Younger people would be able to outrun older people, should a Jurassic Park-style dinosaur chase ensue, so the old take a less favourable view of dinosaurs.
You don't have to run faster than the monster; you just have to run faster than the other person being chased.
On the same basis, I expect older people also have a less favourable view of Jason Vorhees, Leatherface and Xenomorphs.
You seen some of the young losers about , I would not only outrun the duffers , I would slowed down let them pass and then have tripped them up no problem just to be double sure.
English literacy test results from 2014 suggest that 21% of U.S. adults ages 16 to 65 score at or below PIAAC literacy level 1, meaning they have difficulty "[completing] tasks that require comparing and contrasting information, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences." Included in that 21% is the 4.2% of respondents who were unable to be assessed due to language barriers, cognitive disability, or physical disability.[1]
That's actually very interesting. It appears that people start off liking dinosaurs and then go off them as they get older. I'm at a loss to explain why that might be. Perhaps the novelty just wears off?
Alternatively old people never liked them in the first place. Potentially Jurassic Park etc might be a factor.
Dinosaurs were taught in school, though, so that can't be the answer. I think it's more that fascination comes with discovery, as you discover things they fascinate you, then as time goes by the fascination wanes and makes way for other stuff you are discovering. If this didn't happen you'd end up being fascinated by too many different things.
Paul's going to beat Tyson isn't he? Anyone disagree?
I don't know, has he ever fought a real boxer before?
Even with the handicap of Tyson being retired nearly 2 decades (and past his prime by the time he retired) I'd still expect him to be the better of the two.
I'd respect a retired Tyson more than Paul.
According to Larry Holmes:
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
I used to adore dinosaurs. Knew all the names. Still quite a fan.
There was a heron in the garden today, pacing around the fishpond menacingly and testing the netting for any weak spots. It was very Jurassic Park velociraptor-like.
Frankly the argument Labour should be making is that the backlog is so long that we can't deport people who are not legitimate refugees quickly enough.
But the solution is not to make genuine refugees suffer in response. Politically it might win some votes - long term though it is a disastrous policy.
Does anyone have more detail on the care worker given a nine month prison sentence for calling asylum seekers tramps? Seems rather excessive on its own.
Off topic, but relevant given discussion on immigration earlier today. I can understand a fear of net migration figures in the hundreds of thousands, but what I find worthy of contempt is when this discussion is divorced from any real understanding of why people are migrating. Today's 'The Take's from Al Jazeera discusses the experiences of women in Sudan: https://pca.st/episode/7874d751-b1e2-4a45-888b-7d8f3f60f9fb.
To summarise, with apologies for the language: women are being raped at such scale by the RSF that suicide statistics are on the rise as women choose to take their own lives rather than fall into the hands of RSF fighters. Is it any surprise that people want to migrate away from this?
Of course a reasonable response is that sexual violence is such an incredibly common historical fact that it is the modern western world that is unusual for its relative safety for women. That may be true, but I find it grossly unjustifiable to argue that this relative safety should be open only to those who happen to be born in the right part of the world.
This isn't really an argument for migration - I think it is a really poor solution for everyone concerned - but those who simultaneously argue against migration and against development support for places like Sudan are criminals, in my view.
Time to bomb them back to 2nd century
Back? That would be a leap forward of about five millennia for the RSF.
Oh God, PB’s going to get spammed senseless again about Starmer having booze again isn’t it?
BigG. has finally found his "gotcha"!
Will you stop picking on Big G. He is entitled to post what he likes, just as you are 😠
I’ve got a genuine question for you Big G, as you seem to be slipping back into the Conservative fold. The next General Election is definitely being held on May 3rd 2029 - which seems a whole universe away. According to every forecast for world and UK growth, there will be no significant growth anywhere for at least 6 or 7 years. And according to head of Bank of England yesterday, UK will be additionally poorer thanks to Brexit. So nothing for Labour to work with to say voters are better off in five years, compared to July 2024, so a huge gift to the Tories, a great background for Badenoch and Stride to be campaigning in, in 2029 looks very likely - very similar to what helped Trump to power this year, the Conservatives will ask, are you better off than 5 years ago? And the voters answer will be: no!
However, the question is this, does your vote in such a situation depend on what the Conservative economic policies actually are? if the Conservative position is it’s nowt but Labour that has made voters poorer in the five years since 2024, because Labour has not embraced the wonderful freedoms of Brexit - the Conservative Manifesto in 2029 is to fully embrace those opportunities of Brexit, go full Singapore on Thames to make Britons rich again, would you vote Conservative? Would you vote for that economic policy agenda?
Thank you for your support and would concur the pile on from the usual suspects is nothing more than an attempt to close down anything that may be critical of Starmer and is consistent with the left attitude
I think it is becoming apparent every day that Labour were elected on a false manifesto and promises, and they have reverted to type being pro public sector and unions at the expense of the private sector that actually provides the tax receipts for this largesse
I will vote conservative at the next GE to return to pro business, small state politics but 5 years us a long time away for me and as has been seen before I have voted for a Blair government but that is not what Starmer and Reeves represent
What if the Conservative economic position put Labours economic failure and lack of growth down to not taking Brexit freedoms and opportunities, the Conservative economic plan and manifesto is around making Brexit work, full fat Singapore on Thames - you can still see yourself giving your vote to that sort of economic policy plan?
Such a scenario as this is very very likely where we are going to be, Spring 2029 - Labour government failed economically, no one feels better off. But Conservatives will still have to explain why - what Labour done wrong, what they will now do differently.
And if that plan is to make us all richer by properly exploiting opportunities from Brexit at last, you could vote for that?
Yes
I do have a problem with how you answered. It flashlights upon just how Brexit isn’t in the past, the real Brexit problem is in our future.
The Conservatives are going to come to argue, up to and during the next election, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real economic issue that has left the country not feeling better off has been the Labour government, and exploiting the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit is what will make us rich again.
A lot a people won’t see any issue at all with that argument. So it’s a vote winner. Yes, it can even win the Conservatives the next General Election. But it’s also repackaging and reselling the same old snake oil as before - it’s pressing the Brexit button all over again.
if, as very likely, this is the actual politics before us in 2029, the Conservative Party message would be fundamentally wrong - five years of Labour hadn’t made us economically poorer and held UK growth back, if Brexit has. And policy pathway the Conservatives proposing to follow to put Britain back upon the right path, grasp the nettle and exploit those Brexit freedoms and Opportunities, would make UK a worse, not better place to live.
PS - thanks for taking the time to answer the question. 👍🏻
PPS you have correctly called Partygate and Diwaligate as being one and exactly the same thing btw. 👍🏻
I am sure nobody finds the idea of having Ukranian refugees controversial, assuming they arrived on a boat somehow and we processed them quickly, they should be allowed to stay in the UK, no? Not deported to Rwanda or elsewhere.
How is that different to people fleeing the Taliban?
Frankly the argument Labour should be making is that the backlog is so long that we can't deport people who are not legitimate refugees quickly enough.
But the solution is not to make genuine refugees suffer in response. Politically it might win some votes - long term though it is a disastrous policy.
The worm has turned against illegal immigration across the west. Labour would get absolutely hammered if they had any kind of amnesty policy.
I am sure nobody finds the idea of having Ukranian refugees controversial, assuming they arrived on a boat somehow and we processed them quickly, they should be allowed to stay in the UK, no? Not deported to Rwanda or elsewhere.
How is that different to people fleeing the Taliban?
Why does it matter if it's different or not? We should have a right to decide who we take and how many.
Does anyone have more detail on the care worker given a nine month prison sentence for calling asylum seekers tramps? Seems rather excessive on its own.
Given what has turned out to be the context, in other such cases… he probably was jailed for 9 months for doing a whole bunch of other nasty stuff. Saying rude things was probably mentioned at the trial.
I used to adore dinosaurs. Knew all the names. Still quite a fan.
There was a heron in the garden today, pacing around the fishpond menacingly and testing the netting for any weak spots. It was very Jurassic Park velociraptor-like.
They never take someone else's turf, so if you don't want herons, put a fake heron up. At least so I hear. Probably on PB, so you may already know.
Frankly the argument Labour should be making is that the backlog is so long that we can't deport people who are not legitimate refugees quickly enough.
But the solution is not to make genuine refugees suffer in response. Politically it might win some votes - long term though it is a disastrous policy.
The worm has turned against illegal immigration across the west. Labour would get absolutely hammered if they had any kind of amnesty policy.
I am not advocating an amnesty, that's not what I said at all.
If you are a legitimate refugee coming into this country, do you honestly think they shouldn't be allowed to be here?
As I said above, the issue is that the fake ones we can't process quickly enough because the backlog is so long. We need to cut the backlog and kick out the ones that shouldn't be here.
Paul's going to beat Tyson isn't he? Anyone disagree?
I don't know, has he ever fought a real boxer before?
Even with the handicap of Tyson being retired nearly 2 decades (and past his prime by the time he retired) I'd still expect him to be the better of the two.
I'd respect a retired Tyson more than Paul.
According to Larry Holmes:
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
The general train of thought is that if Paul can outmanoeuvre Tyson in the early rounds then Iron Mike will tire and the younger man will either claim a stoppage or points win. However, that presumes a level of skill and ringcraft we’ve not yet seen from Paul and backing an early finish in Texas looks the best play.
Tyson will know his best chance is to get the job done early. The man once known as the 'Baddest Man on the Planet' has looked sharp during media workouts but it has also been evident that his fitness, understandably, isn’t what it once was.
Conversely, Paul does possess the stamina to go the full distance, albeit that has never previously been his strategy – seven of his ten wins have been via stoppage – and he is unlikely to make big changes now, so there is every chance the main event could be done and dusted by the fourth or fifth round and backing there to be fewer than six looks a solid starting point.
If Paul can avoid being knocked out he is the likelier victor but there is little appeal in backing him at odds-on, especially given that bookmakers go a much juicier 13-8 about Tyson recording at least one knockdown.
I am sure nobody finds the idea of having Ukranian refugees controversial, assuming they arrived on a boat somehow and we processed them quickly, they should be allowed to stay in the UK, no? Not deported to Rwanda or elsewhere.
How is that different to people fleeing the Taliban?
Why does it matter if it's different or not? We should have a right to decide who we take and how many.
It matters because there's no logical reason to have refugees from Afghanistan anymore than Ukraine, unless you know differently?
If they aren't legitimate it doesn't matter where they are from, deport those people.
Paul's going to beat Tyson isn't he? Anyone disagree?
I don't know, has he ever fought a real boxer before?
Even with the handicap of Tyson being retired nearly 2 decades (and past his prime by the time he retired) I'd still expect him to be the better of the two.
I'd respect a retired Tyson more than Paul.
According to Larry Holmes:
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
Oh God, PB’s going to get spammed senseless again about Starmer having booze again isn’t it?
BigG. has finally found his "gotcha"!
Will you stop picking on Big G. He is entitled to post what he likes, just as you are 😠
I’ve got a genuine question for you Big G, as you seem to be slipping back into the Conservative fold. The next General Election is definitely being held on May 3rd 2029 - which seems a whole universe away. According to every forecast for world and UK growth, there will be no significant growth anywhere for at least 6 or 7 years. And according to head of Bank of England yesterday, UK will be additionally poorer thanks to Brexit. So nothing for Labour to work with to say voters are better off in five years, compared to July 2024, so a huge gift to the Tories, a great background for Badenoch and Stride to be campaigning in, in 2029 looks very likely - very similar to what helped Trump to power this year, the Conservatives will ask, are you better off than 5 years ago? And the voters answer will be: no!
However, the question is this, does your vote in such a situation depend on what the Conservative economic policies actually are? if the Conservative position is it’s nowt but Labour that has made voters poorer in the five years since 2024, because Labour has not embraced the wonderful freedoms of Brexit - the Conservative Manifesto in 2029 is to fully embrace those opportunities of Brexit, go full Singapore on Thames to make Britons rich again, would you vote Conservative? Would you vote for that economic policy agenda?
Thank you for your support and would concur the pile on from the usual suspects is nothing more than an attempt to close down anything that may be critical of Starmer and is consistent with the left attitude
I think it is becoming apparent every day that Labour were elected on a false manifesto and promises, and they have reverted to type being pro public sector and unions at the expense of the private sector that actually provides the tax receipts for this largesse
I will vote conservative at the next GE to return to pro business, small state politics but 5 years us a long time away for me and as has been seen before I have voted for a Blair government but that is not what Starmer and Reeves represent
What if the Conservative economic position put Labours economic failure and lack of growth down to not taking Brexit freedoms and opportunities, the Conservative economic plan and manifesto is around making Brexit work, full fat Singapore on Thames - you can still see yourself giving your vote to that sort of economic policy plan?
Such a scenario as this is very very likely where we are going to be, Spring 2029 - Labour government failed economically, no one feels better off. But Conservatives will still have to explain why - what Labour done wrong, what they will now do differently.
And if that plan is to make us all richer by properly exploiting opportunities from Brexit at last, you could vote for that?
Yes
I do have a problem with how you answered. It flashlights upon just how Brexit isn’t in the past, the real Brexit problem is in our future.
The Conservatives are going to come to argue, up to and during the next election, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real economic issue that has left the country not feeling better off has been the Labour government, and exploiting the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit is what will make us rich again.
A lot a people won’t see any issue at all with that argument. So it’s a vote winner. Yes, it can even win the Conservatives the next General Election. But it’s also repackaging and reselling the same old snake oil as before - it’s pressing the Brexit button all over again.
if, as very likely, this is the actual politics before us in 2029, the Conservative Party message would be fundamentally wrong - five years of Labour hadn’t made us economically poorer and held UK growth back, if Brexit has. And policy pathway the Conservatives proposing to follow to put Britain back upon the right path, grasp the nettle and exploit those Brexit freedoms and Opportunities, would make UK a worse, not better place to live.
PS - thanks for taking the time to answer the question. 👍🏻
PPS you have correctly called Partygate and Diwaligate as being one and exactly the same thing btw. 👍🏻
Needles to say I disagree with just about everything you have written there.
We are all, pace @kjh , overlooking the important question:
Were they animals or do they count as birds?
Birds are in fact dinosaurs.
Maybe the ones you’re dating at your age. 😘
Reptiles as a group includes the birds, because the latter are descended from dinosaurs (which were reptiles). The closest living relatives of the birds are in fact the crocodiles.
Does anyone have more detail on the care worker given a nine month prison sentence for calling asylum seekers tramps? Seems rather excessive on its own.
Given what has turned out to be the context, in other such cases… he probably was jailed for 9 months for doing a whole bunch of other nasty stuff. Saying rude things was probably mentioned at the trial.
Paul's going to beat Tyson isn't he? Anyone disagree?
I don't know, has he ever fought a real boxer before?
Even with the handicap of Tyson being retired nearly 2 decades (and past his prime by the time he retired) I'd still expect him to be the better of the two.
I'd respect a retired Tyson more than Paul.
According to Larry Holmes:
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
Paul is a not bad pre-amateur white collar type boxer (don't forget Fabio Wardley was a white collar boxer).
When I was white collar boxing training with professional boxers they were literally in a different league. Their power came from many hours a day training over many years and dedication to the sport that only a professional has the time and inclination for.
Tyson is not only a professional boxer but one of, if not the best professional boxer of all time.
Of course he is old but his muscle memory is just a world away from Paul's.
I used to adore dinosaurs. Knew all the names. Still quite a fan.
There was a heron in the garden today, pacing around the fishpond menacingly and testing the netting for any weak spots. It was very Jurassic Park velociraptor-like.
They never take someone else's turf, so if you don't want herons, put a fake heron up. At least so I hear. Probably on PB, so you may already know.
I might suggest that to the children.
I’ve never found a bird so obviously filled with murderous intent. Just visible to the right of the pond.
Now off to my “surprise” dinner as it’s my birthday. No Nyetimber as it’s a Georgian restaurant.
I am sure nobody finds the idea of having Ukranian refugees controversial, assuming they arrived on a boat somehow and we processed them quickly, they should be allowed to stay in the UK, no? Not deported to Rwanda or elsewhere.
How is that different to people fleeing the Taliban?
Why does it matter if it's different or not? We should have a right to decide who we take and how many.
It matters because there's no logical reason to have refugees from Afghanistan anymore than Ukraine, unless you know differently?
If they aren't legitimate it doesn't matter where they are from, deport those people.
There doesn't need to be a logical reason. We should have the right to decide what our policy is.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because people fleeing France in dinghies leads to drownings in the Channel.
Stopping boat crossings saves lives.
We should be taking refugees from camps not whoever survives a boat crossing.
But it is whether they are a refugee or not, so why does it matter how they got here? If they are legitimate they should be allowed in, doesn't matter if they're from a camp.
It's the ones that aren't legitimate that need to be removed.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because if you're fleeing persecution, you're glad of safety, a warm bed and the essentials of life.
I am someone who agrees with you that Rwanda should have been a processing centre not a final destination, but I don't think it's indefensible morally.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because if you're fleeing persecution, you're glad of safety, a warm bed and the essentials of life.
I am someone who agrees with you that Rwanda should have been a processing centre not a final destination, but I don't think it's indefensible morally.
If they'd made it a processing centre, I would have no issue with that and so I expect would anyone else. Why they didn't do that is anyone's guess.
Paul's going to beat Tyson isn't he? Anyone disagree?
I don't know, has he ever fought a real boxer before?
Even with the handicap of Tyson being retired nearly 2 decades (and past his prime by the time he retired) I'd still expect him to be the better of the two.
I'd respect a retired Tyson more than Paul.
According to Larry Holmes:
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
Paul is a not bad pre-amateur white collar type boxer (don't forget Fabio Wardley was a white collar boxer).
When I was white collar boxing training with professional boxers they were literally in a different league. Their power came from many hours a day training over many years and dedication to the sport that only a professional has the time and inclination for.
Tyson is not only a professional boxer but one of, if not the best professional boxer of all time.
Of course he is old but his muscle memory is just a world away from Paul's.
If it is a true fight Tyson will destroy him.
May I present Exhibit A, Evander Holyfield vs. Victor Belfort to the court....
Slightly bizarre day on PB when it's dinosaurs that are the set topic and boat people are what some folk have drifted off to in the Friday pre-prandial chat ...
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because if you're fleeing persecution, you're glad of safety, a warm bed and the essentials of life.
I am someone who agrees with you that Rwanda should have been a processing centre not a final destination, but I don't think it's indefensible morally.
If they'd made it a processing centre, I would have no issue with that and so I expect would anyone else. Why they didn't do that is anyone's guess.
I am not sure nobody would have objected, but I very much agree.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because if you're fleeing persecution, you're glad of safety, a warm bed and the essentials of life.
I am someone who agrees with you that Rwanda should have been a processing centre not a final destination, but I don't think it's indefensible morally.
If they'd made it a processing centre, I would have no issue with that and so I expect would anyone else. Why they didn't do that is anyone's guess.
It’s barmy why Starmer didn’t just make that small tweak to the policy. Everything was in place with Rwanda to do it, but he just scrapped the whole thing.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because people fleeing France in dinghies leads to drownings in the Channel.
Stopping boat crossings saves lives.
We should be taking refugees from camps not whoever survives a boat crossing.
But it is whether they are a refugee or not, so why does it matter how they got here? If they are legitimate they should be allowed in, doesn't matter if they're from a camp.
It's the ones that aren't legitimate that need to be removed.
It matters because allowing in those who make the boat crossing encourages others to do the same which means inevitably more deaths in the Channel.
Why are those who risk their and other's lives in the Channel more deserving of being here than those who have gone to a camp and done the right thing?
I would support a 1:1 exchange policy. Absolutely nobody who crosses by the Channel is permitted to remain in the country whether they are a legitimate refugee or not instead they will be exchanged with a legitimate refugee who needs refuge who is flown here safely and without risking anyone's life or encouraging others to do so either.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because if you're fleeing persecution, you're glad of safety, a warm bed and the essentials of life.
I am someone who agrees with you that Rwanda should have been a processing centre not a final destination, but I don't think it's indefensible morally.
If they'd made it a processing centre, I would have no issue with that and so I expect would anyone else. Why they didn't do that is anyone's guess.
If it was a processing centre then it would still encourage people to make the dangerous crossing and more people would still drown in the Channel.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because if you're fleeing persecution, you're glad of safety, a warm bed and the essentials of life.
I am someone who agrees with you that Rwanda should have been a processing centre not a final destination, but I don't think it's indefensible morally.
If they'd made it a processing centre, I would have no issue with that and so I expect would anyone else. Why they didn't do that is anyone's guess.
I am not sure nobody would have objected, but I very much agree.
Okay the majority I am confident would not have objected.
I am probably - although I suspect not as much as people think - more naturally liberal on migration but I would have no issue with that so I am confident in saying the vast majority would be okay with it.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because people fleeing France in dinghies leads to drownings in the Channel.
Stopping boat crossings saves lives.
We should be taking refugees from camps not whoever survives a boat crossing.
But it is whether they are a refugee or not, so why does it matter how they got here? If they are legitimate they should be allowed in, doesn't matter if they're from a camp.
It's the ones that aren't legitimate that need to be removed.
It matters because allowing in those who make the boat crossing encourages others to do the same which means inevitably more deaths in the Channel.
Why are those who risk their and other's lives in the Channel more deserving of being here than those who have gone to a camp and done the right thing?
I would support a 1:1 exchange policy. Absolutely nobody who crosses by the Channel is permitted to remain in the country whether they are a legitimate refugee or not instead they will be exchanged with a legitimate refugee who needs refuge who is flown here safely and without risking anyone's life or encouraging others to do so either.
In your scenario, where are the legitimate refugees supposed to go then?
As I said, if somebody crosses the channel and has a case for asylum, they are a legitimate refugee.
I'm not opposed to your idea in theory but I don't see how it's workable. It would only work for those that aren't legitimate. As I said, those people should be deported anyway.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The UK accepts many refugees annually. There are many routes to claim refuge in the UK, not just boat in the Channel.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because people fleeing France in dinghies leads to drownings in the Channel.
Stopping boat crossings saves lives.
We should be taking refugees from camps not whoever survives a boat crossing.
But it is whether they are a refugee or not, so why does it matter how they got here? If they are legitimate they should be allowed in, doesn't matter if they're from a camp.
It's the ones that aren't legitimate that need to be removed.
It matters because allowing in those who make the boat crossing encourages others to do the same which means inevitably more deaths in the Channel.
Why are those who risk their and other's lives in the Channel more deserving of being here than those who have gone to a camp and done the right thing?
I would support a 1:1 exchange policy. Absolutely nobody who crosses by the Channel is permitted to remain in the country whether they are a legitimate refugee or not instead they will be exchanged with a legitimate refugee who needs refuge who is flown here safely and without risking anyone's life or encouraging others to do so either.
In your scenario, where are the legitimate refugees supposed to go then?
As I said, if somebody crosses the channel and has a case for asylum, they are a legitimate refugee.
I'm not opposed to your idea in theory but I don't see how it's workable. It would only work for those that aren't legitimate. As I said, those people should be deported anyway.
The camps we take people from already, that is where they should go.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because if you're fleeing persecution, you're glad of safety, a warm bed and the essentials of life.
I am someone who agrees with you that Rwanda should have been a processing centre not a final destination, but I don't think it's indefensible morally.
If they'd made it a processing centre, I would have no issue with that and so I expect would anyone else. Why they didn't do that is anyone's guess.
If it was a processing centre then it would still encourage people to make the dangerous crossing and more people would still drown in the Channel.
Alot less, because they wouldn't be processed in the UK for months and therefore have the chance to abscond. And their chance of Rwanda would be 100%.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The UK accepts many refugees annually. There are many routes to claim refuge in the UK, not just boat in the Channel.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
There is no route for somebody from Afghanistan to claim asylum here that isn't by boat.
Completely OT... even though the 'T' is one of my favourites on PB in many a year.
I managed to get my son's lava lamp working today. We had had trouble getting hold of the filament bulbs you need to generate the heat to make it work but finally tracked down a company selling them.
Once we had it working my son told me about an online security company that generates effectively unbreakable encryption using lava lamps. The company - Cloudflare - generates encryption keys by using 100 lava lamps which are photographed at regular intervals and the photos converted into digits. As the lava lamps are ever changing in a non predictable way, the digtal data is randomised and so forms the perfect base for encryption keys.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
You can make an argument for or against Ukraine being different. But I would defend any government's right to make a different policy decision for refugees from different countries. Assuming that blanket rules can be made to all individuals just does not work in reality.
Paul's going to beat Tyson isn't he? Anyone disagree?
I don't know, has he ever fought a real boxer before?
Even with the handicap of Tyson being retired nearly 2 decades (and past his prime by the time he retired) I'd still expect him to be the better of the two.
I'd respect a retired Tyson more than Paul.
According to Larry Holmes:
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
Paul is a not bad pre-amateur white collar type boxer (don't forget Fabio Wardley was a white collar boxer).
When I was white collar boxing training with professional boxers they were literally in a different league. Their power came from many hours a day training over many years and dedication to the sport that only a professional has the time and inclination for.
Tyson is not only a professional boxer but one of, if not the best professional boxer of all time.
Of course he is old but his muscle memory is just a world away from Paul's.
If it is a true fight Tyson will destroy him.
May I present Exhibit A, Evander Holyfield vs. Victor Belfort to the court....
Belfort is/was a world away from Paul. As is/was Tyron Woodley from Mike Tyson.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because people fleeing France in dinghies leads to drownings in the Channel.
Stopping boat crossings saves lives.
We should be taking refugees from camps not whoever survives a boat crossing.
But it is whether they are a refugee or not, so why does it matter how they got here? If they are legitimate they should be allowed in, doesn't matter if they're from a camp.
It's the ones that aren't legitimate that need to be removed.
It matters because allowing in those who make the boat crossing encourages others to do the same which means inevitably more deaths in the Channel.
Why are those who risk their and other's lives in the Channel more deserving of being here than those who have gone to a camp and done the right thing?
I would support a 1:1 exchange policy. Absolutely nobody who crosses by the Channel is permitted to remain in the country whether they are a legitimate refugee or not instead they will be exchanged with a legitimate refugee who needs refuge who is flown here safely and without risking anyone's life or encouraging others to do so either.
In your scenario, where are the legitimate refugees supposed to go then?
As I said, if somebody crosses the channel and has a case for asylum, they are a legitimate refugee.
I'm not opposed to your idea in theory but I don't see how it's workable. It would only work for those that aren't legitimate. As I said, those people should be deported anyway.
There is an entire planet available. It takes a special kind of exceptionalism to think that Britain is uniquely hospitable and not allowing someone to live here is a cruel punishment.
Oh God, PB’s going to get spammed senseless again about Starmer having booze again isn’t it?
BigG. has finally found his "gotcha"!
Will you stop picking on Big G. He is entitled to post what he likes, just as you are 😠
I’ve got a genuine question for you Big G, as you seem to be slipping back into the Conservative fold. The next General Election is definitely being held on May 3rd 2029 - which seems a whole universe away. According to every forecast for world and UK growth, there will be no significant growth anywhere for at least 6 or 7 years. And according to head of Bank of England yesterday, UK will be additionally poorer thanks to Brexit. So nothing for Labour to work with to say voters are better off in five years, compared to July 2024, so a huge gift to the Tories, a great background for Badenoch and Stride to be campaigning in, in 2029 looks very likely - very similar to what helped Trump to power this year, the Conservatives will ask, are you better off than 5 years ago? And the voters answer will be: no!
However, the question is this, does your vote in such a situation depend on what the Conservative economic policies actually are? if the Conservative position is it’s nowt but Labour that has made voters poorer in the five years since 2024, because Labour has not embraced the wonderful freedoms of Brexit - the Conservative Manifesto in 2029 is to fully embrace those opportunities of Brexit, go full Singapore on Thames to make Britons rich again, would you vote Conservative? Would you vote for that economic policy agenda?
Thank you for your support and would concur the pile on from the usual suspects is nothing more than an attempt to close down anything that may be critical of Starmer and is consistent with the left attitude
I think it is becoming apparent every day that Labour were elected on a false manifesto and promises, and they have reverted to type being pro public sector and unions at the expense of the private sector that actually provides the tax receipts for this largesse
I will vote conservative at the next GE to return to pro business, small state politics but 5 years us a long time away for me and as has been seen before I have voted for a Blair government but that is not what Starmer and Reeves represent
What if the Conservative economic position put Labours economic failure and lack of growth down to not taking Brexit freedoms and opportunities, the Conservative economic plan and manifesto is around making Brexit work, full fat Singapore on Thames - you can still see yourself giving your vote to that sort of economic policy plan?
Such a scenario as this is very very likely where we are going to be, Spring 2029 - Labour government failed economically, no one feels better off. But Conservatives will still have to explain why - what Labour done wrong, what they will now do differently.
And if that plan is to make us all richer by properly exploiting opportunities from Brexit at last, you could vote for that?
Yes
I do have a problem with how you answered. It flashlights upon just how Brexit isn’t in the past, the real Brexit problem is in our future.
The Conservatives are going to come to argue, up to and during the next election, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real economic issue that has left the country not feeling better off has been the Labour government, and exploiting the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit is what will make us rich again.
A lot a people won’t see any issue at all with that argument. So it’s a vote winner. Yes, it can even win the Conservatives the next General Election. But it’s also repackaging and reselling the same old snake oil as before - it’s pressing the Brexit button all over again.
if, as very likely, this is the actual politics before us in 2029, the Conservative Party message would be fundamentally wrong - five years of Labour hadn’t made us economically poorer and held UK growth back, if Brexit has. And policy pathway the Conservatives proposing to follow to put Britain back upon the right path, grasp the nettle and exploit those Brexit freedoms and Opportunities, would make UK a worse, not better place to live.
PS - thanks for taking the time to answer the question. 👍🏻
PPS you have correctly called Partygate and Diwaligate as being one and exactly the same thing btw. 👍🏻
Actually I have been consistent in arguing for a closer relationship with the EU, and Brexit has had its failures, but whilst I would agree to joining the single market, I am very opposed to rejoining the EU even though I voted remain, as that ship has sailed
Under new rules, any overseas player who has previously played in the IPL but is not in this auction will not be able to play in 2025 or 2026, ruling out Archer, Wood, Root and England Test captain Ben Stokes
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The UK accepts many refugees annually. There are many routes to claim refuge in the UK, not just boat in the Channel.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
There is no route for somebody from Afghanistan to claim asylum here.
I think there should be, do you not?
There are routes.
Tens of thousands of Afghans have had legal asylum claims to the UK and got here legally without jeopardising anyone's life on a dinghy in the Channel.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Because people fleeing France in dinghies leads to drownings in the Channel.
Stopping boat crossings saves lives.
We should be taking refugees from camps not whoever survives a boat crossing.
But it is whether they are a refugee or not, so why does it matter how they got here? If they are legitimate they should be allowed in, doesn't matter if they're from a camp.
It's the ones that aren't legitimate that need to be removed.
It matters because allowing in those who make the boat crossing encourages others to do the same which means inevitably more deaths in the Channel.
Why are those who risk their and other's lives in the Channel more deserving of being here than those who have gone to a camp and done the right thing?
I would support a 1:1 exchange policy. Absolutely nobody who crosses by the Channel is permitted to remain in the country whether they are a legitimate refugee or not instead they will be exchanged with a legitimate refugee who needs refuge who is flown here safely and without risking anyone's life or encouraging others to do so either.
In your scenario, where are the legitimate refugees supposed to go then?
As I said, if somebody crosses the channel and has a case for asylum, they are a legitimate refugee.
I'm not opposed to your idea in theory but I don't see how it's workable. It would only work for those that aren't legitimate. As I said, those people should be deported anyway.
There is an entire planet available. It takes a special kind of exceptionalism to think that Britain is uniquely hospitable and not allowing someone to live here is a cruel punishment.
I didn't say they couldn't go elsewhere, just that if they arrive on a boat here and are a legitimate refugee, I do not see why you think they shouldn't be allowed to stay.
Alternatively, have legal routes for them to come here. I'd be fine with that.
But I think you just don't want refugees to come here at all - which is a legitimate point of view to hold but not something I agree with myself.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The UK accepts many refugees annually. There are many routes to claim refuge in the UK, not just boat in the Channel.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
There is no route for somebody from Afghanistan to claim asylum here.
I think there should be, do you not?
There are routes.
Tens of thousands of Afghans have had legal asylum claims to the UK and got here legally without jeopardising anyone's life on a dinghy in the Channel.
There aren't any safe and legal routes for Afghanistan, this was talked about at length. If you wanted to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan, there is no way to do it.
Paul's going to beat Tyson isn't he? Anyone disagree?
I don't know, has he ever fought a real boxer before?
Even with the handicap of Tyson being retired nearly 2 decades (and past his prime by the time he retired) I'd still expect him to be the better of the two.
I'd respect a retired Tyson more than Paul.
According to Larry Holmes:
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
Paul is a not bad pre-amateur white collar type boxer (don't forget Fabio Wardley was a white collar boxer).
When I was white collar boxing training with professional boxers they were literally in a different league. Their power came from many hours a day training over many years and dedication to the sport that only a professional has the time and inclination for.
Tyson is not only a professional boxer but one of, if not the best professional boxer of all time.
Of course he is old but his muscle memory is just a world away from Paul's.
If it is a true fight Tyson will destroy him.
May I present Exhibit A, Evander Holyfield vs. Victor Belfort to the court....
Belfort is/was a world away from Paul. As is/was Tyron Woodley from Mike Tyson.
I don't know, I reckon Paul has done loads more PEDs than Belfort.....
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
Britain isn't the only part of the world that's fit for humans. Not allowing someone to live here is not wicked.
The UK takes about 1% of refugees globally and we are about 1% of the worlds population. Being rich vs a small place roughly net off. We take about our fair share, you make it sound like we take nearly all the burden, rather than an average and boringly typical share.
Completely OT... even though the 'T' is one of my favourites on PB in many a year.
I managed to get my son's lava lamp working today. We had had trouble getting hold of the filament bulbs you need to generate the heat to make it work but finally tracked down a company selling them.
Once we had it working my son told me about an online security company that generates effectively unbreakable encryption using lava lamps. The company - Cloudflare - generates encryption keys by using 100 lava lamps which are photographed at regular intervals and the photos converted into digits. As the lava lamps are ever changing in a non predictable way, the digtal data is randomised and so forms the perfect base for encryption keys.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The UK accepts many refugees annually. There are many routes to claim refuge in the UK, not just boat in the Channel.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
There is no route for somebody from Afghanistan to claim asylum here that isn't by boat.
I think there should be, do you not?
This was Cameron's plan back in 2015. He suggest that EU representatives should go into the camps surrounding Syria (as that was the main source of refgees at the time) and collect those most in need of help - the elderly, children, the sick etc, and transport them directly to EU countries. Help those who needed helping the most. Sadly the plan got lost in Merkel's idiotic open door policy which encouraged people to risk dangerous journeys across the Med and was responsible for countless deaths.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The UK accepts many refugees annually. There are many routes to claim refuge in the UK, not just boat in the Channel.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
There is no route for somebody from Afghanistan to claim asylum here.
I think there should be, do you not?
There are routes.
Tens of thousands of Afghans have had legal asylum claims to the UK and got here legally without jeopardising anyone's life on a dinghy in the Channel.
There aren't any safe and legal routes for Afghanistan, this was talked about at length. If you wanted to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan, there is no way to do it.
The dinghies aren't coming from Afghanistan, they're coming from France.
There are safe and legal routes for Afghanis to get to the UK with a valid asylum claim. Tens of thousands have.
You are acting as if the number that have is zero.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The UK accepts many refugees annually. There are many routes to claim refuge in the UK, not just boat in the Channel.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
There is no route for somebody from Afghanistan to claim asylum here.
I think there should be, do you not?
There are routes.
Tens of thousands of Afghans have had legal asylum claims to the UK and got here legally without jeopardising anyone's life on a dinghy in the Channel.
There aren't any safe and legal routes for Afghanistan, this was talked about at length. If you wanted to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan, there is no way to do it.
The dinghies aren't coming from Afghanistan, they're coming from France.
There are safe and legal routes for Afghanis to get to the UK with a valid asylum claim. Tens of thousands have.
You are acting as if the number that have is zero.
There is no legal way to claim asylum in the UK from Afghanistan. You are deluding yourself.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The UK accepts many refugees annually. There are many routes to claim refuge in the UK, not just boat in the Channel.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
I suspect those fighting alongside UK forces now facing execution from the Taliban used to consider us their allies too.
I don't think Ukraine is any different I am afraid.
These are human beings fleeing war and destruction, frankly it doesn't matter where they come from.
I wouldn't treat Ukraine any differently. If they came across in boats I suspect nobody would bat an eyelid.
The approach to Ukrainian refugees from 2022 onwards was completely irrational. It essentially helped fighting age men desert and flee conscription in opposition against the policy of our ally, the Ukrainian government; it also created vast opportunities for Russian espionage in Europe. I have never understood this policy, which basically seems to support Russia. Perhaps someone could explain how I am wrong in my assessment.
I don't think Ukraine is any different I am afraid.
These are human beings fleeing war and destruction, frankly it doesn't matter where they come from.
I wouldn't treat Ukraine any differently. If they came across in boats I suspect nobody would bat an eyelid.
The approach to Ukrainian refugees from 2022 onwards was completely irrational. It essentially helped fighting age men desert and flee conscription in opposition against the policy of our ally, the Ukrainian government; it also created vast opportunities for Russian espionage in Europe. I have never understood this policy, which basically seems to support Russia. Perhaps someone could explain how I am wrong in my assessment.
70% are women, and of the rest just under half are under 18.
I don't think Ukraine is any different I am afraid.
These are human beings fleeing war and destruction, frankly it doesn't matter where they come from.
I wouldn't treat Ukraine any differently. If they came across in boats I suspect nobody would bat an eyelid.
The approach to Ukrainian refugees from 2022 onwards was completely irrational. It essentially helped fighting age men desert and flee conscription in opposition against the policy of our ally, the Ukrainian government; it also created vast opportunities for Russian espionage in Europe. I have never understood this policy, which basically seems to support Russia. Perhaps someone could explain how I am wrong in my assessment.
Most of the Ukrainian refugees were not men of conscription age. Many of those who were, saw their families safe, then went back to Ukraine.
“70% of adults who arrived under the two main Ukraine schemes were women. Around 27% of all arrivals were children under the age of 18.”
Oh God, PB’s going to get spammed senseless again about Starmer having booze again isn’t it?
BigG. has finally found his "gotcha"!
Will you stop picking on Big G. He is entitled to post what he likes, just as you are 😠
I’ve got a genuine question for you Big G, as you seem to be slipping back into the Conservative fold. The next General Election is definitely being held on May 3rd 2029 - which seems a whole universe away. According to every forecast for world and UK growth, there will be no significant growth anywhere for at least 6 or 7 years. And according to head of Bank of England yesterday, UK will be additionally poorer thanks to Brexit. So nothing for Labour to work with to say voters are better off in five years, compared to July 2024, so a huge gift to the Tories, a great background for Badenoch and Stride to be campaigning in, in 2029 looks very likely - very similar to what helped Trump to power this year, the Conservatives will ask, are you better off than 5 years ago? And the voters answer will be: no!
However, the question is this, does your vote in such a situation depend on what the Conservative economic policies actually are? if the Conservative position is it’s nowt but Labour that has made voters poorer in the five years since 2024, because Labour has not embraced the wonderful freedoms of Brexit - the Conservative Manifesto in 2029 is to fully embrace those opportunities of Brexit, go full Singapore on Thames to make Britons rich again, would you vote Conservative? Would you vote for that economic policy agenda?
Thank you for your support and would concur the pile on from the usual suspects is nothing more than an attempt to close down anything that may be critical of Starmer and is consistent with the left attitude
I think it is becoming apparent every day that Labour were elected on a false manifesto and promises, and they have reverted to type being pro public sector and unions at the expense of the private sector that actually provides the tax receipts for this largesse
I will vote conservative at the next GE to return to pro business, small state politics but 5 years us a long time away for me and as has been seen before I have voted for a Blair government but that is not what Starmer and Reeves represent
What if the Conservative economic position put Labours economic failure and lack of growth down to not taking Brexit freedoms and opportunities, the Conservative economic plan and manifesto is around making Brexit work, full fat Singapore on Thames - you can still see yourself giving your vote to that sort of economic policy plan?
Such a scenario as this is very very likely where we are going to be, Spring 2029 - Labour government failed economically, no one feels better off. But Conservatives will still have to explain why - what Labour done wrong, what they will now do differently.
And if that plan is to make us all richer by properly exploiting opportunities from Brexit at last, you could vote for that?
Yes
I do have a problem with how you answered. It flashlights upon just how Brexit isn’t in the past, the real Brexit problem is in our future.
The Conservatives are going to come to argue, up to and during the next election, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real economic issue that has left the country not feeling better off has been the Labour government, and exploiting the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit is what will make us rich again.
A lot a people won’t see any issue at all with that argument. So it’s a vote winner. Yes, it can even win the Conservatives the next General Election. But it’s also repackaging and reselling the same old snake oil as before - it’s pressing the Brexit button all over again.
if, as very likely, this is the actual politics before us in 2029, the Conservative Party message would be fundamentally wrong - five years of Labour hadn’t made us economically poorer and held UK growth back, if Brexit has. And policy pathway the Conservatives proposing to follow to put Britain back upon the right path, grasp the nettle and exploit those Brexit freedoms and Opportunities, would make UK a worse, not better place to live.
PS - thanks for taking the time to answer the question. 👍🏻
PPS you have correctly called Partygate and Diwaligate as being one and exactly the same thing btw. 👍🏻
Actually I have been consistent in arguing for a closer relationship with the EU, and Brexit has had its failures, but whilst I would agree to joining the single market, I am very opposed to rejoining the EU even though I voted remain, as that ship has sailed
I know what you are saying. But back to what I’m saying in this model, cordial discussion is, the Conservatives will argue, up to and during the next election 2029, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real reason for UKs economic malaise has been the Labour governments failure to exploit the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit, doing so will make UK prosperous and Great again.
Brexit was only just got over the line in 2016 owing heavily upon a lot of snake oil lubrication, imagined and exaggerated Brexit benefits, and deliberate misinformation like the £350M a week for the NHS Gross figure of EU payments.
The Brexit Vote coming on 3rd May 2029 is a de-facto 2nd Brexit Referendum. Your vote for the Conservative Party in it will support Brexit, and endorse even more changing UK way of life chasing that Brexit dream.
Oh God, PB’s going to get spammed senseless again about Starmer having booze again isn’t it?
BigG. has finally found his "gotcha"!
Will you stop picking on Big G. He is entitled to post what he likes, just as you are 😠
I’ve got a genuine question for you Big G, as you seem to be slipping back into the Conservative fold. The next General Election is definitely being held on May 3rd 2029 - which seems a whole universe away. According to every forecast for world and UK growth, there will be no significant growth anywhere for at least 6 or 7 years. And according to head of Bank of England yesterday, UK will be additionally poorer thanks to Brexit. So nothing for Labour to work with to say voters are better off in five years, compared to July 2024, so a huge gift to the Tories, a great background for Badenoch and Stride to be campaigning in, in 2029 looks very likely - very similar to what helped Trump to power this year, the Conservatives will ask, are you better off than 5 years ago? And the voters answer will be: no!
However, the question is this, does your vote in such a situation depend on what the Conservative economic policies actually are? if the Conservative position is it’s nowt but Labour that has made voters poorer in the five years since 2024, because Labour has not embraced the wonderful freedoms of Brexit - the Conservative Manifesto in 2029 is to fully embrace those opportunities of Brexit, go full Singapore on Thames to make Britons rich again, would you vote Conservative? Would you vote for that economic policy agenda?
Thank you for your support and would concur the pile on from the usual suspects is nothing more than an attempt to close down anything that may be critical of Starmer and is consistent with the left attitude
I think it is becoming apparent every day that Labour were elected on a false manifesto and promises, and they have reverted to type being pro public sector and unions at the expense of the private sector that actually provides the tax receipts for this largesse
I will vote conservative at the next GE to return to pro business, small state politics but 5 years us a long time away for me and as has been seen before I have voted for a Blair government but that is not what Starmer and Reeves represent
What if the Conservative economic position put Labours economic failure and lack of growth down to not taking Brexit freedoms and opportunities, the Conservative economic plan and manifesto is around making Brexit work, full fat Singapore on Thames - you can still see yourself giving your vote to that sort of economic policy plan?
Such a scenario as this is very very likely where we are going to be, Spring 2029 - Labour government failed economically, no one feels better off. But Conservatives will still have to explain why - what Labour done wrong, what they will now do differently.
And if that plan is to make us all richer by properly exploiting opportunities from Brexit at last, you could vote for that?
Yes
I do have a problem with how you answered. It flashlights upon just how Brexit isn’t in the past, the real Brexit problem is in our future.
The Conservatives are going to come to argue, up to and during the next election, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real economic issue that has left the country not feeling better off has been the Labour government, and exploiting the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit is what will make us rich again.
A lot a people won’t see any issue at all with that argument. So it’s a vote winner. Yes, it can even win the Conservatives the next General Election. But it’s also repackaging and reselling the same old snake oil as before - it’s pressing the Brexit button all over again.
if, as very likely, this is the actual politics before us in 2029, the Conservative Party message would be fundamentally wrong - five years of Labour hadn’t made us economically poorer and held UK growth back, if Brexit has. And policy pathway the Conservatives proposing to follow to put Britain back upon the right path, grasp the nettle and exploit those Brexit freedoms and Opportunities, would make UK a worse, not better place to live.
PS - thanks for taking the time to answer the question. 👍🏻
PPS you have correctly called Partygate and Diwaligate as being one and exactly the same thing btw. 👍🏻
Actually I have been consistent in arguing for a closer relationship with the EU, and Brexit has had its failures, but whilst I would agree to joining the single market, I am very opposed to rejoining the EU even though I voted remain, as that ship has sailed
I know what you are saying. But back to what I’m saying in this model, cordial discussion is, the Conservatives will argue, up to and during the next election 2029, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real reason for UKs economic malaise has been the Labour governments failure to exploit the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit, doing so will make UK prosperous and Great again.
Brexit was only just got over the line in 2016 owing heavily upon a lot of snake oil lubrication, imagined and exaggerated Brexit benefits, and deliberate misinformation like the £350M a week for the NHS Gross figure of EU payments.
The Brexit Vote coming on 3rd May 2029 is a de-facto 2nd Brexit Referendum. Your vote for the Conservative Party in it will support Brexit, and endorse even more changing UK way of life chasing that Brexit dream.
Do you expect Labour to have adopted a rejoin policy by then?
I am sure nobody finds the idea of having Ukranian refugees controversial, assuming they arrived on a boat somehow and we processed them quickly, they should be allowed to stay in the UK, no? Not deported to Rwanda or elsewhere.
How is that different to people fleeing the Taliban?
Oh God, PB’s going to get spammed senseless again about Starmer having booze again isn’t it?
BigG. has finally found his "gotcha"!
Will you stop picking on Big G. He is entitled to post what he likes, just as you are 😠
I’ve got a genuine question for you Big G, as you seem to be slipping back into the Conservative fold. The next General Election is definitely being held on May 3rd 2029 - which seems a whole universe away. According to every forecast for world and UK growth, there will be no significant growth anywhere for at least 6 or 7 years. And according to head of Bank of England yesterday, UK will be additionally poorer thanks to Brexit. So nothing for Labour to work with to say voters are better off in five years, compared to July 2024, so a huge gift to the Tories, a great background for Badenoch and Stride to be campaigning in, in 2029 looks very likely - very similar to what helped Trump to power this year, the Conservatives will ask, are you better off than 5 years ago? And the voters answer will be: no!
However, the question is this, does your vote in such a situation depend on what the Conservative economic policies actually are? if the Conservative position is it’s nowt but Labour that has made voters poorer in the five years since 2024, because Labour has not embraced the wonderful freedoms of Brexit - the Conservative Manifesto in 2029 is to fully embrace those opportunities of Brexit, go full Singapore on Thames to make Britons rich again, would you vote Conservative? Would you vote for that economic policy agenda?
Thank you for your support and would concur the pile on from the usual suspects is nothing more than an attempt to close down anything that may be critical of Starmer and is consistent with the left attitude
I think it is becoming apparent every day that Labour were elected on a false manifesto and promises, and they have reverted to type being pro public sector and unions at the expense of the private sector that actually provides the tax receipts for this largesse
I will vote conservative at the next GE to return to pro business, small state politics but 5 years us a long time away for me and as has been seen before I have voted for a Blair government but that is not what Starmer and Reeves represent
What if the Conservative economic position put Labours economic failure and lack of growth down to not taking Brexit freedoms and opportunities, the Conservative economic plan and manifesto is around making Brexit work, full fat Singapore on Thames - you can still see yourself giving your vote to that sort of economic policy plan?
Such a scenario as this is very very likely where we are going to be, Spring 2029 - Labour government failed economically, no one feels better off. But Conservatives will still have to explain why - what Labour done wrong, what they will now do differently.
And if that plan is to make us all richer by properly exploiting opportunities from Brexit at last, you could vote for that?
Yes
I do have a problem with how you answered. It flashlights upon just how Brexit isn’t in the past, the real Brexit problem is in our future.
The Conservatives are going to come to argue, up to and during the next election, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real economic issue that has left the country not feeling better off has been the Labour government, and exploiting the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit is what will make us rich again.
A lot a people won’t see any issue at all with that argument. So it’s a vote winner. Yes, it can even win the Conservatives the next General Election. But it’s also repackaging and reselling the same old snake oil as before - it’s pressing the Brexit button all over again.
if, as very likely, this is the actual politics before us in 2029, the Conservative Party message would be fundamentally wrong - five years of Labour hadn’t made us economically poorer and held UK growth back, if Brexit has. And policy pathway the Conservatives proposing to follow to put Britain back upon the right path, grasp the nettle and exploit those Brexit freedoms and Opportunities, would make UK a worse, not better place to live.
PS - thanks for taking the time to answer the question. 👍🏻
PPS you have correctly called Partygate and Diwaligate as being one and exactly the same thing btw. 👍🏻
Actually I have been consistent in arguing for a closer relationship with the EU, and Brexit has had its failures, but whilst I would agree to joining the single market, I am very opposed to rejoining the EU even though I voted remain, as that ship has sailed
I know what you are saying. But back to what I’m saying in this model, cordial discussion is, the Conservatives will argue, up to and during the next election 2029, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real reason for UKs economic malaise has been the Labour governments failure to exploit the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit, doing so will make UK prosperous and Great again.
Brexit was only just got over the line in 2016 owing heavily upon a lot of snake oil lubrication, imagined and exaggerated Brexit benefits, and deliberate misinformation like the £350M a week for the NHS Gross figure of EU payments.
The Brexit Vote coming on 3rd May 2029 is a de-facto 2nd Brexit Referendum. Your vote for the Conservative Party in it will support Brexit, and endorse even more changing UK way of life chasing that Brexit dream.
First of all I hope to be able to vote in 2029, but it is a very long way away for my wife and I with our health issues, but I do hope the conservative party sees the opportunity of closer EU ties but now with Trump in Office for 4 years all bets are off as to what the political climate will be by then
Off topic, but relevant given discussion on immigration earlier today. I can understand a fear of net migration figures in the hundreds of thousands, but what I find worthy of contempt is when this discussion is divorced from any real understanding of why people are migrating. Today's 'The Take's from Al Jazeera discusses the experiences of women in Sudan: https://pca.st/episode/7874d751-b1e2-4a45-888b-7d8f3f60f9fb.
To summarise, with apologies for the language: women are being raped at such scale by the RSF that suicide statistics are on the rise as women choose to take their own lives rather than fall into the hands of RSF fighters. Is it any surprise that people want to migrate away from this?
Of course a reasonable response is that sexual violence is such an incredibly common historical fact that it is the modern western world that is unusual for its relative safety for women. That may be true, but I find it grossly unjustifiable to argue that this relative safety should be open only to those who happen to be born in the right part of the world.
This isn't really an argument for migration - I think it is a really poor solution for everyone concerned - but those who simultaneously argue against migration and against development support for places like Sudan are criminals, in my view.
Time to bomb them back to 2nd century
That's one solution, but don't them come crying when a Sudanese terrorist attacks your local Scottish hovel in return.
The reason the Rwanda policy was so wicked is that even if you were a legitimate refugee, you were not allowed in the UK.
How can anyone justify that?
I guess the argument is that a legitimate would then be in a safe place. Does it really matter where that safe place is?
But as has been discovered, there is no legal and safe way for anyone to get to the UK from any of these places. The routes don't exist.
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
The UK accepts many refugees annually. There are many routes to claim refuge in the UK, not just boat in the Channel.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
I suspect those fighting alongside UK forces now facing execution from the Taliban used to consider us their allies too.
they could not fight their way out of a wet paper bag, they just took the money and ran away when they had to actually do anything. They come here now and sponge just the same.
Trump’s transition team is bypassing traditional FBI background checks for at least some of his Cabinet picks while using private companies to conduct vetting of potential candidates for administration jobs. https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1857419312316707160
Comments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_the_United_States
"I watched a clip of Mike Tyson this morning, and all I can say is that Jake Paul had better be ready if he's going to fight Mike, "he told OLGB. "Mike will be able to last the two-minute rounds. Mike comes to fight when he puts his mind to it; he goes to work on you.
"And that's what I've seen today... If Mike Tyson vs Jake Paul was a Las Vegas table game I'd be betting all my money on Iron Mike... Mike Tyson doesn't care about anything. He'll fight you right now, even though he's not in any shape. And he's going to hit you, and when he does that, it's all over.
"Mike is ready for it. He won't be taking any punches in training. If I'm betting my money, it's on Mike."
@TOPPING
There was a heron in the garden today, pacing around the fishpond menacingly and testing the netting for any weak spots. It was very Jurassic Park velociraptor-like.
But the solution is not to make genuine refugees suffer in response. Politically it might win some votes - long term though it is a disastrous policy.
The Conservatives are going to come to argue, up to and during the next election, Brexit has not really hit investment or trade, the real economic issue that has left the country not feeling better off has been the Labour government, and exploiting the freedoms and opportunities of Brexit is what will make us rich again.
A lot a people won’t see any issue at all with that argument. So it’s a vote winner. Yes, it can even win the Conservatives the next General Election. But it’s also repackaging and reselling the same old snake oil as before - it’s pressing the Brexit button all over again.
if, as very likely, this is the actual politics before us in 2029, the Conservative Party message would be fundamentally wrong - five years of Labour hadn’t made us economically poorer and held UK growth back, if Brexit has. And policy pathway the Conservatives proposing to follow to put Britain back upon the right path, grasp the nettle and exploit those Brexit freedoms and Opportunities, would make UK a worse, not better place to live.
PS - thanks for taking the time to answer the question. 👍🏻
PPS you have correctly called Partygate and Diwaligate as being one and exactly the same thing btw. 👍🏻
And, yes, I will be sticking on Casino Royale in all its glory, shortly.
How is that different to people fleeing the Taliban?
And I love Woody Allen's cameo in Casino Royale! Just hilarious!
If you are a legitimate refugee coming into this country, do you honestly think they shouldn't be allowed to be here?
As I said above, the issue is that the fake ones we can't process quickly enough because the backlog is so long. We need to cut the backlog and kick out the ones that shouldn't be here.
The general train of thought is that if Paul can outmanoeuvre Tyson in the early rounds then Iron Mike will tire and the younger man will either claim a stoppage or points win. However, that presumes a level of skill and ringcraft we’ve not yet seen from Paul and backing an early finish in Texas looks the best play.
Tyson will know his best chance is to get the job done early. The man once known as the 'Baddest Man on the Planet' has looked sharp during media workouts but it has also been evident that his fitness, understandably, isn’t what it once was.
Conversely, Paul does possess the stamina to go the full distance, albeit that has never previously been his strategy – seven of his ten wins have been via stoppage – and he is unlikely to make big changes now, so there is every chance the main event could be done and dusted by the fourth or fifth round and backing there to be fewer than six looks a solid starting point.
If Paul can avoid being knocked out he is the likelier victor but there is little appeal in backing him at odds-on, especially given that bookmakers go a much juicier 13-8 about Tyson recording at least one knockdown.
The theory that the last thing a boxer loses is his punch will be put to the ultimate test in Texas, although that mantra usually applied to fighters in their 40s rather than a man of almost 60 returning to the ring.
https://www.racingpost.com/sport/boxing-tips/jake-paul-vs-mike-tyson-predictions-odds-and-boxing-betting-tips-tc999-aoHK48O0tPO3/
If they aren't legitimate it doesn't matter where they are from, deport those people.
How can anyone justify that?
Paul is a not bad pre-amateur white collar type boxer (don't forget Fabio Wardley was a white collar boxer).
When I was white collar boxing training with professional boxers they were literally in a different league. Their power came from many hours a day training over many years and dedication to the sport that only a professional has the time and inclination for.
Tyson is not only a professional boxer but one of, if not the best professional boxer of all time.
Of course he is old but his muscle memory is just a world away from Paul's.
If it is a true fight Tyson will destroy him.
It’s lovelier in teabags too
Got some of their tea cards in the loft.
But that doesn't itself stop people making the journey.
The argument from some seems to be that nobody that arrives in a boat is a legitimate refugee. When that is evidently not the case.
Imagine the UK was invaded tomorrow, I would seek asylum in Europe somewhere. Are you saying I would be wrong to do so?
Stopping boat crossings saves lives.
We should be taking refugees from camps not whoever survives a boat crossing.
https://youtu.be/8ZlVSqy1dkg?si=TYZdH0ybk0UVq7I0
I’ve never found a bird so obviously filled with murderous intent. Just visible to the right of the pond.
Now off to my “surprise” dinner as it’s my birthday. No Nyetimber as it’s a Georgian restaurant.
It's the ones that aren't legitimate that need to be removed.
I am someone who agrees with you that Rwanda should have been a processing centre not a final destination, but I don't think it's indefensible morally.
People living in France need rescuing first. #TreatyOfParis
So by that logic the UK can never have refugees from most of these places. Ukraine would be the exception because we created routes - but so back to my question, why is Ukraine different?
Scottish Power catering for the few remaining Brythonic speakers in Strathclyde:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn7mjj7lk21o
Why are those who risk their and other's lives in the Channel more deserving of being here than those who have gone to a camp and done the right thing?
I would support a 1:1 exchange policy. Absolutely nobody who crosses by the Channel is permitted to remain in the country whether they are a legitimate refugee or not instead they will be exchanged with a legitimate refugee who needs refuge who is flown here safely and without risking anyone's life or encouraging others to do so either.
I am probably - although I suspect not as much as people think - more naturally liberal on migration but I would have no issue with that so I am confident in saying the vast majority would be okay with it.
It baffles me that Labour isn't just doing that.
Buit I wonder how many PBers will get your irony?
As I said, if somebody crosses the channel and has a case for asylum, they are a legitimate refugee.
I'm not opposed to your idea in theory but I don't see how it's workable. It would only work for those that aren't legitimate. As I said, those people should be deported anyway.
Ukraine is different because it is an ally that was invaded by an enemy. Afghanistan is a civil war.
Not the Channel.
I think there should be, do you not?
I managed to get my son's lava lamp working today. We had had trouble getting hold of the filament bulbs you need to generate the heat to make it work but finally tracked down a company selling them.
Once we had it working my son told me about an online security company that generates effectively unbreakable encryption using lava lamps. The company - Cloudflare - generates encryption keys by using 100 lava lamps which are photographed at regular intervals and the photos converted into digits. As the lava lamps are ever changing in a non predictable way, the digtal data is randomised and so forms the perfect base for encryption keys.
https://www.cloudflare.com/en-gb/learning/ssl/lava-lamp-encryption/
I love this sort of weird random shit.
Good evening, everybody.
These are human beings fleeing war and destruction, frankly it doesn't matter where they come from.
I wouldn't treat Ukraine any differently. If they came across in boats I suspect nobody would bat an eyelid.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/articles/cjw01px1x47o
Well at least they can play the Hundred.
Tens of thousands of Afghans have had legal asylum claims to the UK and got here legally without jeopardising anyone's life on a dinghy in the Channel.
Alternatively, have legal routes for them to come here. I'd be fine with that.
But I think you just don't want refugees to come here at all - which is a legitimate point of view to hold but not something I agree with myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavarand
I believe Cloudflare also use a couple of different methods to create entropy - I'm trying to find a link...
There are safe and legal routes for Afghanis to get to the UK with a valid asylum claim. Tens of thousands have.
You are acting as if the number that have is zero.
And on that subject our son has his first fatality rescue last week sadly
Love the Cold War motif and Timothy Dalton's ultra Fleming portrayesque.
“70% of adults who arrived under the two main Ukraine schemes were women. Around 27% of all arrivals were children under the age of 18.”
Brexit was only just got over the line in 2016 owing heavily upon a lot of snake oil lubrication, imagined and exaggerated Brexit benefits, and deliberate misinformation like the £350M a week for the NHS Gross figure of EU payments.
The Brexit Vote coming on 3rd May 2029 is a de-facto 2nd Brexit Referendum. Your vote for the Conservative Party in it will support Brexit, and endorse even more changing UK way of life chasing that Brexit dream.
https://x.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1857419312316707160