A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
We should be proud of taking an arbitrary characteristic like skin colour and using it as the basis of producing targets for locking people up in the correct proportions?
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
I'll be in Biarritz a week Saturday eating fresh anchovies
I'm starting to get quite excited
Photos please! You will dilute the discord on here
And bon voyage, too. I really enjoy your peregrinations. Not least because you are one of the few people that seems to enjoy a drink as much as me
I'm sure I won't be able resist posting regular reports, and no more than one photo each day (sigh..)
The homebrew is amazing. I'm enjoying the beer far more than those I'd buy. I haven't bought any for nearly two months. The wine that my Dad gives me for walking Edith is stacking up for the first time
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
A lie.
Provocative the comment may be, a lie it is not. That is absolutely the stated outcome of the guidelines (thankfully shitcanned by the 'more right wing than DavidL' Justice Minister), and you quite clearly admit as much when you say that the guidelines are intended to 'mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes'. I mean you said it.
It's not. All they suggest is it might be worth doing a pre-sentence report when someone comes from an ethinic, religious or cultural minority. Or female. Or young. Or pregnant. Or a carer.
That's it. Given the significant disparities in sentence length for minorities, I think it's probably a reasonable safeguard to ensure that such disparities really are because the crimes are more severe rather than an inherent bias.
I guess I'm being wildly optimistic trying to persuade you of this, given you are comfortable with Trump deporting innocent American citizens.
I have said several times that my comments in this thread are completely unrelated to the Trump administration. They are about Bukele and whether or not his presence should make people feel 'physically ill'. Please don't be deliberately obtuse - it's rather tiresome.
Of course it 'might' be worth doing a presentencing report from someone from an ethnic minority. It might also be worth doing one for someone white. What the sentencing council tried to put in place was a blanket rule that applied to anyone non-white, be they a penniless Somali migrant or Prince Mohammed Bin Salman. That is discrimination on the basis of skin colour, and no you're not going to convince me that it isn't, because it is simply objective fact.
I understand Eabhal's argument, but even accepting politicians can overreact sometimes it seems unlikely to me there were no unintended unfair consequences from the guidelines given the apparent political unanimity in the big two parties at least that they were not acceptable. The 'positive' argument seems to be it was a case of a legitimate concern and perhaps good intent which would not have had the solely positive outcome the council thought it would?
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
No idea what you mean. You might mean that UK prisons should have a tougher regime, which is a sane position though I don't agree; or you may mean we should lock people up without trial following illegal rendition. As this is the current urgent issue issue, I think you should be a bit clearer.
Sure.
1. We need vastly more prison capacity 2. We need prison to be a less eligible prospect than the benefit of doing a crime 3. We need to get dangerous and violent people off the streets
That's Bukele. I believe he has absolutely transformed El Salvador, and frankly a lot more people are now alive because of his work. I don't think that justifies a 'physically ill' reaction.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
Is that it is positive about the seeking to do something about it, or positive that the guidelines actually would have done something about it?
As the latter question seems to have been what led politicians to unify where they would not normally, in that they either thought it wouldn't, or might have but at cost of a wider principle.
Politicians can herd in bad ways on legal matters - we almost certainly don't need new laws for new specific offences to a lot of things, and harsher sentencing is not a panacea - but is your view that the guidelines would have worked as intended without unintended effects?
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
The slope isn't slippery; the frog isn't gradually getting boiled. Within its first hundred days the Trump administration has openly asserted the right/ power to seize and imprison anyone— including political dissidents, including citizens— and deprive them of any legal recourse at all.
If only there was a recent historical example where people deemed to be inferior were concentrated in facilities built in other countries. Then we could work out how to assess this situation.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
It reminds me of the crap you hear from abusers: "look what you made me do." Its pathetic then and its pathetic when you say it. Those who voted for Trump are responsible for their actions and the consequences of their action. Attempting to blame others is, well, pathetic.
Arguments can be made about contributory factors and the like, but sheer deflections are obvious.
It’s not a fucking deflection to note that electorates across the west are voting for hard right or even far right parties and leaders because left wing policies of mass migration and multiculturalism have turned out to be disastrous
David Cameron and Angela Merkel both said the same thing. Multiculturalism has failed badly. And we are now dealing with the calamitous consequences even as this mass migration continues
What are voters meant to do? Vote for more of the same terrible failure? Clearly not. So they choose the only alternatives - which are now the far left or, more often, the far right. As we see across Europe
If you don’t want far right leaders don’t enact or continue policies which forcibly point voters that way
Millions of perfectly respectable people have been tapping politicians on the shoulder and saying "could you do something about the level of immigration please?" for the whole of this century so far, and been routinely patronised, called names, and had their concerns ignored. Then, when they metaphorically give said politicians a punch in the mouth by voting for UKIP, Brexit, Trump, Boris, or Reform, the centrists point at them and say "See, I knew they were racist".
There is no reasoning with the centrists on immigration, it goes in one ear and out of the other. They're well enough off to afford the indulgence of thinking multiculturalism is a good thing, and the migrants cheap labour looks good on the balance sheet when you're not competing with them for jobs, houses, school places and hospital appointments
I'll be in Biarritz a week Saturday eating fresh anchovies
I'm starting to get quite excited
Photos please! You will dilute the discord on here
And bon voyage, too. I really enjoy your peregrinations. Not least because you are one of the few people that seems to enjoy a drink as much as me
I'm sure I won't be able resist posting regular reports, and no more than one photo each day (sigh..)
The homebrew is amazing. I'm enjoying the beer far more than those I'd buy. I haven't bought any for nearly two months. The wine that my Dad gives me for walking Edith is stacking up for the first time
And I haven't had a hangover yet
I get about one hangover a year. My friends tell me this is a bad sign (given how much I drink)
Oh well. If I keel over tomorrow I can say I’ve had a fucking amazing life, and been incredibly lucky to do what I most enjoy in the universe - and actually get paid to do it
I’m now perilously close to visiting 100 countries. But I feel like Joe Root on 97 at Lord’s. I’m edging nervous singles
The saddest thing is we must hope this is true. Little else looks likely to cut Trump down. The midterms are ages away and in any case might be rigged.
They aren't that far away: they're next year.
Back end. That's a lot of unfettered Trump between now and then.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
You are beyond help
That statement is real through the rabbit hole stuff.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
You are beyond help
That statement is real through the rabbit hole stuff.
I can’t even be bothered debating this duckspeak Woke mindset any more
It’s so tiresomely dull and predictable for a start. A catechism. Whatevs!
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
You are beyond help
That statement is real through the rabbit hole stuff.
Through the rabbit hole and indeed down the looking glass
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
No idea what you mean. You might mean that UK prisons should have a tougher regime, which is a sane position though I don't agree; or you may mean we should lock people up without trial following illegal rendition. As this is the current urgent issue issue, I think you should be a bit clearer.
Sure.
1. We need vastly more prison capacity 2. We need prison to be a less eligible prospect than the benefit of doing a crime 3. We need to get dangerous and violent people off the streets
That's Bukele. I believe he has absolutely transformed El Salvador, and frankly a lot more people are now alive because of his work. I don't think that justifies a 'physically ill' reaction.
And does imprisoning Garcia without trial following illegal rendition and declining to return him to USA, knowing that SCOTUS has ordered his return, weigh at all in considering Bukele's merits?
I have no problem at all with imprisonment for criminals following a fair trial of course.
BTW I have Covid again, and it's making me grumpy as f*ck, so I think you should all watch your manners on here if you don't want to face the ban hammer.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Scoop: The UK has signaled to the EU that it's open to accept the dynamic alignment of rules on agrifood products + supervision of the ECJ over the SPS deal it wants to negotiate. Big shift in UK position.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
Is that it is positive about the seeking to do something about it, or positive that the guidelines actually would have done something about it?
As the latter question seems to have been what led politicians to unify where they would not normally, in that they either thought it wouldn't, or might have but at cost of a wider principle.
Politicians can herd in bad ways on legal matters - we almost certainly don't need new laws for new specific offences to a lot of things, and harsher sentencing is not a panacea - but is your view that the guidelines would have worked as intended without unintended effects?
It is difficult. Statistically people of colour are more likely to be locked up for longer than white people. That doesn't mean in any particular case that anyone of colour does not deserve to be locked up. Far from it. It doesn't mean getting a report on them will result in the court finding an acceptable alternative. There may not be one. Attempting to address a statistical fact through sentencing policy is problematic because each case should be and requires to be considered individually.
But I do believe that when we identify such a clear statistical bias we should seek to address it and a policy that requires the courts to consider a wider range of options and a more thorough look at alternatives for those the current system is prejudiced against does not seem to me to have been a bad place to start.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
Okay, migration.
Are you still a supporter of unrestricted immigration from the EU ?
No. I want zero net migration. Immigration is a disaster and multiculturalism is a catastrophe
You can have net zero migration but the ship has sailed on multiculturalism unless you’re planning to deport anyone who isn’t a christian.
The Black British population now has a higher percentage of Christians than the white British born population so that doesn't really reduce multiculturalism if you define it on race and ethnicity rather than religion.
Of course while we can control immigration we shouldn't really deport a legal immigrant unless they commit a serious criminal offence
Scoop: The UK has signaled to the EU that it's open to accept the dynamic alignment of rules on agrifood products + supervision of the ECJ over the SPS deal it wants to negotiate. Big shift in UK position.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
It reminds me of the crap you hear from abusers: "look what you made me do." Its pathetic then and its pathetic when you say it. Those who voted for Trump are responsible for their actions and the consequences of their action. Attempting to blame others is, well, pathetic.
Arguments can be made about contributory factors and the like, but sheer deflections are obvious.
It’s not a fucking deflection to note that electorates across the west are voting for hard right or even far right parties and leaders because left wing policies of mass migration and multiculturalism have turned out to be disastrous
David Cameron and Angela Merkel both said the same thing. Multiculturalism has failed badly. And we are now dealing with the calamitous consequences even as this mass migration continues
What are voters meant to do? Vote for more of the same terrible failure? Clearly not. So they choose the only alternatives - which are now the far left or, more often, the far right. As we see across Europe
If you don’t want far right leaders don’t enact or continue policies which forcibly point voters that way
Millions of perfectly respectable people have been tapping politicians on the shoulder and saying "could you do something about the level of immigration please?" for the whole of this century so far, and been routinely patronised, called names, and had their concerns ignored. Then, when they metaphorically give said politicians a punch in the mouth by voting for UKIP, Brexit, Trump, Boris, or Reform, the centrists point at them and say "See, I knew they were racist".
There is no reasoning with the centrists on immigration, it goes in one ear and out of the other. They're well enough off to afford the indulgence of thinking multiculturalism is a good thing, and the migrants cheap labour looks good on the balance sheet when you're not competing with them for jobs, houses, school places and hospital appointments
As a centrist who has not been affected by immigration and thus does not care about it much, I do think politicians have long underestimated how much the public in general does care, and that certain arguments have never been of much help in giving the impression the governments care.
When political or media people get offended about description of unlawful immigrants as, say, economic migrants or argue even over the unlawful bit, the impression can be made - indirectly - that there should be no limitations to numbers at all. Which perhaps some people do think, but typically feels more like an unintended consequence of arguments like 'Well, even though they are not refugees, they are escaping poverty and we'd all want to do the same' etc, which if accepted surely means no one should be denied entry to any country.
It doesn't change my personal views, but whilst other concerns do trump it from time to time, I do think a lot of people are angry, and not without some reason.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
It reminds me of the crap you hear from abusers: "look what you made me do." Its pathetic then and its pathetic when you say it. Those who voted for Trump are responsible for their actions and the consequences of their action. Attempting to blame others is, well, pathetic.
Arguments can be made about contributory factors and the like, but sheer deflections are obvious.
It’s not a fucking deflection to note that electorates across the west are voting for hard right or even far right parties and leaders because left wing policies of mass migration and multiculturalism have turned out to be disastrous
David Cameron and Angela Merkel both said the same thing. Multiculturalism has failed badly. And we are now dealing with the calamitous consequences even as this mass migration continues
What are voters meant to do? Vote for more of the same terrible failure? Clearly not. So they choose the only alternatives - which are now the far left or, more often, the far right. As we see across Europe
If you don’t want far right leaders don’t enact or continue policies which forcibly point voters that way
Millions of perfectly respectable people have been tapping politicians on the shoulder and saying "could you do something about the level of immigration please?" for the whole of this century so far, and been routinely patronised, called names, and had their concerns ignored. Then, when they metaphorically give said politicians a punch in the mouth by voting for UKIP, Brexit, Trump, Boris, or Reform, the centrists point at them and say "See, I knew they were racist".
There is no reasoning with the centrists on immigration, it goes in one ear and out of the other. They're well enough off to afford the indulgence of thinking multiculturalism is a good thing, and the migrants cheap labour looks good on the balance sheet when you're not competing with them for jobs, houses, school places and hospital appointments
Very eloquent. You should stand as a Reform candidate. I’m serious
I absolutely would if I was younger. Moaning about life is fine but if you want to change things then you must act. And we do still - just about - have a functioning democracy, which might still - despite its knackered state - respond to public concerns, belatedly
Of course you have a young family, so I totally get why you would not seek this out
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
It's easy to forget how much GDP trade generates. We all think about the "people working in factories generating things for export", but that's a tiny fraction of the economy affected by trade.
If an iPhone is imported into the US, well, the cost of that import counts against GDP (net exports), but there's a ton of work associated with getting that iPhone into the hands of consumers: advertising, rent, transport, shop assistants, customer support, etc.
If that iPhone is not imported into the US... then it doesn't need to be unloaded off the ship or plane, or transported from the dock, and Apple has fewer products to sell in its stores, so it cuts back on advertising.
And then there's other impact: fewer products to sell at any given price must mean that inflation rises. It's like a country voluntarily putting itself through the early 1970s oil shock. And then if the Fed raises interest rates, it means that housing transactions will grind to a halt. And it means no more equity release for US consumers.
US house prices to incomes are now above where they were on the eve of the Global Financial Crisis - 7.4x, against a peak of 6.8x in 2006/2007.
A lot of US consumer spending is held up by the wealth effect, which in turn is due to high house prices. (And Americans are much more likely to borrow against their houses to pay for current spending than Brits are.)
It could get very ugly for bank solvency if we were to see rising interest rates caused by tariff driven inflation, causing house price growth to go into reverse.
But the signal that is flashing most red of all is high yield corporate bonds.
Back before the GFC, the stock market was all. This time, it's Private Equity. PE firms borrowed at near zero interest rates and took companies private.
This is the subprime debt market. And it looks really, really ugly. Yields have moved from 6.5% before the US Presidential election to 8.6% now. The last time it looked so bad was during Covid, and it was only massive government intervention that stopped huge numbers of corporate insolvencies.
Before it was banks who were leveraged: now it is corporates.
Basically, it is far from impossible that we are walking into a GFC type situation.
I guess there is a big difference mind: in 2007/2008, the GFC happened by accident. This time, it's possible that the US government will literally be driving headlong towards a financial crisis with their foot on the accelerator, yelling "Yee ha!".
Totally self inflicted in that case.
One would like to think with the likes of Scott Bessent in the Trump team it won’t come to this.
I’ll watch the Dalio interview again. I have always found him to be uber pessimistic so maybe don’t pay his words the attention they merit.
"Liz Truss Trump has been proven right about pretty much everything Net zero, trade with China, lockdown, mass migration: all have been disastrous" (£)
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
You are beyond help
That statement is real through the rabbit hole stuff.
I can’t even be bothered debating this duckspeak Woke mindset any more
It’s so tiresomely dull and predictable for a start. A catechism. Whatevs!
look at the white guys getting twitchy talking abut racism. 'so dull, so predictable'
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
It reminds me of the crap you hear from abusers: "look what you made me do." Its pathetic then and its pathetic when you say it. Those who voted for Trump are responsible for their actions and the consequences of their action. Attempting to blame others is, well, pathetic.
Arguments can be made about contributory factors and the like, but sheer deflections are obvious.
It’s not a fucking deflection to note that electorates across the west are voting for hard right or even far right parties and leaders because left wing policies of mass migration and multiculturalism have turned out to be disastrous
David Cameron and Angela Merkel both said the same thing. Multiculturalism has failed badly. And we are now dealing with the calamitous consequences even as this mass migration continues
What are voters meant to do? Vote for more of the same terrible failure? Clearly not. So they choose the only alternatives - which are now the far left or, more often, the far right. As we see across Europe
If you don’t want far right leaders don’t enact or continue policies which forcibly point voters that way
Millions of perfectly respectable people have been tapping politicians on the shoulder and saying "could you do something about the level of immigration please?" for the whole of this century so far, and been routinely patronised, called names, and had their concerns ignored. Then, when they metaphorically give said politicians a punch in the mouth by voting for UKIP, Brexit, Trump, Boris, or Reform, the centrists point at them and say "See, I knew they were racist".
There is no reasoning with the centrists on immigration, it goes in one ear and out of the other. They're well enough off to afford the indulgence of thinking multiculturalism is a good thing, and the migrants cheap labour looks good on the balance sheet when you're not competing with them for jobs, houses, school places and hospital appointments
I can agree with all that.
But it has to be replaced with a practical, competent alternative.
Because if it isn't then that risks its own backlash.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
That simply isn't true.
I work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities. Your description of my colleagues and patients is completely wrong.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
No idea what you mean. You might mean that UK prisons should have a tougher regime, which is a sane position though I don't agree; or you may mean we should lock people up without trial following illegal rendition. As this is the current urgent issue issue, I think you should be a bit clearer.
Sure.
1. We need vastly more prison capacity 2. We need prison to be a less eligible prospect than the benefit of doing a crime 3. We need to get dangerous and violent people off the streets
That's Bukele. I believe he has absolutely transformed El Salvador, and frankly a lot more people are now alive because of his work. I don't think that justifies a 'physically ill' reaction.
And does imprisoning Garcia without trial following illegal rendition and declining to return him to USA, knowing that SCOTUS has ordered his return, weigh at all in considering Bukele's merits?
I have no problem at all with imprisonment for criminals following a fair trial of course.
It does. But I only know about the case what I've read in this thread. It seems a very troubling case, but I don't think it would dissuade me that Bukele is very much a good thing - how could it?
Scoop: The UK has signaled to the EU that it's open to accept the dynamic alignment of rules on agrifood products + supervision of the ECJ over the SPS deal it wants to negotiate. Big shift in UK position.
Well I’m not grumpy, I’m quite cheery tonight, even though my soccer team lost on SKY yesterday in a rather poor performance and the new Dr Who I watched on Saturday was shit.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
Is that it is positive about the seeking to do something about it, or positive that the guidelines actually would have done something about it?
As the latter question seems to have been what led politicians to unify where they would not normally, in that they either thought it wouldn't, or might have but at cost of a wider principle.
Politicians can herd in bad ways on legal matters - we almost certainly don't need new laws for new specific offences to a lot of things, and harsher sentencing is not a panacea - but is your view that the guidelines would have worked as intended without unintended effects?
It is difficult. Statistically people of colour are more likely to be locked up for longer than white people. That doesn't mean in any particular case that anyone of colour does not deserve to be locked up. Far from it. It doesn't mean getting a report on them will result in the court finding an acceptable alternative. There may not be one. Attempting to address a statistical fact through sentencing policy is problematic because each case should be and requires to be considered individually.
But I do believe that when we identify such a clear statistical bias we should seek to address it and a policy that requires the courts to consider a wider range of options and a more thorough look at alternatives for those the current system is prejudiced against does not seem to me to have been a bad place to start.
In itself that does sound reasonable, but I think there is also justifiable skepticism about the bit I've bolded, because as a layman (and clearly to politicians) it seems probable that the more of the reports you have (disproportionately for those in specific categories) the more a court might feel a pressure to finding such an alternative, since that is (one) of the possibilities.
So it would come down to, essentially, a statistical exercise as to whether it worked as a policy or was being (unintentionally) abused - and it would be easy to conflate with the kind of decisions which lead to horrible people not getting deported etc. And since public confidence is important, is that potential statistical effect of this approach worth the hit to public confidence of the apparenty discrimination?
My instinct is it would not be. Albeit I do not have an answer to addressing the identified problem. I often reflect a fear of overreacting should not prevent an initial reaction, but no aphorism covers everything.
"Liz Truss Trump has been proven right about pretty much everything Net zero, trade with China, lockdown, mass migration: all have been disastrous" (£)
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
On this @Leon, we agree. People allowed into this country must at the very least respect our values and the rights of those who live here, women in particular. If they want to live otherwise or they think that their religion says otherwise they should not be welcome. We owe that to people already here and their rights. And we must stand up for those rights.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
It reminds me of the crap you hear from abusers: "look what you made me do." Its pathetic then and its pathetic when you say it. Those who voted for Trump are responsible for their actions and the consequences of their action. Attempting to blame others is, well, pathetic.
Arguments can be made about contributory factors and the like, but sheer deflections are obvious.
It’s not a fucking deflection to note that electorates across the west are voting for hard right or even far right parties and leaders because left wing policies of mass migration and multiculturalism have turned out to be disastrous
David Cameron and Angela Merkel both said the same thing. Multiculturalism has failed badly. And we are now dealing with the calamitous consequences even as this mass migration continues
What are voters meant to do? Vote for more of the same terrible failure? Clearly not. So they choose the only alternatives - which are now the far left or, more often, the far right. As we see across Europe
If you don’t want far right leaders don’t enact or continue policies which forcibly point voters that way
Millions of perfectly respectable people have been tapping politicians on the shoulder and saying "could you do something about the level of immigration please?" for the whole of this century so far, and been routinely patronised, called names, and had their concerns ignored. Then, when they metaphorically give said politicians a punch in the mouth by voting for UKIP, Brexit, Trump, Boris, or Reform, the centrists point at them and say "See, I knew they were racist".
There is no reasoning with the centrists on immigration, it goes in one ear and out of the other. They're well enough off to afford the indulgence of thinking multiculturalism is a good thing, and the migrants cheap labour looks good on the balance sheet when you're not competing with them for jobs, houses, school places and hospital appointments
Very eloquent. You should stand as a Reform candidate. I’m serious
I absolutely would if I was younger. Moaning about life is fine but if you want to change things then you must act. And we do still - just about - have a functioning democracy, which might still - despite its knackered state - respond to public concerns, belatedly
Of course you have a young family, so I totally get why you would not seek this out
Thanks, but as you say it doesn't suit having a young family.. or an old one, I still have both parents to consider
I have already had a bust up with the head of my son's school academy over the speaker they got in to talk about race issues with four year olds, and that has probably given him enough of a black mark against his name. What a time to be alive
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
There are hints of that occurring now as you know in Newham and elsewhere with the emergence of groups like Aspire and the Newham Independents. I know the latter much more than the former as you might expect.
The leaders of the Newham Independents are ex-Labour, supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum. They have jumped on anger from within the Muslim community over the political response to the Israeli invasion of Gaza but have adroitly combined it with some practical and sensible criticism of Newham Council's policies and the sense residents are being treated as cash cows over the cost of parking for example.
Up to now, as was the case with Respect in the mid-2000s, the Newham Independents haven't got a lot of traction in the Wards with smaller Muslim populations - they are nowhere in my Ward which has a strong Hindu population. Whether they can break out of the Muslim areas in 2026 is debatable and whether the Greens or others can capitalise in these areas to break the Labour stranglehold on Newham remains to be seen.
Arguing political minutiae with online weirdos is a surprisingly effective cure for all manner of ills, I find.
Where do you find weirdos online?
This place is a haven of sanity and calm compared to an online Dr Who forum. If you want weirdos then sci-fi or cult TV, or even pro wrestling, is the place to look.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
On this @Leon, we agree. People allowed into this country must at the very least respect our values and the rights of those who live here, women in particular. If they want to live otherwise or they think that their religion says otherwise they should not be welcome. We owe that to people already here and their rights. And we must stand up for those rights.
Well then stop parroting this tedious woke claptrap and choose a side. Because that’s how serious it is, now
It should never have reached this stage. But it has
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
You now can't get a visa to come here unless you have a job offer for a job of at least £38k a year and nor can you bring dependents in either so I highly doubt that is happening.
Not to mention most immigrants are not Muslim anyway and 94% of the UK population are not Muslim either
Just to remind everyone that Parliament hasn’t nationalised British Steel. It has simply given the Secretary of State the power to exercise operational control over any steel undertaking in England and Wales in order to safeguard its continued operation.
Factually incorrect. The legislation specifically refers to England.
You’re right. I stand corrected. The rest of my post still stands.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Lord knows I don't subscribe to the level of Leon's views on this topic, and I'm pro-immigration as a general principle and as being net positive, but it is surely an overgeneralisation that all those who want to move here want to live as we do, except in an economic sense. It suggests no downsides at all, even if in specific areas, and plays into anti arguments.
I'll be in Biarritz a week Saturday eating fresh anchovies
I'm starting to get quite excited
Photos please! You will dilute the discord on here
And bon voyage, too. I really enjoy your peregrinations. Not least because you are one of the few people that seems to enjoy a drink as much as me
I'm sure I won't be able resist posting regular reports, and no more than one photo each day (sigh..)
The homebrew is amazing. I'm enjoying the beer far more than those I'd buy. I haven't bought any for nearly two months. The wine that my Dad gives me for walking Edith is stacking up for the first time
And I haven't had a hangover yet
I get about one hangover a year. My friends tell me this is a bad sign (given how much I drink)
Oh well. If I keel over tomorrow I can say I’ve had a fucking amazing life, and been incredibly lucky to do what I most enjoy in the universe - and actually get paid to do it
I’m now perilously close to visiting 100 countries. But I feel like Joe Root on 97 at Lord’s. I’m edging nervous singles
I think I've only done about a quarter of your number
I just want to go on big walks that join up; this year I'll be joining up last year's Camino de Santiago with the first walk I did three years ago (Girona to Perpignan)
Next year I'm planning to walk from Brittany to Biarritz, to join them all up with my walk around Brittany two years ago. Then the year after to walk from Lisbon to Santiago. Maybe Montpellier to Italy the year after. I ought to walk to Rome
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
On this @Leon, we agree. People allowed into this country must at the very least respect our values and the rights of those who live here, women in particular. If they want to live otherwise or they think that their religion says otherwise they should not be welcome. We owe that to people already here and their rights. And we must stand up for those rights.
It is too late; they have a foothold in parliament now.
Enoch Powell said that if he thought nothing could be done to stop the amount of immigrants coming to the country, then he would use his energy to make life as good as it could be for the mix of citizens we have. I think now is the time for that. We aren't going to deport millions of people, we have to try our best to stop the fracturing of society along religious lines. Or get out and start up somewhere else. Poland, the Czech Rep etc don't have our problems, I think more people should move there rather than stay here and end up in some kind of war
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
That simply isn't true.
I work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities. Your description of my colleagues and patients is completely wrong.
It's possible for you to work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities and for your personal experience to be wholly unrepresentative of multiculturalism writ large.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
Ironically white evangelical Christians and conservative RCs wouldn't be as bothered by such reversion of liberal cultural values than left liberal atheists would be, even though the latter tend to be the biggest fans of immigration while having a below average birthrate
I'll be in Biarritz a week Saturday eating fresh anchovies
I'm starting to get quite excited
Photos please! You will dilute the discord on here
And bon voyage, too. I really enjoy your peregrinations. Not least because you are one of the few people that seems to enjoy a drink as much as me
I'm sure I won't be able resist posting regular reports, and no more than one photo each day (sigh..)
The homebrew is amazing. I'm enjoying the beer far more than those I'd buy. I haven't bought any for nearly two months. The wine that my Dad gives me for walking Edith is stacking up for the first time
And I haven't had a hangover yet
I get about one hangover a year. My friends tell me this is a bad sign (given how much I drink)
Oh well. If I keel over tomorrow I can say I’ve had a fucking amazing life, and been incredibly lucky to do what I most enjoy in the universe - and actually get paid to do it
I’m now perilously close to visiting 100 countries. But I feel like Joe Root on 97 at Lord’s. I’m edging nervous singles
I'll be in Biarritz a week Saturday eating fresh anchovies
I'm starting to get quite excited
Photos please! You will dilute the discord on here
And bon voyage, too. I really enjoy your peregrinations. Not least because you are one of the few people that seems to enjoy a drink as much as me
I'm sure I won't be able resist posting regular reports, and no more than one photo each day (sigh..)
The homebrew is amazing. I'm enjoying the beer far more than those I'd buy. I haven't bought any for nearly two months. The wine that my Dad gives me for walking Edith is stacking up for the first time
And I haven't had a hangover yet
I get about one hangover a year. My friends tell me this is a bad sign (given how much I drink)
Oh well. If I keel over tomorrow I can say I’ve had a fucking amazing life, and been incredibly lucky to do what I most enjoy in the universe - and actually get paid to do it
I’m now perilously close to visiting 100 countries. But I feel like Joe Root on 97 at Lord’s. I’m edging nervous singles
I think I've only done about a quarter of your number
I just want to go on big walks that join up; this year I'll be joining up last year's Camino de Santiago with the first walk I did three years ago (Girona to Perpignan)
Next year I'm planning to walk from Brittany to Biarritz, to join them all up with my walk around Brittany two years ago. Then the year after to walk from Lisbon to Santiago. Maybe Montpellier to Italy the year after. I ought to walk to Rome
Lovely. I might join you on your walk to Rome if I am not too infirm and you don’t mind a grumpy but occasionally amusing old geezer willing to buy the vino
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
Is that it is positive about the seeking to do something about it, or positive that the guidelines actually would have done something about it?
As the latter question seems to have been what led politicians to unify where they would not normally, in that they either thought it wouldn't, or might have but at cost of a wider principle.
Politicians can herd in bad ways on legal matters - we almost certainly don't need new laws for new specific offences to a lot of things, and harsher sentencing is not a panacea - but is your view that the guidelines would have worked as intended without unintended effects?
It is difficult. Statistically people of colour are more likely to be locked up for longer than white people. That doesn't mean in any particular case that anyone of colour does not deserve to be locked up. Far from it. It doesn't mean getting a report on them will result in the court finding an acceptable alternative. There may not be one. Attempting to address a statistical fact through sentencing policy is problematic because each case should be and requires to be considered individually.
But I do believe that when we identify such a clear statistical bias we should seek to address it and a policy that requires the courts to consider a wider range of options and a more thorough look at alternatives for those the current system is prejudiced against does not seem to me to have been a bad place to start.
But that's just the point. We SHOULDN'T 'try to address it' through the court system. What better way is there be than 'addressing it' that way to feed an epidemic of crime that results in even more people from ethnic minorities being locked up in the long term?
We have schools encouraged to apply less rigour because a traditional education is 'too white', police discouraged from an active approach to ethnic minority policing due to cultural sensitivities, and now (thankfully not) reduced sentences for those minorities. Can you not see how that's actually a disaster for those communities?
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Lord knows I don't subscribe to the level of Leon's views on this topic, and I'm pro-immigration as a general principle and as being net positive, but it is surely an overgeneralisation that all those who want to move here want to live as we do, except in an economic sense. It suggests no downsides at all, even if in specific areas, and plays into anti arguments.
Of course people bring traditions with them. Today my Sikh colleagues treated us to samosas for Vaisakhi, and I was very grateful.
Sure some people are more bigoted, but that is true of many native Britons. Homosexuality was illegal here too when I was born, and homophobia rampant in my youth. Times change and people change with it.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
On this @Leon, we agree. People allowed into this country must at the very least respect our values and the rights of those who live here, women in particular. If they want to live otherwise or they think that their religion says otherwise they should not be welcome. We owe that to people already here and their rights. And we must stand up for those rights.
Well then stop parroting this tedious woke claptrap and choose a side. Because that’s how serious it is, now
It should never have reached this stage. But it has
I have chosen a side. Its my side. That means that there are some points that I will agree with A, B and C and other points when I agree with D, E and F. And I am ok with that.
One of the major problems with party politics is that you do indeed need to choose a "side" after which everything your own side says is right and everything the other side says is wrong. Well, to hell with that.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
You now can't get a visa to come here unless you have a job offer for a job of at least £38k a year and nor can you bring dependents in either so I highly doubt that is happening.
Not to mention most immigrants are not Muslim anyway and 94% of the UK population are not Muslim either
It isn't actually true. It is more complicated than that and has more holes than swiss cheese.
The list of exemptions to the £38k amount is extremely large and the government relaxed a number of things further since they have been in power / binned off other things that were due to come into place.
Some of perfectly sensible e.g. PhDs / Post-docs, but there are massive loopholes you can drive a bus through where you only need to earn £30k e.g. the need another Bangladeshi "chef" for my Indian takeaway because British people don't have the required skills.
Also £38k a year now isn't that high these days. It just the average salary.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Lord knows I don't subscribe to the level of Leon's views on this topic, and I'm pro-immigration as a general principle and as being net positive, but it is surely an overgeneralisation that all those who want to move here want to live as we do, except in an economic sense. It suggests no downsides at all, even if in specific areas, and plays into anti arguments.
Of course people bring traditions with them. Today my Sikh colleagues treated us to samosas for Vaisakhi, and I was very grateful.
Sure some people are more bigoted, but that is true of many native Britons. Homosexuality was illegal here too when I was born, and homophobia rampant in my youth. Times change and people change with it.
And that's why I'm in favour of us learning and growing culturally as a nation with new immigrants, but also that it is acceptable to be tougher in calling out if there are elements of new immigration that are not positive or beneficial. Otherwise it'd be just silly - whilst 'some cultures are better than others' can be code for various racist things, it is also just plain true, since our own culture is better in many ways than it used to be, as your own example demonstrates.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
That simply isn't true.
I work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities. Your description of my colleagues and patients is completely wrong.
It's possible for you to work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities and for your personal experience to be wholly unrepresentative of multiculturalism writ large.
It's equally possible for the PB Blackshorts led by the itinerant Roderick Spode to be completely unrepresentative too.
If we have to stamp out British liberalism, tolerance and freedom to live differently to our neighbours in order to restore a mythical monoculture then that monoculture is worth nothing.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
What, being sent to a foreign prison at the whim of an erratic PM having committed no crime and having never been convicted of anything?
Absolutely fucking not. And if a lefty PM tried to do that to someone like you, I'd be out on the streets fighting your cause even if you would never return the favour.
(Your last bit is a blatant inverted lie. The purpose of the guidance was to try and mitigate the issue of minorities getting longer sentences for the same crimes).
Who has Bukele sent abroad for comitting no crime?
OH! I see.
"No crime" here is a bit of a trap by the Right as it is quite possible that the individual concerned has committed a crime. However Bukele and Trump are between them imprisoning a person who is not subject to a prison sentence.
Habeas Corpus is still a law in this country. Doubtless you'd see it repealed as a bleeding-heart woke lefty inconvenience.
Does habeus corpus have any relevance in a society which literally seeks to imprison white people more often than black and brown people, on the basis of their skin colour? No. It doesn’t
We live in a society that locks up black and brown people more often than white people. And a society that has the courage to recognise that and seek to do something about it. We should be proud of it.
Is that it is positive about the seeking to do something about it, or positive that the guidelines actually would have done something about it?
As the latter question seems to have been what led politicians to unify where they would not normally, in that they either thought it wouldn't, or might have but at cost of a wider principle.
Politicians can herd in bad ways on legal matters - we almost certainly don't need new laws for new specific offences to a lot of things, and harsher sentencing is not a panacea - but is your view that the guidelines would have worked as intended without unintended effects?
It is difficult. Statistically people of colour are more likely to be locked up for longer than white people. That doesn't mean in any particular case that anyone of colour does not deserve to be locked up. Far from it. It doesn't mean getting a report on them will result in the court finding an acceptable alternative. There may not be one. Attempting to address a statistical fact through sentencing policy is problematic because each case should be and requires to be considered individually.
But I do believe that when we identify such a clear statistical bias we should seek to address it and a policy that requires the courts to consider a wider range of options and a more thorough look at alternatives for those the current system is prejudiced against does not seem to me to have been a bad place to start.
But that's just the point. We SHOULDN'T 'try to address it' through the court system.
I think ultimately I end up at that point, at least as currently proposed. It seems to make sense at first, since the problem may manifest most obviously at that point, but as the backlash has revealed there are potential costs to do so that the council at least seemed rather flippant about.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
On this @Leon, we agree. People allowed into this country must at the very least respect our values and the rights of those who live here, women in particular. If they want to live otherwise or they think that their religion says otherwise they should not be welcome. We owe that to people already here and their rights. And we must stand up for those rights.
We owe it to women for all of us to stand up for the rights of women. Perhaps we should deport our own misogynists to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where they will doubtless feel at home.
You've all enjoyed @Leon's photos of his drinks occasionally accompanied by food in various exotic locations. And @IanB2's well-travelled dog.
I now bring you the anti-photo: dinner at 5:15 in a north-western hospital while staring at the rain and police van.
Those who provide the dinner and the endless tea and biscuits at regular intervals plus lunch and breakfast are relentlessly and charmingly cheerful and friendly. The doctors and nurses have been equally solicitous, which has taken a little of the edge off their remarks which both suggest something potentially very serious which must be tested for and explored while also not actually telling you the worst. It's an odd experience going in for X to be told that the real problems are likely Y and Z. It allows you to be hopeful and scared at the same time.
At any event they have been very efficient so far and last night's madwoman has disappeared.
I knew I shouldn't have been so gleeful at the end of my contract. I was skipping around merrily on Saturday in glorious sunshine. Now I'm facing God knows what.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
Funny how they don't set up and vote for a political party that campaigns peacefully for repealing equality laws, or even test the boundary of the possible.
Most who migrate to Britain are positive about western values to some extent, although there are things such as if somebody has a near breakdown on the street and nobody comes to help them, they might observe that in a Muslim country people would try to assist them rather than passing on by.
Okay, perhaps that wouldn't be so if the person was obviously transvestite or gay, which isn't good. But in Britain the widespread practice is to ignore.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
That simply isn't true.
I work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities. Your description of my colleagues and patients is completely wrong.
It's possible for you to work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities and for your personal experience to be wholly unrepresentative of multiculturalism writ large.
It's equally possible for the PB Blackshorts led by the itinerant Roderick Spode to be completely unrepresentative too.
If we have to stamp out British liberalism, tolerance and freedom to live differently to our neighbours in order to restore a mythical monoculture then that monoculture is worth nothing.
That reminds me - Marching Season is almost upon us. Woo.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
On this @Leon, we agree. People allowed into this country must at the very least respect our values and the rights of those who live here, women in particular. If they want to live otherwise or they think that their religion says otherwise they should not be welcome. We owe that to people already here and their rights. And we must stand up for those rights.
We owe it to women for all of us to stand up for the rights of women. Perhaps we should deport our own misogynists to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where they will doubtless feel at home.
I can tell you from my daily experience, we are not exactly short of misogynists of our own. We certainly don't need to import any more.
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
He doesn't make my skin crawl whatsoever.
I think most would quite like a bit of the Bukele approach within the British justice system, rather than it being populated with people who think a 'by no means bleeding-heart liberal' view is that people from ethnic and religious minorities should serve lower sentences for the same severity of crime.
No idea what you mean. You might mean that UK prisons should have a tougher regime, which is a sane position though I don't agree; or you may mean we should lock people up without trial following illegal rendition. As this is the current urgent issue issue, I think you should be a bit clearer.
Sure.
1. We need vastly more prison capacity 2. We need prison to be a less eligible prospect than the benefit of doing a crime 3. We need to get dangerous and violent people off the streets
That's Bukele. I believe he has absolutely transformed El Salvador, and frankly a lot more people are now alive because of his work. I don't think that justifies a 'physically ill' reaction.
And does imprisoning Garcia without trial following illegal rendition and declining to return him to USA, knowing that SCOTUS has ordered his return, weigh at all in considering Bukele's merits?
I have no problem at all with imprisonment for criminals following a fair trial of course.
It does. But I only know about the case what I've read in this thread. It seems a very troubling case, but I don't think it would dissuade me that Bukele is very much a good thing - how could it?
How could it? President X is very much for law and order, crime free society, the rule of law and the rights especially of ordinary people who wish to live in peace and harmony.
With this exception: A foreign government has taken Luckyguy1983 off the street and flown him to X's country where he has been imprisoned without trial and there is no indication he will ever be charged, tried or released. The foreign government has accepted that it made a mistake in doing so. Neither country plans to sort it out despite court orders.
I am on Luckyguy1983's side in this one. How about you?
You've all enjoyed @Leon's photos of his drinks occasionally accompanied by food in various exotic locations. And @IanB2's well-travelled dog.
I now bring you the anti-photo: dinner at 5:15 in a north-western hospital while staring at the rain and police van.
Those who provide the dinner and the endless tea and biscuits at regular intervals plus lunch and breakfast are relentlessly and charmingly cheerful and friendly. The doctors and nurses have been equally solicitous, which has taken a little of the edge off their remarks which both suggest something potentially very serious which must be tested for and explored while also not actually telling you the worst. It's an odd experience going in for X to be told that the real problems are likely Y and Z. It allows you to be hopeful and scared at the same time.
At any event they have been very efficient so far and last night's madwoman has disappeared.
I knew I shouldn't have been so gleeful at the end of my contract. I was skipping around merrily on Saturday in glorious sunshine. Now I'm facing God knows what.
You've all enjoyed @Leon's photos of his drinks occasionally accompanied by food in various exotic locations. And @IanB2's well-travelled dog.
I now bring you the anti-photo: dinner at 5:15 in a north-western hospital while staring at the rain and police van.
Those who provide the dinner and the endless tea and biscuits at regular intervals plus lunch and breakfast are relentlessly and charmingly cheerful and friendly. The doctors and nurses have been equally solicitous, which has taken a little of the edge off their remarks which both suggest something potentially very serious which must be tested for and explored while also not actually telling you the worst. It's an odd experience going in for X to be told that the real problems are likely Y and Z. It allows you to be hopeful and scared at the same time.
At any event they have been very efficient so far and last night's madwoman has disappeared.
I knew I shouldn't have been so gleeful at the end of my contract. I was skipping around merrily on Saturday in glorious sunshine. Now I'm facing God knows what.
"Uomo propone. Dio dispone"
That'll learn me. Again.
Best of luck.
In Leicester it's best to choose from the ethnic vegetarian menu, as far nicer than from the main menu.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
On this @Leon, we agree. People allowed into this country must at the very least respect our values and the rights of those who live here, women in particular. If they want to live otherwise or they think that their religion says otherwise they should not be welcome. We owe that to people already here and their rights. And we must stand up for those rights.
We owe it to women for all of us to stand up for the rights of women. Perhaps we should deport our own misogynists to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where they will doubtless feel at home.
Dare I suggest that were we to do this the housing crisis in this country would be solved at a stroke. And a very large proportion of those deported would not be recent migrants either. We have plenty of home grown misogynists to be dealing with.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
That simply isn't true.
I work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities. Your description of my colleagues and patients is completely wrong.
It's possible for you to work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities and for your personal experience to be wholly unrepresentative of multiculturalism writ large.
It's equally possible for the PB Blackshorts led by the itinerant Roderick Spode to be completely unrepresentative too.
If we have to stamp out British liberalism, tolerance and freedom to live differently to our neighbours in order to restore a mythical monoculture then that monoculture is worth nothing.
That reminds me - Marching Season is almost upon us. Woo.
In Britain there has always been that dialogue between progressive forces and reactionaries.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Lord knows I don't subscribe to the level of Leon's views on this topic, and I'm pro-immigration as a general principle and as being net positive, but it is surely an overgeneralisation that all those who want to move here want to live as we do, except in an economic sense. It suggests no downsides at all, even if in specific areas, and plays into anti arguments.
Of course people bring traditions with them. Today my Sikh colleagues treated us to samosas for Vaisakhi, and I was very grateful.
Sure some people are more bigoted, but that is true of many native Britons. Homosexuality was illegal here too when I was born, and homophobia rampant in my youth. Times change and people change with it.
I remember reading the back-story of a now quite successful UK Pakora supplier. Tl;dr :
Moved here and ended up in Orkney(?) as I remember. Slight suspicion from the neighbours. Then they brought round their Pakora.
"You bring us hot spicy deep fried batter?! You are one of us and most welcome!"
You've all enjoyed @Leon's photos of his drinks occasionally accompanied by food in various exotic locations. And @IanB2's well-travelled dog.
I now bring you the anti-photo: dinner at 5:15 in a north-western hospital while staring at the rain and police van.
Those who provide the dinner and the endless tea and biscuits at regular intervals plus lunch and breakfast are relentlessly and charmingly cheerful and friendly. The doctors and nurses have been equally solicitous, which has taken a little of the edge off their remarks which both suggest something potentially very serious which must be tested for and explored while also not actually telling you the worst. It's an odd experience going in for X to be told that the real problems are likely Y and Z. It allows you to be hopeful and scared at the same time.
At any event they have been very efficient so far and last night's madwoman has disappeared.
I knew I shouldn't have been so gleeful at the end of my contract. I was skipping around merrily on Saturday in glorious sunshine. Now I'm facing God knows what.
"Uomo propone. Dio dispone"
That'll learn me. Again.
Thoughts etc….
The food looks like someone tried. I know - but they seem to have tried.
There is, however, no dog for scale. How could you?
Are you seeing the same doctors? Or is it a new chap looking at the chart, each time?
After this morning's Mainstreet Research poll, which got all the Conservatives on here excited as it showed a 2 point lead for Poilievre's party, the other daily rolling polls from Nanos and Liaison have maintained strong Liberal leads of 6 and 7 points respectively while the weekly Pollara poll has an 8 point Liberal lead.
As for Australia, while some Coalition supporters cling to the Newspoll numbers like a liferaft, the fact is the Resolve Strategy polling showing a 7 point 2pp lead for Labor is the more recent fieldwork ending yesterday.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
On this @Leon, we agree. People allowed into this country must at the very least respect our values and the rights of those who live here, women in particular. If they want to live otherwise or they think that their religion says otherwise they should not be welcome. We owe that to people already here and their rights. And we must stand up for those rights.
We owe it to women for all of us to stand up for the rights of women. Perhaps we should deport our own misogynists to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where they will doubtless feel at home.
That would run into the problem of definition. And then that of cultural superiority and hierarchy. And whose definitions of misogyny?
Before you know it, you’ll end up like that loony Col. in the Imperial Japanese Army who compiled a list of one hundred races in order of superiority.
David Frum @davidfrum · 2h Trump defying a 9-0 Supreme Court decision is the reason I say "if we still have free and fair elections in the United States" when I talk about 2026 midterms.
"I was horrified to hear about what happened to Vanessa Brown last month. In March, Ms Brown, 50, was arrested on suspicion of theft and then detained, searched and banged up by Surrey Police for nearly eight hours after she took her daughters’ iPads away in an effort to get her 16-year-old eldest daughter to focus on revision. She went to visit her mother in Cobham for a coffee, took the tablets with her and a couple of hours later had the plod knocking on the door to conduct a “welfare check”, before arresting her. There but for the grace of God, etc. Surrey Police has since apologised, and acknowledged its error."
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
Might be a good idea to Rejoin the EU then so you can enjoy that Lebensraum in the East.
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
Do you seriously still not get this???
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
On this @Leon, we agree. People allowed into this country must at the very least respect our values and the rights of those who live here, women in particular. If they want to live otherwise or they think that their religion says otherwise they should not be welcome. We owe that to people already here and their rights. And we must stand up for those rights.
We owe it to women for all of us to stand up for the rights of women. Perhaps we should deport our own misogynists to Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, where they will doubtless feel at home.
Dare I suggest that were we to do this the housing crisis in this country would be solved at a stroke. And a very large proportion of those deported would not be recent migrants either. We have plenty of home grown misogynists to be dealing with.
You've all enjoyed @Leon's photos of his drinks occasionally accompanied by food in various exotic locations. And @IanB2's well-travelled dog.
I now bring you the anti-photo: dinner at 5:15 in a north-western hospital while staring at the rain and police van.
Those who provide the dinner and the endless tea and biscuits at regular intervals plus lunch and breakfast are relentlessly and charmingly cheerful and friendly. The doctors and nurses have been equally solicitous, which has taken a little of the edge off their remarks which both suggest something potentially very serious which must be tested for and explored while also not actually telling you the worst. It's an odd experience going in for X to be told that the real problems are likely Y and Z. It allows you to be hopeful and scared at the same time.
At any event they have been very efficient so far and last night's madwoman has disappeared.
I knew I shouldn't have been so gleeful at the end of my contract. I was skipping around merrily on Saturday in glorious sunshine. Now I'm facing God knows what.
"Uomo propone. Dio dispone"
That'll learn me. Again.
Thoughts etc….
The food looks like someone tried. I know - but they seem to have tried.
There is, however, no dog for scale. How could you?
Are you seeing the same doctors? Or is it a new chap looking at the chart, each time?
I am seeing 3 different specialists for 3 issues. And more new diagnostic interventions. When the first doctor who saw me said they would "throw the book at me" I never realised he meant it to this extent. 😨
The good news is that if there is something seriously wrong, hopefully, it will have been caught in time. Unless it's too late, of course. But I am going to firmly tell that thought to take a hike because I'd like to get some sleep tonight.
You've all enjoyed @Leon's photos of his drinks occasionally accompanied by food in various exotic locations. And @IanB2's well-travelled dog.
I now bring you the anti-photo: dinner at 5:15 in a north-western hospital while staring at the rain and police van.
Those who provide the dinner and the endless tea and biscuits at regular intervals plus lunch and breakfast are relentlessly and charmingly cheerful and friendly. The doctors and nurses have been equally solicitous, which has taken a little of the edge off their remarks which both suggest something potentially very serious which must be tested for and explored while also not actually telling you the worst. It's an odd experience going in for X to be told that the real problems are likely Y and Z. It allows you to be hopeful and scared at the same time.
At any event they have been very efficient so far and last night's madwoman has disappeared.
I knew I shouldn't have been so gleeful at the end of my contract. I was skipping around merrily on Saturday in glorious sunshine. Now I'm facing God knows what.
"Uomo propone. Dio dispone"
That'll learn me. Again.
Best of luck.
In Leicester it's best to choose from the ethnic vegetarian menu, as far nicer than from the main menu.
The nice lady told me what the options were. Only two. I didn't fancy orange juice as a starter.
After this morning's Mainstreet Research poll, which got all the Conservatives on here excited as it showed a 2 point lead for Poilievre's party, the other daily rolling polls from Nanos and Liaison have maintained strong Liberal leads of 6 and 7 points respectively while the weekly Pollara poll has an 8 point Liberal lead.
As for Australia, while some Coalition supporters cling to the Newspoll numbers like a liferaft, the fact is the Resolve Strategy polling showing a 7 point 2pp lead for Labor is the more recent fieldwork ending yesterday.
Yet even those polls have the Conservatives polling at their highest level since 2011.
Newspoll is normally the most accurate pollster in Australia and even they slightly underestimated the Coalition last time and even Resolve has the Coalition 3% ahead of Labor on the primary vote
You've all enjoyed @Leon's photos of his drinks occasionally accompanied by food in various exotic locations. And @IanB2's well-travelled dog.
I now bring you the anti-photo: dinner at 5:15 in a north-western hospital while staring at the rain and police van.
Those who provide the dinner and the endless tea and biscuits at regular intervals plus lunch and breakfast are relentlessly and charmingly cheerful and friendly. The doctors and nurses have been equally solicitous, which has taken a little of the edge off their remarks which both suggest something potentially very serious which must be tested for and explored while also not actually telling you the worst. It's an odd experience going in for X to be told that the real problems are likely Y and Z. It allows you to be hopeful and scared at the same time.
At any event they have been very efficient so far and last night's madwoman has disappeared.
I knew I shouldn't have been so gleeful at the end of my contract. I was skipping around merrily on Saturday in glorious sunshine. Now I'm facing God knows what.
"Uomo propone. Dio dispone"
That'll learn me. Again.
Thoughts etc….
The food looks like someone tried. I know - but they seem to have tried.
There is, however, no dog for scale. How could you?
Are you seeing the same doctors? Or is it a new chap looking at the chart, each time?
I am seeing 3 different specialists for 3 issues. And more new diagnostic interventions. When the first doctor who saw me said they would "throw the book at me" I never realised he meant it to this extent. 😨
The good news is that if there is something seriously wrong, hopefully, it will have been caught in time. Unless it's too late, of course. But I am going to firmly tell that thought to take a hike because I'd like to get some sleep tonight.
Best wishes for a speedy diagnosis and no nasty illnesses.
"I was horrified to hear about what happened to Vanessa Brown last month. In March, Ms Brown, 50, was arrested on suspicion of theft and then detained, searched and banged up by Surrey Police for nearly eight hours after she took her daughters’ iPads away in an effort to get her 16-year-old eldest daughter to focus on revision. She went to visit her mother in Cobham for a coffee, took the tablets with her and a couple of hours later had the plod knocking on the door to conduct a “welfare check”, before arresting her. There but for the grace of God, etc. Surrey Police has since apologised, and acknowledged its error."
It's impressive, in a way, that after decades of evidence of the police over-reaching and messing about with regular people's lives - that the Telegraph has noticed.
Almost like it took one of their own to be inconvenienced before they gave a damn.
"Matt Hancock loses bid for instant victory in High Court libel battle with Andrew Bridgen Hancock has been sued in the High Court by Andrew Bridgen over a Tweet"
A reporter asks Bukele if Kilmar Ábrego García will be returned to the US.
"How can I return a criminal to the US? Smuggle a terrorist in?," Bukele replies.
He then calls the question "absurd" and says he won't release Ábrego García because he isn't fond of releasing people from his prisons.
"The question is preposterous," Bukele says. "I don't have the power to return him to the United States."
Which means, if the US government doesn't contradict this, that the Trump administration has taken to itself the power to disappear people, innocent or guilty.
Let us speak plainly: Nayib Bukele is a minor strongman who will do whatever Donald Trump demands of him. If Trump wants Abrego Garcia in the United States, then Bukele will return him. By the same token, if Bukele understands that Trump does not want Abrego Garcia returned, then he will keep the man.
Bukele has no interests in this game other than pleasing his political patron. His exercise of Salvadoran “sovereignty” can only be read as an expression of Donald Trump’s will.
Anyone who asserts otherwise is either a villain or a fool.
So if Bukele affirmatively refuses to repatriate Abrego Garcia, it will mean that Trump has told him not to.
At which point the Supreme Court will face a choice.
Surrender or escalation?..
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 13m Watching Trump and Bukele in the Oval Office just now made me feel physically ill.
He makes the skin crawl of any right thinking person anywhere. Oh America, what the hell have you done?
It’s the inevitable endpoint of woke leftism. The people will voluntarily elect right wing strongmen
The exact same thing will happen in the UK if we don’t reverse course on multiple crucial issues. Firstly, migration
How many times do the centrist dads need to be told this?
Okay, migration.
Are you still a supporter of unrestricted immigration from the EU ?
No. I want zero net migration. Immigration is a disaster and multiculturalism is a catastrophe
You can have net zero migration but the ship has sailed on multiculturalism unless you’re planning to deport anyone who isn’t a christian.
Why? You don't have to deport people to support adherence to a single unifying culture.
But I don't want to adhere to Christianity and I'm a pasty faced Brummie. Why can't I celebrate my agnosticism the way I choose?
Nobody is saying you have to, I was just disputing the point that to end multiculturalism you need to deport everyone who doesn't belong to the host culture.
You right wingers are as bad as Communists, always wanting to stop people sharing different cultures.
You've all enjoyed @Leon's photos of his drinks occasionally accompanied by food in various exotic locations. And @IanB2's well-travelled dog.
I now bring you the anti-photo: dinner at 5:15 in a north-western hospital while staring at the rain and police van.
Those who provide the dinner and the endless tea and biscuits at regular intervals plus lunch and breakfast are relentlessly and charmingly cheerful and friendly. The doctors and nurses have been equally solicitous, which has taken a little of the edge off their remarks which both suggest something potentially very serious which must be tested for and explored while also not actually telling you the worst. It's an odd experience going in for X to be told that the real problems are likely Y and Z. It allows you to be hopeful and scared at the same time.
At any event they have been very efficient so far and last night's madwoman has disappeared.
I knew I shouldn't have been so gleeful at the end of my contract. I was skipping around merrily on Saturday in glorious sunshine. Now I'm facing God knows what.
"Uomo propone. Dio dispone"
That'll learn me. Again.
Best of luck.
In Leicester it's best to choose from the ethnic vegetarian menu, as far nicer than from the main menu.
The nice lady told me what the options were. Only two. I didn't fancy orange juice as a starter.
Is their catering outsourced to a Berni Inn Seventies time warp?
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
I think there will be an Islamic Political party here within the next decade or two which will see UK politics change like never before. I doubt there is anything that can be done by those who wish immigration should have been limited in the past now. It is over. I feel like a white man living in late 1960s Salisbury, Rhodesia
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
You now can't get a visa to come here unless you have a job offer for a job of at least £38k a year and nor can you bring dependents in either so I highly doubt that is happening.
Not to mention most immigrants are not Muslim anyway and 94% of the UK population are not Muslim either
It isn't actually true. It is more complicated than that and has more holes than swiss cheese.
The list of exemptions to the £38k amount is extremely large and the government relaxed a number of things further since they have been in power / binned off other things that were due to come into place.
Some of perfectly sensible e.g. PhDs / Post-docs, but there are massive loopholes you can drive a bus through where you only need to earn £30k e.g. the need another Bangladeshi "chef" for my Indian takeaway because British people don't have the required skills.
Also £38k a year now isn't that high these days. It just the average salary.
The median UK salary for all workers is £31,602, so clearly below the minimum visa threshold. Though hardly surprising this Labour governnment is expanding the exemptions
Comments
The homebrew is amazing. I'm enjoying the beer far more than those I'd buy. I haven't bought any for nearly two months. The wine that my Dad gives me for walking Edith is stacking up for the first time
And I haven't had a hangover yet
https://x.com/kangaroos991/status/1911652638082621490
Sympathies
1. We need vastly more prison capacity
2. We need prison to be a less eligible prospect than the benefit of doing a crime
3. We need to get dangerous and violent people off the streets
That's Bukele. I believe he has absolutely transformed El Salvador, and frankly a lot more people are now alive because of his work. I don't think that justifies a 'physically ill' reaction.
Not sure I want to poke a sick bear either - hope you feel better soon, Robert.
I always enjoy a good rant on immigration - we now see the two aspects to the question. In simple terms, what do we do to stop "them" coming? What do we do about the ones already here?
No one, it seems to me, has come up with a coherent approach to net zero migration apart from having it as a policy objective but that's up there with good public services, balanced public finances, strong defences and low inflation as platitudes which we all know to be largely unachievable currently.
What does "net zero migration" look like? One out, one in presumably. Not sure how that would work in practice - all those arriving illegally immediately deported without process (genuine refugees?) but how else would this be monitored without a considerable bureaucracy monitoring arrivals and departures?
While we're struggling with that, what about those already here, whether legally or illegally? The immediate deportation of all foreign-born criminals irrespective of the crime and sentence but do we go for a one strike and you're out whereby any non-British citizen convicted of any custodial offence gets immediately deported?
We'd need to spend a lot on enhancing the border protection side of law enforcement to hunt down visa overstayers (presumably mainly students) and deport them as well.
What about re-migration (or voluntary repatriation as it used to be called)? Do we offer those from for example Syria money to return? What about those from other countries (including EU members)?
Some of these questions may seem harsh but they seem to be to the main obstacles to the implementation of the kind of policies being put forward by Reform and others. There seem to be some serious financial aspects to all this in terms of needing to spend a lot of money to make the policy work.
Besides the practical questions about immigration and migration, there's the cultural angle to all of this. That's where the waters get even murkier.
As the latter question seems to have been what led politicians to unify where they would not normally, in that they either thought it wouldn't, or might have but at cost of a wider principle.
Politicians can herd in bad ways on legal matters - we almost certainly don't need new laws for new specific offences to a lot of things, and harsher sentencing is not a panacea - but is your view that the guidelines would have worked as intended without unintended effects?
There is no reasoning with the centrists on immigration, it goes in one ear and out of the other. They're well enough off to afford the indulgence of thinking multiculturalism is a good thing, and the migrants cheap labour looks good on the balance sheet when you're not competing with them for jobs, houses, school places and hospital appointments
Oh well. If I keel over tomorrow I can say I’ve had a fucking amazing life, and been incredibly lucky to do what I most enjoy in the universe - and actually get paid to do it
I’m now perilously close to visiting 100 countries. But I feel like Joe Root on 97 at Lord’s. I’m edging nervous singles
It’s so tiresomely dull and predictable for a start. A catechism. Whatevs!
I have no problem at all with imprisonment for criminals following a fair trial of course.
My guess is there will be a new country formed in the Eastern European nations which haven't succumbed to Islamic immigration and people will start to move there. A bit like Orania in South Africa.
But I do believe that when we identify such a clear statistical bias we should seek to address it and a policy that requires the courts to consider a wider range of options and a more thorough look at alternatives for those the current system is prejudiced against does not seem to me to have been a bad place to start.
Of course while we can control immigration we shouldn't really deport a legal immigrant unless they commit a serious criminal offence
When political or media people get offended about description of unlawful immigrants as, say, economic migrants or argue even over the unlawful bit, the impression can be made - indirectly - that there should be no limitations to numbers at all. Which perhaps some people do think, but typically feels more like an unintended consequence of arguments like 'Well, even though they are not refugees, they are escaping poverty and we'd all want to do the same' etc, which if accepted surely means no one should be denied entry to any country.
It doesn't change my personal views, but whilst other concerns do trump it from time to time, I do think a lot of people are angry, and not without some reason.
I absolutely would if I was younger. Moaning about life is fine but if you want to change things then you must act. And we do still - just about - have a functioning democracy, which might still - despite its knackered state - respond to public concerns, belatedly
Of course you have a young family, so I totally get why you would not seek this out
Personally, I am happy here. It's a lovely country and that's why a lot of other people want to move here. They want to live as we do.
One would like to think with the likes of Scott Bessent in the Trump team it won’t come to this.
I’ll watch the Dalio interview again. I have always found him to be uber pessimistic so maybe don’t pay his words the attention they merit.
Trump has been proven right about pretty much everything
Net zero, trade with China, lockdown, mass migration: all have been disastrous" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/14/trump-bold-action-defeat-quangocracy/
They DON’T want to live as we do. They DON’T want western values, legalised homosexuality, female freedom, state secularism. They want western benefits and wages while importing THEIR values
But it has to be replaced with a practical, competent alternative.
Because if it isn't then that risks its own backlash.
I work and live in one of the most multicultural workplaces in one of Britain's most multicultural cities. Your description of my colleagues and patients is completely wrong.
So it would come down to, essentially, a statistical exercise as to whether it worked as a policy or was being (unintentionally) abused - and it would be easy to conflate with the kind of decisions which lead to horrible people not getting deported etc. And since public confidence is important, is that potential statistical effect of this approach worth the hit to public confidence of the apparenty discrimination?
My instinct is it would not be. Albeit I do not have an answer to addressing the identified problem. I often reflect a fear of overreacting should not prevent an initial reaction, but no aphorism covers everything.
I have already had a bust up with the head of my son's school academy over the speaker they got in to talk about race issues with four year olds, and that has probably given him enough of a black mark against his name. What a time to be alive
Hope you recover soon, and completely.
The leaders of the Newham Independents are ex-Labour, supporters of Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum. They have jumped on anger from within the Muslim community over the political response to the Israeli invasion of Gaza but have adroitly combined it with some practical and sensible criticism of Newham Council's policies and the sense residents are being treated as cash cows over the cost of parking for example.
Up to now, as was the case with Respect in the mid-2000s, the Newham Independents haven't got a lot of traction in the Wards with smaller Muslim populations - they are nowhere in my Ward which has a strong Hindu population. Whether they can break out of the Muslim areas in 2026 is debatable and whether the Greens or others can capitalise in these areas to break the Labour stranglehold on Newham remains to be seen.
It should never have reached this stage. But it has
Not to mention most immigrants are not Muslim anyway and 94% of the UK population are not Muslim either
I just want to go on big walks that join up; this year I'll be joining up last year's Camino de Santiago with the first walk I did three years ago (Girona to Perpignan)
Next year I'm planning to walk from Brittany to Biarritz, to join them all up with my walk around Brittany two years ago. Then the year after to walk from Lisbon to Santiago. Maybe Montpellier to Italy the year after. I ought to walk to Rome
Enoch Powell said that if he thought nothing could be done to stop the amount of immigrants coming to the country, then he would use his energy to make life as good as it could be for the mix of citizens we have. I think now is the time for that. We aren't going to deport millions of people, we have to try our best to stop the fracturing of society along religious lines. Or get out and start up somewhere else. Poland, the Czech Rep etc don't have our problems, I think more people should move there rather than stay here and end up in some kind of war
And on that slightly happier note, good night PB
We have schools encouraged to apply less rigour because a traditional education is 'too white', police discouraged from an active approach to ethnic minority policing due to cultural sensitivities, and now (thankfully not) reduced sentences for those minorities. Can you not see how that's actually a disaster for those communities?
I mean the ****ing stupidity of it!
Sure some people are more bigoted, but that is true of many native Britons. Homosexuality was illegal here too when I was born, and homophobia rampant in my youth. Times change and people change with it.
One of the major problems with party politics is that you do indeed need to choose a "side" after which everything your own side says is right and everything the other side says is wrong. Well, to hell with that.
The list of exemptions to the £38k amount is extremely large and the government relaxed a number of things further since they have been in power / binned off other things that were due to come into place.
Some of perfectly sensible e.g. PhDs / Post-docs, but there are massive loopholes you can drive a bus through where you only need to earn £30k e.g. the need another Bangladeshi "chef" for my Indian takeaway because British people don't have the required skills.
Also £38k a year now isn't that high these days. It just the average salary.
If we have to stamp out British liberalism, tolerance and freedom to live differently to our neighbours in order to restore a mythical monoculture then that monoculture is worth nothing.
I now bring you the anti-photo: dinner at 5:15 in a north-western hospital while staring at the rain and police van.
Those who provide the dinner and the endless tea and biscuits at regular intervals plus lunch and breakfast are relentlessly and charmingly cheerful and friendly. The doctors and nurses have been equally solicitous, which has taken a little of the edge off their remarks which both suggest something potentially very serious which must be tested for and explored while also not actually telling you the worst. It's an odd experience going in for X to be told that the real problems are likely Y and Z. It allows you to be hopeful and scared at the same time.
At any event they have been very efficient so far and last night's madwoman has disappeared.
I knew I shouldn't have been so gleeful at the end of my contract. I was skipping around merrily on Saturday in glorious sunshine. Now I'm facing God knows what.
"Uomo propone. Dio dispone"
That'll learn me. Again.
Most who migrate to Britain are positive about western values to some extent, although there are things such as if somebody has a near breakdown on the street and nobody comes to help them, they might observe that in a Muslim country people would try to assist them rather than passing on by.
Okay, perhaps that wouldn't be so if the person was obviously transvestite or gay, which isn't good. But in Britain the widespread practice is to ignore.
Is it OK to blame RFK Jr?
With this exception: A foreign government has taken Luckyguy1983 off the street and flown him to X's country where he has been imprisoned without trial and there is no indication he will ever be charged, tried or released. The foreign government has accepted that it made a mistake in doing so. Neither country plans to sort it out despite court orders.
I am on Luckyguy1983's side in this one. How about you?
In Leicester it's best to choose from the ethnic vegetarian menu, as far nicer than from the main menu.
Moved here and ended up in Orkney(?) as I remember. Slight suspicion from the neighbours. Then they brought round their Pakora.
"You bring us hot spicy deep fried batter?! You are one of us and most welcome!"
Quite delightful.
The food looks like someone tried. I know - but they seem to have tried.
There is, however, no dog for scale. How could you?
Are you seeing the same doctors? Or is it a new chap looking at the chart, each time?
As for Australia, while some Coalition supporters cling to the Newspoll numbers like a liferaft, the fact is the Resolve Strategy polling showing a 7 point 2pp lead for Labor is the more recent fieldwork ending yesterday.
To be clear I understand there’s no way you’d be using anything Apple that’s six years old.
Before you know it, you’ll end up like that loony Col. in the Imperial Japanese Army who compiled a list of one hundred races in order of superiority.
@davidfrum
·
2h
Trump defying a 9-0 Supreme Court decision is the reason I say "if we still have free and fair elections in the United States" when I talk about 2026 midterms.
https://x.com/davidfrum/status/1911836219480166563
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/14/police-overreach-vanessa-brown-parenting/
The good news is that if there is something seriously wrong, hopefully, it will have been caught in time. Unless it's too late, of course. But I am going to firmly tell that thought to take a hike because I'd like to get some sleep tonight.
Seems sub-optimal.
Newspoll is normally the most accurate pollster in Australia and even they slightly underestimated the Coalition last time and even Resolve has the Coalition 3% ahead of Labor on the primary vote
Almost like it took one of their own to be inconvenienced before they gave a damn.
Hancock has been sued in the High Court by Andrew Bridgen over a Tweet"
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/matt-hancock-high-court-libel-battle-andrew-bridgen-b1222387.html
https://www.avtrinity.com/news/what-is-the-average-salary-in-the-uk-full-data-and-heatmap#:~:text=The median average salary for,in 2024 was £38,224.