What sort of immigration policy is producing this nonsense? – politicalbetting.com

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

"NHS trusts ordered to hold down staffing levels to balance the books - prompting fears health service is getting back into "Mid Staffs territory" "

hsj.co.uk/finance-and-ef…

https://twitter.com/HMAnderson39/status/1650851868170686465?t=LSye9uHkd5zog2aUdw7p9A&s=19

We'll only be getting into mid-Staffs territory (under Labour, remember...) if we start ignoring when the NHS fails patients, and indeed start denigrating and smearing people who attempt to point it out.

There were two problems at Stafford: it was being terribly run, and there were attempts to cover-up the failures. One was a local issue; the other national.

(For non-regular readers; a member of my family was mistreated at Stafford hospital by callous staff.)

Cannock Chase saw the highest swing against Labour in 2010 and a further exceptional swing in 2015.

The first was due to Mid Staffs and Burnham’s blundering attempts to deal with it.

The second was due to Janos Toth’s literally insane decision to campaign on ‘Save the NHS,’ which was an absolute gift to his opponents and cost him a seat that before the election, national swing or no, looked an easy gain.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

Nigelb said:

Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.

ydoethur said:

StaffordKnot said:

ydoethur said:

JosiasJessop said:

Foxy said:

"NHS trusts ordered to hold down staffing levels to balance the books - prompting fears health service is getting back into "Mid Staffs territory" "

hsj.co.uk/finance-and-ef…

https://twitter.com/HMAnderson39/status/1650851868170686465?t=LSye9uHkd5zog2aUdw7p9A&s=19

We'll only be getting into mid-Staffs territory (under Labour, remember...) if we start ignoring when the NHS fails patients, and indeed start denigrating and smearing people who attempt to point it out.

There were two problems at Stafford: it was being terribly run, and there were attempts to cover-up the failures. One was a local issue; the other national.

(For non-regular readers; a member of my family was mistreated at Stafford hospital by callous staff.)

Cannock Chase saw the highest swing against Labour in 2010 and a further exceptional swing in 2015.

The first was due to Mid Staffs and Burnham’s blundering attempts to deal with it.

The second was due to Janos Toth’s literally insane decision to campaign on ‘Save the NHS,’ which was an absolute gift to his opponents and cost him a seat that before the election, national swing or no, looked an easy gain.

I hate to disagree with such an established poster but as the manager for the successful Cannock Chase campaign in 2010, I can categorically state that the Mid Staffs debacle was only a minor factor in that campaign. This was mainly due to secondary healthcare being split between Stafford and Wolverhampton. A much bigger healthcare issue were the plans to close/significantly downgrade Cannock Hospital which, although part of Mid Staffs, stayed mainly clear of the controversy there.

It could be argued that the pivotal moment in the 2010 campaign came when the Labour candidate decided to stand again for her County Council seat in the 2009 elections. If I recall, she went from 1st place to 5th and never really recovered.

To be fair, I didn't live here in 2010. I was told there was a lot of anger about it, and I've repeated what I was told. You say different and I'm willing to take your word for it.

I stand by what I said about 2015. That was a definite shoot yourself in both feet and I was staggered by how stupid an idea it was.

There is a certain irony about the issues around Cannock Hospital which has of course now been downgraded...

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ?
Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.

I think it started from the conclusion “Band turned away, because Brexit Bad”, and then fitted some of the facts in afterwards, omitting those that didn’t suit.

We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a story.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

Was it misleading - or just a different take to that from your favoured media ?
Again, it's a story the government would prefer doesn't get much airing; they'd rather we didn't argue about the paperwork introduced by them post Brexit at all.

I think it started from the conclusion “Band turned away, because Brexit Bad”, and then fitted some of the facts in afterwards, omitting those that didn’t suit.

We all have our biases, of course we do, and whether or not the paperwork is appropriate is a different argument, but “band turned away because they didn’t have the paperwork required” isn’t really much of a story.

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

MaxPB said:

Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

According to the band's own account, they did have (the wrong) paperwork. Note they also claim German authorities were unaware of British rules.

Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢
We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026

ETA so the Guardian is exonerated.

The bit in bold, doesn’t appear in the Guardian article at all. Which is the actual reason they were not admitted. It was removed from the band’s quote which otherwise did appear in the article.

As it happens, my personal view is that stuff like touring bands and sports teams with equipment are a real pain in the arse. It should be top of the list for the next UK/EU summit. It’s much worse for smaller bands and orchestras, who don’t have professional management and rely on volunteers.

MaxPB said:

Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed. I honestly thought her eyes would roll out of her head at one point. I did suggest that the UK/US relationship would probably have a different structure to the UK/Swiss one but her points were more that ambassadors to London are more likely to be hosting garden parties than contributing to UK foreign policy. It would be the State department in the US and foreign office here that would be in the room.

Flanner said:

MaxPB said:

Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.

It's a drama, not a documentary.

Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?

Nigelb said:

kamski said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

According to the band's own account, they did have (the wrong) paperwork. Note they also claim German authorities were unaware of British rules.

Dear friends, bad news for all people who await Trigger Cut in the United Kingdom. Today we got refused at the UK border for weird reasons. We would have needed a special certificate of sponsorship but noone knew before, not even the venues, promoters or the german customs authority. Brexit bureaucracye??? a post Brexit nightmare.😢😢😢
We are so sorry...our preparations concerning every detail of the tour were extremely good we thought. All the custom shit together and had our letters of invitation at hand. Last but not least the whole procedure at UK border was humuliating and sad. We are so so sorry but we cannot make the UK Tour happen. Brexit finally killed the cultural interaction between all of us. It was a sad experience. Take care. Hopefully see you soon. Trigger Cut
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=987352065561832&id=100028611441026

ETA so the Guardian is exonerated.

The bit in bold, doesn’t appear in the Guardian article at all. Which is the actual reason they were not admitted. It was removed from the band’s quote which otherwise did appear in the article.

As it happens, my personal view is that stuff like touring bands and sports teams with equipment are a real pain in the arse. It should be top of the list for the next UK/EU summit. It’s much worse for smaller bands and orchestras, who don’t have professional management and rely on volunteers.

But this is exactly what the Guardian article says - they were hoping to enter under the “permitted paid engagement” exemption which doesn't require Certificates of Sponsorship, and at the border they were told they need COSs, which obviously nobody had told them about. Still totally mystified as to what you think is even slightly misleading in this article.

Quibbling over details in a particular story is a bit beside the point.

As I noted upthread, these stories go largely unreported in the right of centre media. I'd be more impressed by the quibbling if anyone else were doing it better.

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently.
The requirement for the cos is a nonsense

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently.
The requirement for the cos is a nonsense

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently.
The requirement for the cos is a nonsense

I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.

MaxPB said:

Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed. I honestly thought her eyes would roll out of her head at one point. I did suggest that the UK/US relationship would probably have a different structure to the UK/Swiss one but her points were more that ambassadors to London are more likely to be hosting garden parties than contributing to UK foreign policy. It would be the State department in the US and foreign office here that would be in the room.

Phil said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently.
The requirement for the cos is a nonsense

I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.

Again, we were offered a reciprocal deal during the Brexit negotiations & the Johnson government turned the offer down, because they were an incompetent bunch of clowns who were more interested in headlines than they were in getting the best possible deal for the UK: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-visa-free-work-musicians-eu-brexit-b1784600.html

Flanner said:

MaxPB said:

Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.

It's a drama, not a documentary.

Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?

carnforth said:

Phil said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently.
The requirement for the cos is a nonsense

I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.

Again, we were offered a reciprocal deal during the Brexit negotiations & the Johnson government turned the offer down, because they were an incompetent bunch of clowns who were more interested in headlines than they were in getting the best possible deal for the UK: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-visa-free-work-musicians-eu-brexit-b1784600.html

From that article, it appears the EU offered a standard reciprocal 90 day system, and the UK said "can we have that, but 30 days instead" and the EU said no.

carnforth said:

Phil said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently.
The requirement for the cos is a nonsense

I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.

Again, we were offered a reciprocal deal during the Brexit negotiations & the Johnson government turned the offer down, because they were an incompetent bunch of clowns who were more interested in headlines than they were in getting the best possible deal for the UK: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-visa-free-work-musicians-eu-brexit-b1784600.html

From that article, it appears the EU offered a standard reciprocal 90 day system, and the UK said "can we have that, but 30 days instead" and the EU said no.

Driver said:

carnforth said:

Phil said:

Sandpit said:

Pulpstar said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

.

Sandpit said:

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

DavidL said:

So to be clear this story is that we employed the Nepalese to work at our embassy etc. in Afghanistan. Having done that they were at risk when Afghanistan collapsed so we got them out to safety but at no stage did we promise them that they could live in the UK as a reward for their service.

I totally get that we could and arguably should have made different choices but the argument that anyone who works for us anywhere in the world is entitled to come and live here (presumably with their families) if things go sideways is surely irrational. If we apply that criteria we will simply stop employing such people.

There is a stronger case to be made for Afghans who worked for us on the basis that they cannot go home but people from a third country who can? I am not seeing it as a principle although there are always hard cases when you look at the individuals.

It’s almost as if the newspaper publishing this piece, doesn’t have a long record of very carefully writing articles on this subject, and omitting key details, so as to completely change the actual situation one might assume from reading their story.

The other way of considering it is that were the media to wait until they had full information before publishing, many of these stories would not get reported at all.
Which would be very convenient for the Bravermans in government.

Nah, the Guardian has a very long record of totally misleading immigration stories, written extremely carefully so that there’s nothing factually incorrect, but often by omission completely changing the meaning of the actual events, as a lay person might understand them.

Cites ?
I'm sure there are examples, but a quick google tend to turn up stories about dishonest articles by the Mail, and stuff like this.

Statistics watchdog rebukes Sunak over inaccurate asylum backlog figures
Head of UK Statistics Authority says outstanding cases had risen, not halved as PM had claimed
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/statistics-watchdog-rebukes-rishi-sunak-inaccurate-asylum-backlog-figures

There was one discussed on here last week, about a German band who were refused admission at Calais.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/apr/10/german-punk-band-humiliated-after-being-refused-uk-entry-due-to-post-brexit-rules

You have to read the story really, *really* carefully, to understand that they turned up at the border with no immigration paperwork at all, when they were arriving for a series of paid concerts at licenced venues.

We can all argue about what immigration paperwork *should* be required of a touring band, but the story is IMHO deliberately written to be as misleading as possible.

If you read the story even more carefully, they did have paperwork but for a different scheme: PPE rather than COS. (Is PPE the most overloaded acronym?)

From the article:
“Smith, who has been in touch with the band, said they did not have the COS certificates. Instead, they planned to enter the UK under the “permitted paid engagement” (PPE) exemption, which is free.

“This allows musicians to spend up to one month touring the UK if they are invited and paid by a UK-based organisation or client. Artists must be able to show a formal invitation to attend a pre-arranged event and prove they can support themselves during the trip and can pay for their return journey.

“A COS is an alternative route into the UK, regarded as “a safer bet” but with more onerous paperwork, said Smith. It involves a promoter sponsoring the band and checking their eligibility and vouching for them during their stay in the UK, from a few days to up to 90 days.”

It says what visa exemption they intended to use, and what the requirements are for that visa exemption, but it doesn’t say that the band turned up at the border with those requirements met.

Because if they’re turned up at the border with the requirements met, they wouldn’t have been turned away, would they?

My best guess would be that the band’s management just saw ‘free’, but missed the requirements for a formal invite letter from the venue, proof of funds, and a return ticket.

Sorry but this is a terrible take, they showed up with their passports and they're clearly touring not coming here to live permanently.
The requirement for the cos is a nonsense

I agree about the COS, but the process is reciprocal. I’d be all in favour of scrapping requirements for most cultural and sporting exchanges.

Again, we were offered a reciprocal deal during the Brexit negotiations & the Johnson government turned the offer down, because they were an incompetent bunch of clowns who were more interested in headlines than they were in getting the best possible deal for the UK: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-visa-free-work-musicians-eu-brexit-b1784600.html

From that article, it appears the EU offered a standard reciprocal 90 day system, and the UK said "can we have that, but 30 days instead" and the EU said no.

Oh, but surely you can't be doubting "an EU source close to the negotiations"? I know the negotiations are in the past, but have you forgotten that the EU's position was Holy Writ?

Theuniondivvie said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I am unsure if this is a good thing or not.

It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.

Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.

Nigelb said:

Sandpit said:

Offtopic, a totally fascinating piece about Fox News, with alums Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly, discussing the departure of Tucker Carlson and the future of the channel

https://youtube.com/watch?v=Jm4La0nqiG4

First quote of note:
O’Reilly: Trump would not have been president without the Fox News channel
Beck: Agreed
O’Reilly: And now that’s gone. He doesn’t have that advantage for the upcoming election. That’s the big story here.

This is rather more interesting. Or rather, accurate.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/04/24/tucker-carlson-departure-fox-news-00093559

algarkirk said:

Flanner said:

MaxPB said:

Watched the Diplomat yesterday on Netflix. The first few episodes don't grab me, my wife, who has served in the Swiss diplomatic service in the Swiss Embassy for the UK was extremely unimpressed.

It's a drama, not a documentary.

Is "Hamlet" crap because it doesn't accurately portray political governance in medieval Denmark?

Are drama, novels or news coverage ever convincingly accurate when dealing with anything you really know quite a lot about?

That odd feeling when national news covers stories in your local area...

Scott_xP said:

Paging Nick Palmer

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I am unsure if this is a good thing or not.

It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.

Scott_xP said:

@YouGov
3m
Which of the following do you think would make the best Prime Minister?

Rishi Sunak: 26% (no change from 12-13 Apr)
Keir Starmer: 29% (+1)
Not sure: 41% (=)

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I am unsure if this is a good thing or not.

turbotubbs said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I am unsure if this is a good thing or not.

It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.

Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.

Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...

On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Good Law Project chief Jolyon Maugham, in his new fundraising pamphlet disguised as a memoir,

https://unherd.com/2023/04/is-jolyon-maugham-the-new-alan-partridge/

Will he throw a strop on twitter about this review?

It's true that he is a figure of fun who doesn't realise that he's a figure of fun.

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Good Law Project chief Jolyon Maugham, in his new fundraising pamphlet disguised as a memoir,

https://unherd.com/2023/04/is-jolyon-maugham-the-new-alan-partridge/

Will he throw a strop on twitter about this review?

It's true that he is a figure of fun who doesn't realise that he's a figure of fun.

Sandpit said:

Sean_F said:

CarlottaVance said:

Good Law Project chief Jolyon Maugham, in his new fundraising pamphlet disguised as a memoir,

https://unherd.com/2023/04/is-jolyon-maugham-the-new-alan-partridge/

Will he throw a strop on twitter about this review?

It's true that he is a figure of fun who doesn't realise that he's a figure of fun.

“ But Bringing Down Goliath is a bold title for a tale in which Goliath suffers nothing worse than the occasional stubbed toe.”

“ And so he admits what many have long suspected: the Good Law Project sees the Administrative courts as Just Stop Oil sees snooker tables — as a platform for attention-seeking.”

A great piece from Adam King.

turbotubbs said:

Northern_Al said:

turbotubbs said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I am unsure if this is a good thing or not.

It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.

Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.

Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...

On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.

Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?

Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.

However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.

Northern_Al said:

turbotubbs said:

Northern_Al said:

turbotubbs said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I am unsure if this is a good thing or not.

It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.

Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.

Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...

On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.

Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?

Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.

However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.

Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.

bigjohnowls said:

Six Months ago SKS Party had a 37 point lead according to YG

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/8w0a2xhvy8/TheTimes_VI_Results_221021_W.pdf

Today they have it at 15

SKS Fans please explain

turbotubbs said:

Northern_Al said:

turbotubbs said:

Northern_Al said:

turbotubbs said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I am unsure if this is a good thing or not.

It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.

Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.

Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...

On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.

Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?

Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.

However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.

Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.

Not what I said. There is a lot of evidence of water quality improvement over the years. There has been a specific requirement recently to monitor sewage release and this has been seized on as if the releases had just started, which is not the case.
Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?

turbotubbs said:

Northern_Al said:

turbotubbs said:

Northern_Al said:

turbotubbs said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I am unsure if this is a good thing or not.

It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.

Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.

Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...

On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.

Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?

Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.

However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.

Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.

Not what I said. There is a lot of evidence of water quality improvement over the years. There has been a specific requirement recently to monitor sewage release and this has been seized on as if the releases had just started, which is not the case.
Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?

Malmesbury said:

turbotubbs said:

Northern_Al said:

turbotubbs said:

Northern_Al said:

turbotubbs said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Driver said:

noneoftheabove said:

Nigelb said:

Not proven verdict to be scrapped in Scottish courts
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65397235

I am unsure if this is a good thing or not.

It's interesting to see the SNP bringing Scotland more in line with England.

Once we have as much raw sewage in our rivers as England, the Indy dream will be over.

Not going to happen because population differences... Rather hard to find much sewage in the Highlands...

On a serious point, how has the government allowed the narrative to form that water companies have only just started putting sewage into rivers? The situation today is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago. There is much more to be done, but the current situation is being amplified because events are being recorded.

Out of curiosity, if events have only started being recorded in recent years, how do you know that the sewage situation now is vastly improved on 20, 30 years ago?

Great question. Generally the health of our rivers is vastly better than before, albeit that's mostly anecdotal.

However I believe it is true, unless there is evidence that it's not.

Thank you. So you have no idea whether the sewage situation has improved, stayed the same, or worsened over the last 20-30 years.

Not what I said. There is a lot of evidence of water quality improvement over the years. There has been a specific requirement recently to monitor sewage release and this has been seized on as if the releases had just started, which is not the case.
Do you think rivers were cleaner in 1990?

For example, phosphate levels in the Thames have fallen to pre WWII levels from some staggering peaks in the 1960s.

bigjohnowls said:

Six Months ago SKS Party had a 37 point lead according to YG

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/8w0a2xhvy8/TheTimes_VI_Results_221021_W.pdf

Today they have it at 15

SKS Fans please explain