxpayer (if you don't count the Home Office paying their own lawyers...) ?

Nigelb said:

NorthofStoke said:

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".

Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.

Onel problem is that the Home Office regularly don't follow their own rules.

I think Amber Rudd's job is on the line. And quite right too. Totally wrong and unforgiveable

https://twitter.com/ColinYeo1/status/985856214096629760

Elliot said:

Elliot said:

Those damn Israelis have carried out another false flag operation:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43781351

Incidentally, this is the sort of thing Theresa May should be screaming from the rooftops. People say Putin doesn't care about what people say, but if that were true, why would journalists investigating these issues be being thrown from roofs? Let her ask about Russian mercenaries dying in Syria from the biggest stage she can find. Ask whether they deserve military funerals in Russia. Make it as politically painful as possible.

I wonder if this highly laudable effort will extend effectively to the Russian state...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/16/reporter-murdered-daphne-caruana-galizia-malta

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

NorthofStoke said:

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".

Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.

Onel problem is that the Home Office regularly don't follow their own rules.

I think Amber Rudd's job is on the line. And quite right too. Totally wrong and unforgiveable

Taking a bullet for Theresa...
That would be novel.

Nigelb said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Nigelb said:

NorthofStoke said:

AndyJS said:

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

That's the main problem. Sometimes you need to make exceptions based on the particular case in point, but there are a lot of fanatics out there who think the rules should always be applied rigidly to everyone because otherwise "it's not fair".

Too many lawyers hovering over every aspect of public administration, often financed by the tax payer and egged on by shrill campaigning groups. If you are a middle ranking civil servant, police officer and so on why risk your career by using your initiative? We could do with more "reasonable judgement" principle based rules.

Onel problem is that the Home Office regularly don't follow their own rules.

I think Amber Rudd's job is on the line. And quite right too. Totally wrong and unforgiveable

Taking a bullet for Theresa...
That would be novel.

I doubt if anyone's job is on the line.

TMay is incompetent simple as that.

Nigelb said:

old_labour said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.

Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!

Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.

Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.

Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.

I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.

And it was considerably easier many moons ago.
My wife applied for and achieved citizenship last year - after being resident here for over three decades - as she no longer trusted the Home Office to maintain her (already granted) permanent residence status.

Their ability to lose passports sent to them by recorded delivery is remarkable.

Scary.

old_labour said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.

Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!

Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.

Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.

Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.

I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.

Oh, indeed. She was in a very lucky position to be able to afford it. A friend of hers had been through the process, and the one bit of advice he gave her was to go with a company if she could afford it, as the process was somewhat ramshackle.

From memory, the company asked her for all the details, very precisely detailing exactly what was wanted and held her hand through the process. Then again, she had everything in order - it might have been more complex if hers had been a difficult or unusual case. It also helped that she speaks and writes English very well (better than I do, as it happens).

I wonder if Her Maj got on the blower to May with the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting starting today and told her to sort out the Windrush mess. Also, I cannot see it helping Charlie boy's chances of being head of the Commonwealth in the future.

JosiasJessop said:

old_labour said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.

Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!

Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.

Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.

Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.

I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.

Oh, indeed. She was in a very lucky position to be able to afford it. A friend of hers had been through the process, and the one bit of advice he gave her was to go with a company if she could afford it, as the process was somewhat ramshackle.

From memory, the company asked her for all the details, very precisely detailing exactly what was wanted and held her hand through the process. Then again, she had everything in order - it might have been more complex if hers had been a difficult or unusual case. It also helped that she speaks and writes English very well (better than I do, as it happens).

Having an intelligent, organised spouse is a good thing.

old_labour said:

JosiasJessop said:

old_labour said:

JosiasJessop said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Sandpit said:

Dura_Ace said:

Pulpstar said:

This whole Windrush car crash is indicitive of a Gov't system that has absolubtely no wiggle room or exception making for any sort of "individual case" whatsoever.

During the five year odyssey to get my wife's immigration status regularised I wholeheartedly and repeatedly wished the UK were more corrupt. When we lived in Russia I could just bribe someone to get anything done quickly and efficiently. In Britain it was a case of enduring a protracted nightmare of bureaucratic intransigence and incompetence for many years.

Yippee, I’ve got to look forward to this next year. It’d bloody better get sorted before then!

Good luck. They absolutely don't give a fuck and will happily lie to you all day long.

Thanks. The best advice I’ve had is to get a good lawyer and let them deal with it, I think that’s what I’ll do.

Mrs J used a specialist company when she got citizenship many moons ago. It cost a lot of money, but they knew the system inside and out and it was relatively hassle-free, if not cheap.

I am glad you and Mrs J got it sorted, but difficult to come up with the moolah if you are living from month to month or week to week and alas, there are millions of people who do not keep every official piece of paper for decades going back to when they were nippers.

Oh, indeed. She was in a very lucky position to be able to afford it. A friend of hers had been through the process, and the one bit of advice he gave her was to go with a company if she could afford it, as the process was somewhat ramshackle.

From memory, the company asked her for all the details, very precisely detailing exactly what was wanted and held her hand through the process. Then again, she had everything in order - it might have been more complex if hers had been a difficult or unusual case. It also helped that she speaks and writes English very well (better than I do, as it happens).

Having an intelligent, organised spouse is a good thing.

Do you know where she could get one?

See Abbott dropped another brick. Sky saying she has questions to answer

Also

Ant McPartlin been fined £86,000 and banned from driving for 20 months