This week's Popbitch confirms the University of Oxford is a dump and hands out professorships and firsts like confetti.
Which Tory MP just had his honorary professorship from Oxford rescinded in writing because they’d apparently “offered too many”, and, more importantly, the university deemed him “a low quality candidate”? Ouch.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
If PIP applications can be handled remotely, why can't asylum applications? The process is ludicrously long at present, and the system means that there is no limit on appeals, so if your claim is rejected, you can apeal ad infinitum. Why does the process even need to be a judicial one? It should be radically sped up, unclogging the court system and freeing up time for lawyers and judges - wouldn't that be nice?
It has to be judicial because that’s our legal system. Otherwise you’ll end up with situations where British citizens are deported without a right to legal representation or trial. I.e. what happened in the US. “They came on a boat, honest guv” is a recipe for tyranny. There has to be controls on who gets flown to this prison on the other side of the world.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
They might stop. But you’re still talking about a massive investment for “a few flights”. Then you have to keep that investment going because you can’t wind it down otherwise the deterrent is removed.
Like I have said over and over again, not simple. I think it makes more sense to make said massive investment on the mainland UK and spend the time and energy quickly processing people (with new laws to facilitate this if necessary) and deportations. Otherwise you’ll end up with what amounts to a prison on the other side of the world.
Your last sentence would hugely increase the problem
It worked for Australia
Australia is far further from its neighbours and had far fewer boats.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, ye
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
So you need to find a location that has theoretical unlimited capacity to be a holding location for illegal immigrants indefinitely. Because “claim rejected” doesn’t mean they leave of their own free will.
Hint, that wasn’t Rwanda. Rwanda is a sovereign state who surprise surprise don’t want to be an unlimited dumping ground.
The point is it has to be a deterrent which stops the boats
Indeed there were signs Rwanda was having that effect but the GE cancelled that
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
They might stop. But you’re still talking about a massive investment for “a few flights”. Then you have to keep that investment going because you can’t wind it down otherwise the deterrent is removed.
Like I have said over and over again, not simple. I think it makes more sense to make said massive investment on the mainland UK and spend the time and energy quickly processing people (with new laws to facilitate this if necessary) and deportations. Otherwise you’ll end up with what amounts to a prison on the other side of the world.
Your last sentence would hugely increase the problem
It worked for Australia
Australia has been discussed many times. You are just incapable of absorbing the information. The Australian situation worked because of their geography and it wasn’t on the other side of the world. That doesn’t mean it will work for us without significant risks to liberty and at great expense.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
This was an interesting piece about why illegal immigrants come to the UK:
I like England’s tactics of putting Crawley and Duckett in first to lull the opposition into a false sense of security before bring in the batsmen.
Crawley has to be dropped.
Several times if he is to get a half decent score.
Do we reckon he has kompromat on the selectors, or are they just peculiar?
It's not like he's ever been very good, and there are several other excellent openers banging down the door, including Alex Lees, Ben Slater and Tom Haines.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
I would like to think they would stop, but I doubt it. Smuggling is a business, and the operators are selling dreams to their customers, not reality. Would the customers even get to know about the flights, or would the smugglers' promises of a land of milk and honey overwhelm reality?
Fair point - not like they have access to the information superhighway. It is only the 17th century after all.
The Internet is part of the problem- which source of information do you trust?
Which is why spreading disinformation is so egregious.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
An apologist for illegal immigration writes.
Please show where I have sais illegal immigration is acceptable?
(Though personally I think the Dems bigger issue is the broader left doubling down on some of its madder identity politics views.)
Thank you. I'm keen to watch it but only if it's offering more hope than fear or resignation. Can you confirm please?
Delivering hope and good news isn't really Peter Zeihan's thing, unfortunately. But its quite digestible and not 100% gloomy.
The point is, the Dems' electoral coalition is in trouble. On paper, Labour+ethnic vote+coastal liberals should be enough to win any election - but the coastal liberal vision doesn't enthuse Labour, and the ethnic vote - particularly the Hispanic vote - is getting more and more conservative. So the Dems need something more to rebuild their coalition. Rejection of Trump could provide that, but the last election showed it's not something to be relied upon - people are willing to vote for someone they dislike if they judge it will help their material circumstances, and for many, it will.
MY point - in response to yours earlier, though I've only just formulated this view - is that if American reject the Dems at the midterms, it neither means we should read into it enthusiasm for Trump, nor should we write them off as good people.
Good points. The Dems are struggling structurally and it will take something special for them to win big at the midterms. But the way I see it the 'something special' is forming before our eyes. The gross and wicked corruption of the whole country, every aspect, every level, by Donald Trump.
So I think it's on (barring the election being rigged, which is possibly a flawed assumption, but let's not go there yet). I think the big Dem win, or perhaps more accurately the GOP loss, is on.
Could be wrong of course - I was in November - but I desperately hope not. As for writing them off if it doesn't happen, I think I'd have to. I'd be sad about it but I'd have to. It's not possible for a 'good people' to go along with this shit and retain a credible claim to that moniker.
I was in California last week. A lot of people just aren’t following what Trump is doing in detail.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
The International Rescue Committee, the international aid charity run by former Labour cabinet minster David Miliband, has also condemned the plan. Flora Alexander, the IRC’s UK director, said:
This agreement marks yet another step in the wrong direction – doubling down on deterrence rather than offering meaningful protection. Prioritising tougher enforcement without creating safe, legal routes is both dangerous and ineffective. Evidence shows that these policies don’t stop people from seeking safety – they simply force them into more perilous journeys, putting lives at risk.
Proposals such as a ‘one-in, one-out’ scheme risk undermining the right to seek asylum, a core principle of international law. They ignore the root causes of why people cross borders in the first place – to escape conflict, persecution and crisis. Border security must not come at the expense of human rights or the UK’s moral and legal obligations.
It's clear that 'human rights' is really a ratchet to undermine state sovereignty.
Damn right: states derive their legitimacy from humans, not the other way around.
Specifically the humans under their jurisdiction, not the humans who run powerful neighbouring institutions.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
It’s also not necessary. Primary legislation overrules the ECHR. We don’t give prisoners the right to vote despite what the ECtHR said. It is a total red herring.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
No - Badenoch has already suggested resiling from parts of the ECHR over the boats
(Though personally I think the Dems bigger issue is the broader left doubling down on some of its madder identity politics views.)
Thank you. I'm keen to watch it but only if it's offering more hope than fear or resignation. Can you confirm please?
Delivering hope and good news isn't really Peter Zeihan's thing, unfortunately. But its quite digestible and not 100% gloomy.
The point is, the Dems' electoral coalition is in trouble. On paper, Labour+ethnic vote+coastal liberals should be enough to win any election - but the coastal liberal vision doesn't enthuse Labour, and the ethnic vote - particularly the Hispanic vote - is getting more and more conservative. So the Dems need something more to rebuild their coalition. Rejection of Trump could provide that, but the last election showed it's not something to be relied upon - people are willing to vote for someone they dislike if they judge it will help their material circumstances, and for many, it will.
MY point - in response to yours earlier, though I've only just formulated this view - is that if American reject the Dems at the midterms, it neither means we should read into it enthusiasm for Trump, nor should we write them off as good people.
Good points. The Dems are struggling structurally and it will take something special for them to win big at the midterms. But the way I see it the 'something special' is forming before our eyes. The gross and wicked corruption of the whole country, every aspect, every level, by Donald Trump.
So I think it's on (barring the election being rigged, which is possibly a flawed assumption, but let's not go there yet). I think the big Dem win, or perhaps more accurately the GOP loss, is on.
Could be wrong of course - I was in November - but I desperately hope not. As for writing them off if it doesn't happen, I think I'd have to. I'd be sad about it but I'd have to. It's not possible for a 'good people' to go along with this shit and retain a credible claim to that moniker.
I was in California last week. A lot of people just aren’t following what Trump is doing in detail.
No, you can't be revulsed by something you're not paying attention to.
Hopefully you gave them a nudge. Hell, I know you did.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
Not really.
East Falklands. Build a camp there including a processing centre. Not that expensive.
Staff it - pay people from the immigration service (or whoever is doing the work at the moment) a 50% premium on a 6 month rotation. Peanuts in the scheme of things.
Lawyer and judges the same.
Asylum seekers who won’t declare / won’t leave can just stay there for all I care. One winter should do it.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
No - Badenoch has already suggested resiling from parts of the ECHR over the boats
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
They might stop. But you’re still talking about a massive investment for “a few flights”. Then you have to keep that investment going because you can’t wind it down otherwise the deterrent is removed.
Like I have said over and over again, not simple. I think it makes more sense to make said massive investment on the mainland UK and spend the time and energy quickly processing people (with new laws to facilitate this if necessary) and deportations. Otherwise you’ll end up with what amounts to a prison on the other side of the world.
Your last sentence would hugely increase the problem
It worked for Australia
Australia has been discussed many times. You are just incapable of absorbing the information. The Australian situation worked because of their geography and it wasn’t on the other side of the world. That doesn’t mean it will work for us without significant risks to liberty and at great expense.
I have been to Australia several times and am very well aware of the geography
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
No - Badenoch has already suggested resiling from parts of the ECHR over the boats
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
It would. But if they refuse the white Corsa give them the green Invacar from the 1970s ( That is what Motability was meant to replace).
I am very anti Motability. My wife exchange her immaculate c300 cabriolet for a Suzuki Swift (don't ask me why). The Suzuki was ex- Motability and operated by a f*****'' animal who should have been made to take the bus.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
Not really.
East Falklands. Build a camp there including a processing centre. Not that expensive.
Staff it - pay people from the immigration service (or whoever is doing the work at the moment) a 50% premium on a 6 month rotation. Peanuts in the scheme of things.
Lawyer and judges the same.
Asylum seekers who won’t declare / won’t leave can just stay there for all I care. One winter should do it.
It will cost a lot more than you think. And how long are you going to maintain this expense and camp with no residents (but obviously with the ability to ramp up demand at a moments demand) to maintain the deterrent.
Alternatively, what if the Falklands population gets pissed off that their island is suddenly swamped with immigrants?
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, ye
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
I think my analogy is fair.
I cast no aspersions on you as a person - I believe you to be decent and fair but...
My point is that your proposed solution is as bad as the outcome it seeks to avoid. Leaving the ECHR would itself be a terrible step imo.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
No - Badenoch has already suggested resiling from parts of the ECHR over the boats
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
If PIP applications can be handled remotely, why can't asylum applications? The process is ludicrously long at present, and the system means that there is no limit on appeals, so if your claim is rejected, you can apeal ad infinitum. Why does the process even need to be a judicial one? It should be radically sped up, unclogging the court system and freeing up time for lawyers and judges - wouldn't that be nice?
It has to be judicial because that’s our legal system. Otherwise you’ll end up with situations where British citizens are deported without a right to legal representation or trial. I.e. what happened in the US. “They came on a boat, honest guv” is a recipe for tyranny. There has to be controls on who gets flown to this prison on the other side of the world.
Someone applying for asylum is, by definition, not a British subject. The conditions for asylum are clearly laid down - what is the need for lawyers to haggle and judges to pronounce on something that a qualified professional could decide based on a set of criteria?
Just had a tour around our local RNLI station. What a fantastic organisation. Going for over 200 years and will save any soul in distress. Not a penny of government subsidy and a mix of paid staff and volunteers. A genuine British institution where others will come to your aid without checking your status, race or credit card.
If you have some free cash (after selling everything and living in a tent) please support this organisation.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
If PIP applications can be handled remotely, why can't asylum applications? The process is ludicrously long at present, and the system means that there is no limit on appeals, so if your claim is rejected, you can apeal ad infinitum. Why does the process even need to be a judicial one? It should be radically sped up, unclogging the court system and freeing up time for lawyers and judges - wouldn't that be nice?
It has to be judicial because that’s our legal system. Otherwise you’ll end up with situations where British citizens are deported without a right to legal representation or trial. I.e. what happened in the US. “They came on a boat, honest guv” is a recipe for tyranny. There has to be controls on who gets flown to this prison on the other side of the world.
Someone applying for asylum is, by definition, not a British subject. The conditions for asylum are clearly laid down - what is the need for lawyers to haggle and judges to pronounce on something that a qualified professional could decide based on a set of criteria?
Because someone gets shipped straight off to Rwanda or the Falklands or wherever. When they get there they say “I am a British citizen”. They say “no you’re not”. Then you’re fucked without legal recourse. If you’re asking those questions before you deport then you’re not processing abroad you’re processing them here and need the appropriate facilities, defeating the point.
(Though personally I think the Dems bigger issue is the broader left doubling down on some of its madder identity politics views.)
Thank you. I'm keen to watch it but only if it's offering more hope than fear or resignation. Can you confirm please?
Delivering hope and good news isn't really Peter Zeihan's thing, unfortunately. But its quite digestible and not 100% gloomy.
The point is, the Dems' electoral coalition is in trouble. On paper, Labour+ethnic vote+coastal liberals should be enough to win any election - but the coastal liberal vision doesn't enthuse Labour, and the ethnic vote - particularly the Hispanic vote - is getting more and more conservative. So the Dems need something more to rebuild their coalition. Rejection of Trump could provide that, but the last election showed it's not something to be relied upon - people are willing to vote for someone they dislike if they judge it will help their material circumstances, and for many, it will.
MY point - in response to yours earlier, though I've only just formulated this view - is that if American reject the Dems at the midterms, it neither means we should read into it enthusiasm for Trump, nor should we write them off as good people.
Good points. The Dems are struggling structurally and it will take something special for them to win big at the midterms. But the way I see it the 'something special' is forming before our eyes. The gross and wicked corruption of the whole country, every aspect, every level, by Donald Trump.
So I think it's on (barring the election being rigged, which is possibly a flawed assumption, but let's not go there yet). I think the big Dem win, or perhaps more accurately the GOP loss, is on.
Could be wrong of course - I was in November - but I desperately hope not. As for writing them off if it doesn't happen, I think I'd have to. I'd be sad about it but I'd have to. It's not possible for a 'good people' to go along with this shit and retain a credible claim to that moniker.
I was in California last week. A lot of people just aren’t following what Trump is doing in detail.
No, you can't be revulsed by something you're not paying attention to.
Hopefully you gave them a nudge. Hell, I know you did.
too many negatives… not sure if you are agreeing with me!
There are some true believers (anti vax as well) that I didn’t because I like them and it would make me angry. But others are revulsed.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
It would. But if they refuse the white Corsa give them the green Invacar from the 1970s ( That is what Motability was meant to replace).
I am very anti Motability. My wife exchange her immaculate c300 cabriolet for a Suzuki Swift (don't ask me why). The Suzuki was ex- Motability and operated by a f*****'' animal who should have been made to take the bus.
Well why did she buy it then? Was she forced to take it or something?
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
No - Badenoch has already suggested resiling from parts of the ECHR over the boats
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, ye
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
I think my analogy is fair.
I cast no aspersions on you as a person - I believe you to be decent and fair but...
My point is that your proposed solution is as bad as the outcome it seeks to avoid. Leaving the ECHR would itself be a terrible step imo.
Your analogy was quite shit. As fantastical as the idea is, the idea of the Weimar Government rounding up and presumably deporting jews to prevent the rise of the Nazis is absolutely not equivalent to what did happen to them. Many jews would have happily exchanged being 'rounded up' and removed to a safe third place with the actuality of the final solution.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
That's exactly what it is @rcs1000 ! Specifically PIP Mobility.
Motability is a separate charit people choose to use.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, ye
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
I think my analogy is fair.
I cast no aspersions on you as a person - I believe you to be decent and fair but...
My point is that your proposed solution is as bad as the outcome it seeks to avoid. Leaving the ECHR would itself be a terrible step imo.
Thank you for that
However, the question of the ECHR on this subject is not just being discussed here in the UK but in the EU as well who also want to see a change in his particular issue
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
Not really.
East Falklands. Build a camp there including a processing centre. Not that expensive.
Staff it - pay people from the immigration service (or whoever is doing the work at the moment) a 50% premium on a 6 month rotation. Peanuts in the scheme of things.
Lawyer and judges the same.
Asylum seekers who won’t declare / won’t leave can just stay there for all I care. One winter should do it.
It will cost a lot more than you think. And how long are you going to maintain this expense and camp with no residents (but obviously with the ability to ramp up demand at a moments demand) to maintain the deterrent.
Alternatively, what if the Falklands population gets pissed off that their island is suddenly swamped with immigrants?
It will cost less than the system does at the moment.
I meant West Falklands, population of less than 200 in 4,500 km2 . I’m sure they can find the space.
They would probably like the jobs / money. And we have a lot of influence there even if they do get grumpy.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, ye
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
I think my analogy is fair.
I cast no aspersions on you as a person - I believe you to be decent and fair but...
My point is that your proposed solution is as bad as the outcome it seeks to avoid. Leaving the ECHR would itself be a terrible step imo.
Your analogy was quite shit. As fantastical as the idea is, the idea of the Weimar Government rounding up and presumably deporting jews to prevent the rise of the Nazis is absolutely not equivalent to what did happen to them. Many jews would have happily exchanged being 'rounded up' and removed to a safe third place with the actuality of the final solution.
This might be the stupidest of your posts so far. “The Jews would have been grateful to have been rounded up and deported rather than experience the Holocaust.”
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
Not really.
East Falklands. Build a camp there including a processing centre. Not that expensive.
Staff it - pay people from the immigration service (or whoever is doing the work at the moment) a 50% premium on a 6 month rotation. Peanuts in the scheme of things.
Lawyer and judges the same.
Asylum seekers who won’t declare / won’t leave can just stay there for all I care. One winter should do it.
I don't actually see that working, because surely key to the scheme is the ability of migrants to abscond? Rwanda would never fill up because people would be off. How would they get off East Falkland?
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
And you sound like the typical left wing dog whistler - scream Nazi /Hitler and shut the debates down.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
If PIP applications can be handled remotely, why can't asylum applications? The process is ludicrously long at present, and the system means that there is no limit on appeals, so if your claim is rejected, you can apeal ad infinitum. Why does the process even need to be a judicial one? It should be radically sped up, unclogging the court system and freeing up time for lawyers and judges - wouldn't that be nice?
It has to be judicial because that’s our legal system. Otherwise you’ll end up with situations where British citizens are deported without a right to legal representation or trial. I.e. what happened in the US. “They came on a boat, honest guv” is a recipe for tyranny. There has to be controls on who gets flown to this prison on the other side of the world.
Someone applying for asylum is, by definition, not a British subject. The conditions for asylum are clearly laid down - what is the need for lawyers to haggle and judges to pronounce on something that a qualified professional could decide based on a set of criteria?
Because someone gets shipped straight off to Rwanda or the Falklands or wherever. When they get there they say “I am a British citizen”. They say “no you’re not”. Then you’re fucked without legal recourse. If you’re asking those questions before you deport then you’re not processing abroad you’re processing them here and need the appropriate facilities, defeating the point.
They say “I am a British citizen” and get asked to prove it. If they are then it’s “I’m very sorry, apologies for our error” and a flight back to the UK
This week's Popbitch confirms the University of Oxford is a dump and hands out professorships and firsts like confetti.
Which Tory MP just had his honorary professorship from Oxford rescinded in writing because they’d apparently “offered too many”, and, more importantly, the university deemed him “a low quality candidate”? Ouch.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
Not really.
East Falklands. Build a camp there including a processing centre. Not that expensive.
Staff it - pay people from the immigration service (or whoever is doing the work at the moment) a 50% premium on a 6 month rotation. Peanuts in the scheme of things.
Lawyer and judges the same.
Asylum seekers who won’t declare / won’t leave can just stay there for all I care. One winter should do it.
It will cost a lot more than you think. And how long are you going to maintain this expense and camp with no residents (but obviously with the ability to ramp up demand at a moments demand) to maintain the deterrent.
Alternatively, what if the Falklands population gets pissed off that their island is suddenly swamped with immigrants?
It will cost less than the system does at the moment.
I meant West Falklands, population of less than 200 in 4,500 km2 . I’m sure they can find the space.
They would probably like the jobs / money. And we have a lot of influence there even if they do get grumpy.
Do you have any idea of the infrastructure you would need to build to support this? Not only in labour but in shipping in materials and supplies. You would need to build roads, ports, expand air facilities, probably hotels or at the very least reasonable lodgings. Otherwise nobody is doing that for only 50% more pay. I am willing to bet this never happens because if it was viable it would have been done.
In the UK in 1990 polls having a Major led Tories beating Labour and a Thatcher led Tories losing were correct, as were polls in 2019 having a Boris led Tories beating Labour and a May led Tories losing.
I suspect Starmer will be secretly pleased more Green voters would vote for a Corbyn led new party than 2024 Labour voters would
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
If PIP applications can be handled remotely, why can't asylum applications? The process is ludicrously long at present, and the system means that there is no limit on appeals, so if your claim is rejected, you can apeal ad infinitum. Why does the process even need to be a judicial one? It should be radically sped up, unclogging the court system and freeing up time for lawyers and judges - wouldn't that be nice?
It has to be judicial because that’s our legal system. Otherwise you’ll end up with situations where British citizens are deported without a right to legal representation or trial. I.e. what happened in the US. “They came on a boat, honest guv” is a recipe for tyranny. There has to be controls on who gets flown to this prison on the other side of the world.
Someone applying for asylum is, by definition, not a British subject. The conditions for asylum are clearly laid down - what is the need for lawyers to haggle and judges to pronounce on something that a qualified professional could decide based on a set of criteria?
Because someone gets shipped straight off to Rwanda or the Falklands or wherever. When they get there they say “I am a British citizen”. They say “no you’re not”. Then you’re fucked without legal recourse. If you’re asking those questions before you deport then you’re not processing abroad you’re processing them here and need the appropriate facilities, defeating the point.
They say “I am a British citizen” and get asked to prove it. If they are then it’s “I’m very sorry, apologies for our error” and a flight back to the UK
How do they prove it without access to legal and administrative support and without the right to appeal? Honestly you guys are absolutely unhinged or just not living in the real world. We know this will happen because it has already happened in the US.
That's good. It means that you are being challenged on your views or the accuracy of some of the points you make. Learn from it.
Mark Twain's comment is insightful.
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”"
Just had a tour around our local RNLI station. What a fantastic organisation. Going for over 200 years and will save any soul in distress. Not a penny of government subsidy and a mix of paid staff and volunteers. A genuine British institution where others will come to your aid without checking your status, race or credit card.
If you have some free cash (after selling everything and living in a tent) please support this organisation.
We are in intensely proud our youngest son is a qualified ILB [inshore] helm and also operates on the AWB [all weather self righting boat]
The training is intense and thorough and they will go to save lives in seas you would not want to be on
They do have some paid crew, but the vast majority offer their time entirely freely
I endorse you appeal to support them with a donation
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
Not really.
East Falklands. Build a camp there including a processing centre. Not that expensive.
Staff it - pay people from the immigration service (or whoever is doing the work at the moment) a 50% premium on a 6 month rotation. Peanuts in the scheme of things.
Lawyer and judges the same.
Asylum seekers who won’t declare / won’t leave can just stay there for all I care. One winter should do it.
I don't actually see that working, because surely key to the scheme is the ability of migrants to abscond? Rwanda would never fill up because people would be off. How would they get off East Falkland?
That’s the point… it’s safe… controllable… they can always choose to go home and withdraw their application (we fly them home) or we deport them if rejected and/or send them to the UK if they are approved
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, ye
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
I think my analogy is fair.
I cast no aspersions on you as a person - I believe you to be decent and fair but...
My point is that your proposed solution is as bad as the outcome it seeks to avoid. Leaving the ECHR would itself be a terrible step imo.
Your analogy was quite shit. As fantastical as the idea is, the idea of the Weimar Government rounding up and presumably deporting jews to prevent the rise of the Nazis is absolutely not equivalent to what did happen to them. Many jews would have happily exchanged being 'rounded up' and removed to a safe third place with the actuality of the final solution.
This might be the stupidest of your posts so far. “The Jews would have been grateful to have been rounded up and deported rather than experience the Holocaust.”
Good fucking grief
To be fair to LG, he wasn't the poster who promoted the Madagascar 'solution' to the Jewish problem...
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
No - Badenoch has already suggested resiling from parts of the ECHR over the boats
Badenoch is a complete irrelevance in this debate
Why
She has no power nor a sniff of power
She is the leader of the official opposition and in that role has power
How she uses it and evolves over the next few years will be interesting to follow
(Though personally I think the Dems bigger issue is the broader left doubling down on some of its madder identity politics views.)
Thank you. I'm keen to watch it but only if it's offering more hope than fear or resignation. Can you confirm please?
Delivering hope and good news isn't really Peter Zeihan's thing, unfortunately. But its quite digestible and not 100% gloomy.
The point is, the Dems' electoral coalition is in trouble. On paper, Labour+ethnic vote+coastal liberals should be enough to win any election - but the coastal liberal vision doesn't enthuse Labour, and the ethnic vote - particularly the Hispanic vote - is getting more and more conservative. So the Dems need something more to rebuild their coalition. Rejection of Trump could provide that, but the last election showed it's not something to be relied upon - people are willing to vote for someone they dislike if they judge it will help their material circumstances, and for many, it will.
MY point - in response to yours earlier, though I've only just formulated this view - is that if American reject the Dems at the midterms, it neither means we should read into it enthusiasm for Trump, nor should we write them off as good people.
Good points. The Dems are struggling structurally and it will take something special for them to win big at the midterms. But the way I see it the 'something special' is forming before our eyes. The gross and wicked corruption of the whole country, every aspect, every level, by Donald Trump.
So I think it's on (barring the election being rigged, which is possibly a flawed assumption, but let's not go there yet). I think the big Dem win, or perhaps more accurately the GOP loss, is on.
Could be wrong of course - I was in November - but I desperately hope not. As for writing them off if it doesn't happen, I think I'd have to. I'd be sad about it but I'd have to. It's not possible for a 'good people' to go along with this shit and retain a credible claim to that moniker.
I was in California last week. A lot of people just aren’t following what Trump is doing in detail.
No, you can't be revulsed by something you're not paying attention to.
Hopefully you gave them a nudge. Hell, I know you did.
too many negatives… not sure if you are agreeing with me!
There are some true believers (anti vax as well) that I didn’t because I like them and it would make me angry. But others are revulsed.
I'm just accepting what you say - that a lot of people in California are not paying attention to what Trump is doing. I'm sure that goes for elsewhere in the States too.
But it just needs enough who are, and who care, care enough to vote Dem or abstain in the midterms having voted for him in November.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
Many jobs are difficult. It doesn't meam we shouldn't try. How wojld you have repelled the Viking invasions? They only wanted sonewhere to live too.
In 1000 years time, the good people of Lerwick and Sheringham will have an annual festival where they burn small rubber boats.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, ye
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
That's a bit like someone in Germany in 1931 saying "Round up all the Jews to prevent Hitler a Hitler coronation".
Hard to see the difference between your proposed treatment and the disease you're trying to avoid.
To compare my comments with 1931 Germany is unworthy of you @Benpointer
They would be processed and either allowed back into the UK or their claim rejected
I think my analogy is fair.
I cast no aspersions on you as a person - I believe you to be decent and fair but...
My point is that your proposed solution is as bad as the outcome it seeks to avoid. Leaving the ECHR would itself be a terrible step imo.
Your analogy was quite shit. As fantastical as the idea is, the idea of the Weimar Government rounding up and presumably deporting jews to prevent the rise of the Nazis is absolutely not equivalent to what did happen to them. Many jews would have happily exchanged being 'rounded up' and removed to a safe third place with the actuality of the final solution.
This might be the stupidest of your posts so far. “The Jews would have been grateful to have been rounded up and deported rather than experience the Holocaust.”
Good fucking grief
To be fair to LG, he wasn't the poster who promoted the Madagascar 'solution' to the Jewish problem...
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
Not really.
East Falklands. Build a camp there including a processing centre. Not that expensive.
Staff it - pay people from the immigration service (or whoever is doing the work at the moment) a 50% premium on a 6 month rotation. Peanuts in the scheme of things.
Lawyer and judges the same.
Asylum seekers who won’t declare / won’t leave can just stay there for all I care. One winter should do it.
It will cost a lot more than you think. And how long are you going to maintain this expense and camp with no residents (but obviously with the ability to ramp up demand at a moments demand) to maintain the deterrent.
Alternatively, what if the Falklands population gets pissed off that their island is suddenly swamped with immigrants?
It will cost less than the system does at the moment.
I meant West Falklands, population of less than 200 in 4,500 km2 . I’m sure they can find the space.
They would probably like the jobs / money. And we have a lot of influence there even if they do get grumpy.
Do you have any idea of the infrastructure you would need to build to support this? Not only in labour but in shipping in materials and supplies. You would need to build roads, ports, expand air facilities, probably hotels or at the very least reasonable lodgings. Otherwise nobody is doing that for only 50% more pay. I am willing to bet this never happens because if it was viable it would have been done.
You are assuming it will not act as a deterrent
Having been to the wonderful Falklands I doubt the isolation and climate would appeal to migrants
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
Not really.
East Falklands. Build a camp there including a processing centre. Not that expensive.
Staff it - pay people from the immigration service (or whoever is doing the work at the moment) a 50% premium on a 6 month rotation. Peanuts in the scheme of things.
Lawyer and judges the same.
Asylum seekers who won’t declare / won’t leave can just stay there for all I care. One winter should do it.
It will cost a lot more than you think. And how long are you going to maintain this expense and camp with no residents (but obviously with the ability to ramp up demand at a moments demand) to maintain the deterrent.
Alternatively, what if the Falklands population gets pissed off that their island is suddenly swamped with immigrants?
It will cost less than the system does at the moment.
I meant West Falklands, population of less than 200 in 4,500 km2 . I’m sure they can find the space.
They would probably like the jobs / money. And we have a lot of influence there even if they do get grumpy.
Do you have any idea of the infrastructure you would need to build to support this? Not only in labour but in shipping in materials and supplies. You would need to build roads, ports, expand air facilities, probably hotels or at the very least reasonable lodgings. Otherwise nobody is doing that for only 50% more pay. I am willing to bet this never happens because if it was viable it would have been done.
No of course I haven’t done a full work up. But I am sure that lots of pesky civil servants spent their time looking for problems not solutions.
I could easily imagine it would take 2-3 years to put in place. And yes you probably do 3 weeks on, 1 week in Port Stanley on leave.
No details. Usually an ominous sign with Sir Keir Traitor
Sir Keir has produced a 'brilliant' deal where we take legal migrants from France and house them in the UK in return for illegal migrants who try to cross the channel being returned to France
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
I'm still Tory better than I ever did. Lookin' like a true survivor, feelin' like a little kid. And I'm still Tory after all this time....
This week's Popbitch confirms the University of Oxford is a dump and hands out professorships and firsts like confetti.
Which Tory MP just had his honorary professorship from Oxford rescinded in writing because they’d apparently “offered too many”, and, more importantly, the university deemed him “a low quality candidate”? Ouch.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
If PIP applications can be handled remotely, why can't asylum applications? The process is ludicrously long at present, and the system means that there is no limit on appeals, so if your claim is rejected, you can apeal ad infinitum. Why does the process even need to be a judicial one? It should be radically sped up, unclogging the court system and freeing up time for lawyers and judges - wouldn't that be nice?
It has to be judicial because that’s our legal system. Otherwise you’ll end up with situations where British citizens are deported without a right to legal representation or trial. I.e. what happened in the US. “They came on a boat, honest guv” is a recipe for tyranny. There has to be controls on who gets flown to this prison on the other side of the world.
Someone applying for asylum is, by definition, not a British subject. The conditions for asylum are clearly laid down - what is the need for lawyers to haggle and judges to pronounce on something that a qualified professional could decide based on a set of criteria?
Because someone gets shipped straight off to Rwanda or the Falklands or wherever. When they get there they say “I am a British citizen”. They say “no you’re not”. Then you’re fucked without legal recourse. If you’re asking those questions before you deport then you’re not processing abroad you’re processing them here and need the appropriate facilities, defeating the point.
They say “I am a British citizen” and get asked to prove it. If they are then it’s “I’m very sorry, apologies for our error” and a flight back to the UK
How do they prove it without access to legal and administrative support and without the right to appeal? Honestly you guys are absolutely unhinged or just not living in the real world. We know this will happen because it has already happened in the US.
“I am a British citizen” is a simple and proveable statement. Documentary evidence is available. It doesn’t need legal support.
Asylum is, of course, more difficult and does need proper support.
The issue in the US is the way ICE is behaving and not caring.
No details. Usually an ominous sign with Sir Keir Traitor
Give it a rest. They way you continually talk this country down, you are a bit rich throwing 'traitor' around.
Shut up, weirdo
LOL. The way you've lived your life, and *you* call others 'weirdo' ?
@TSE’s ban on harsh insults is bearing fruit. A month ago I’d have launched a Putin style assault of cuss-drones at you, F bombing all over the oblast
Now I’m only allowed to call you a “weirdo” yet that is oddly satisfying. Probably because you are a weirdo
Weirdo
Okay, I'll bite. What about me, or the way I live, do you think classifies me as a 'weirdo' ?
The fact you even have to ask that is proof you’re a weirdo
Weirdo
Put the drunk and/or drugs down and step away from the keyboard...
Never forget that Leon once back at home is a kalsarikännit grand master. The reason he travels is to drink less.
Not that I can speak, having got so used to expensive Norwegian meals that now at a cheaper place I have ordered a bottle of wine intending for just a glass.
This place has the most aggressive seagulls ever. I was wise enough to sit under the canopy and have only been dive bombed once, the bird just getting away with a small piece of tomato. Those people foolish enough to sit by the street are dramatically under attack, once their food arrives.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal..Although Starmer did pay them X million pounds for that nonsense.
You need to stop watching SkyNews. I've been watching it all day and it is rubbish. If you want the real deal try GBNews.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
BBC called it right. They will come back with bigger demands and before you know it Starmer has agreed to pay another billion quid and Jersey is part of France.
I would be OK losing Jersey: bunch of tax dodging bastards.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
I'm still Tory better than I ever did. Lookin' like a true survivor, feelin' like a little kid. And I'm still Tory after all this time....
That is simply not true. "Vote, vote, vote for Nigel Farage!"
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
I'm still Tory better than I ever did. Lookin' like a true survivor, feelin' like a little kid. And I'm still Tory after all this time....
That is simply not true. "Vote, vote, vote for Nigel Farage!"
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
I'm still Tory better than I ever did. Lookin' like a true survivor, feelin' like a little kid. And I'm still Tory after all this time....
Olukemi is it cold In your little corner of the world.
Today has been a really, really tough day. One of my best friends has terminal cancer. He has been out of touch but I heard from him again and went with a friend to see him today. His cancers include brain cancer. Although he recognised us he was horribly delusional. Very, very little of the brilliant man I have known for 20 years was left. Life is short and brutal. Don't waste it on those you don't care for.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal..Although Starmer did pay them X million pounds for that nonsense.
You need to stop watching SkyNews. I've been watching it all day and it is rubbish. If you want the real deal try GBNews.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal..Although Starmer did pay them X million pounds for that nonsense.
You need to stop watching SkyNews. I've been watching it all day and it is rubbish. If you want the real deal try GBNews.
I’m struggling to get excited by politics at the moment. Somehow the summer and the sunshine suck the interest out of me. This is the time I start to obsess over weather models.
And there is potentially something for the ages in store there. Several global models and their ensemble sets are throwing out the landmark heatwave, the one which gets remembered for posterity: in other words, that June-July 1976 spell but with 50 years of climate change.
In these scenarios this current hot spell is just a warm up act.
Several are not though. They’re just showing an extended spell of quite hot weather with some showers.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
That's exactly what it is @rcs1000 ! Specifically PIP Mobility.
Motability is a separate charit people choose to use.
Correct me if I am wrong but the whole premise of Motability was to ensure the appropriate mobility for those requiring assistance. It replaced the horrid three wheeler Invacars from the 1970s. No one on Motability needs an Audi Q8.
Today has been a really, really tough day. One of my best friends has terminal cancer. He has been out of touch but I heard from him again and went with a friend to see him today. His cancers include brain cancer. Although he recognised us he was horribly delusional. Very, very little of the brilliant man I have known for 20 years was left. Life is short and brutal. Don't waste it on those you don't care for.
My Dad would have been 88 today
He died of cancer, it got into his brain. It was horrendous.
You’re right about life.enjoy the time you have left. You don’t know how long it will be and don’t waste it on garbage.
It’s why some people here, even if they reply to my posts, I won’t engage with them.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal..Although Starmer did pay them X million pounds for that nonsense.
You need to stop watching SkyNews. I've been watching it all day and it is rubbish. If you want the real deal try GBNews.
IMV the Rwanda scheme was rubbish and *might* have been illegal.
The current situation is unworkable and, depending on viewpoint, immoral.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal.
Sneaking into the UK on small boats is probably illegal?
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
That's exactly what it is @rcs1000 ! Specifically PIP Mobility.
Motability is a separate charit people choose to use.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
That's exactly what it is @rcs1000 ! Specifically PIP Mobility.
Motability is a separate charit people choose to use.
Correct me if I am wrong but the whole premise of Motability was to ensure the appropriate mobility for those requiring assistance. It replaced the horrid three wheeler Invacars from the 1970s. No one on Motability needs an Audi Q8.
Seems likely that is a brilliant and useful initial idea that has gone very wrong.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal.
Sneaking into the UK on small boats is probably illegal?
It's not if you intend to seek asylum, even if people wish it were.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal.
Sneaking into the UK on small boats is probably illegal?
It's not if you intend to seek asylum, even if people wish it were.
And given that nearly 80% of those on the small boats will be found eligible for asylum it is completely misleading and dishonest to refer to this as illegal migration. Uncontrolled, certainly, but not illegal.
The Houthis are an intriguing lot. There’s something of Greek mythology about them, and the name: the Houthis.
A strange people with, oh I dunno, let’s say one stumpy leg and eagles’ eyes, standing at the gates of the Red Sea shouting “who goes there?” and lobbing missiles at passing sailors in an attempt to frustrate them in their epic quests to deliver tat to Europe.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
That's exactly what it is @rcs1000 ! Specifically PIP Mobility.
Motability is a separate charit people choose to use.
Correct me if I am wrong but the whole premise of Motability was to ensure the appropriate mobility for those requiring assistance. It replaced the horrid three wheeler Invacars from the 1970s. No one on Motability needs an Audi Q8.
Seems likely that is a brilliant and useful initial idea that has gone very wrong.
Defo needs review.
No idea why Timms has ruled it out.
It looks like an attack on the disabled. Granted in some cases the brother-in-law's BMW M5 sort of disabled*.
This continual daylight is a trial. When the weather is as good as it is now, it seems sad to be going to bed when you can walk the dog in warm sunshine; when you eventually get into bed, sleep comes easy but when you're of an age that the bladder stops you sleeping all the way through, whereas in the darkness of home, returning to sleep is easy, when sunlight is already streaming around the curtains (only the most expensive places here having proper 100% blackout), it's hard to resist the temptation to get up, especially with a dog even more triggered by the light of the day than I am. And so sleep deprivation slowly approaches.
The bottle of wine I ordered in error, then deciding to drink half and keep half, now has so little left in it that it is embarrassing to take it away.
The Houthis are an intriguing lot. There’s something of Greek mythology about them, and the name: the Houthis.
A strange people with, oh I dunno, let’s say one stumpy leg and eagles’ eyes, standing at the gates of the Red Sea shouting “who goes there?” and lobbing missiles at passing sailors in an attempt to frustrate them in their epic quests to deliver tat to Europe.
I wonder if they might emerge as a genuine power in the new world order. A kind of latter-day trading empire like the Italian city states.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Leaving the ECHR is not a good idea. Are you Reform with HYUFD now?
I'm still Tory better than I ever did. Lookin' like a true survivor, feelin' like a little kid. And I'm still Tory after all this time....
But as an advert for others to follow, not so much.
You were put on this planet to encourage those of weaker faith to f**k off and join the LibDems.
This continual daylight is a trial. When the weather is as good as it is now, it seems sad to be going to bed when you can walk the dog in warm sunshine; when you eventually get into bed, sleep comes easy but when you're of an age that the bladder stops you sleeping all the way through, whereas in the darkness of home, returning to sleep is easy, when sunlight is already streaming around the curtains (only the most expensive places here having proper 100% blackout), it's hard to resist the temptation to get up, especially with a dog even more triggered by the light of the day than I am. And so sleep deprivation slowly approaches.
The bottle of wine I ordered in error, then deciding to drink half and keep half, now has so little left in it that it is embarrassing to take it away.
Wine bottles have definitely got smaller over the years. Like chocolate bars.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal.
Sneaking into the UK on small boats is probably illegal?
It's not if you intend to seek asylum, even if people wish it were.
How do you know they're seeking asylum? Most of them come here for the freebies.
The Houthis are an intriguing lot. There’s something of Greek mythology about them, and the name: the Houthis.
A strange people with, oh I dunno, let’s say one stumpy leg and eagles’ eyes, standing at the gates of the Red Sea shouting “who goes there?” and lobbing missiles at passing sailors in an attempt to frustrate them in their epic quests to deliver tat to Europe.
I wonder if they might emerge as a genuine power in the new world order. A kind of latter-day trading empire like the Italian city states.
For that they need to shed the “Iran sponsored” moniker. Instead focus on reviving the ancient trade in Frankincense and Myrrh.
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
That's exactly what it is @rcs1000 ! Specifically PIP Mobility.
Motability is a separate charit people choose to use.
Correct me if I am wrong but the whole premise of Motability was to ensure the appropriate mobility for those requiring assistance. It replaced the horrid three wheeler Invacars from the 1970s. No one on Motability needs an Audi Q8.
Seems likely that is a brilliant and useful initial idea that has gone very wrong.
Defo needs review.
No idea why Timms has ruled it out.
Labour have completely fluffed their welfare strategy. In opposition they acted horrified that temporary cost-of-living payments might have to end at some time, won an election with a small proportion of the electorate, and then out-of-the-blue decided to tell the people convinced by that pre-election strategy to piss off whilst they kicked people with severe enduring psychosis in the head if they had failed to score more than four points on a descriptor. They also tried to freeze your grannies to death. (This is certainly how they would have framed these policies whilst in opposition.)
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal.
Sneaking into the UK on small boats is probably illegal?
It's not if you intend to seek asylum, even if people wish it were.
How do you know they're seeking asylum? Most of them come here for the freebies.
They'll fit in perfectly then
At this point Labour just need to find a way to make arriving by small boat both illegal and an automatic and permanent disqualifier to asylum and UK citizenship. If that means some fudge around the ECHR, a new treaty, or a new UK bill of rights that reflects the sensible ECHR rulings then so be it.
If they also commit to maintaining or increasing the number of asylum claims that are approved, and start shipping people in from Turkey or something by RAF plane, then they'll have most lefties on board too.
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal.
Sneaking into the UK on small boats is probably illegal?
It's not if you intend to seek asylum, even if people wish it were.
How do you know they're seeking asylum? Most of them come here for the freebies.
Sky interviewed a migrant in Calais who.openly said in the UK he could work for cash and pay no tax
It was quite stark actually being expressed to camera
Stephen Timms - “There are no plans to review the (Motability) Scheme’s qualifying benefits.”
That really is a nonsense. A couple of years ago waiting for my car to be serviced at Sytner BMW in Cardiff (it was still under a gratis service package- I'm not mad) there was a big Motability sign in the showroom.
A Motability car should be restricted to a basic Corsa and none of your fancy metallic colours.
Wouldn't it be better to have it as a simple stipend, so that the recipient could choose between using it for Uber or towards a car payment?
That's exactly what it is @rcs1000 ! Specifically PIP Mobility.
Motability is a separate charit people choose to use.
Correct me if I am wrong but the whole premise of Motability was to ensure the appropriate mobility for those requiring assistance. It replaced the horrid three wheeler Invacars from the 1970s. No one on Motability needs an Audi Q8.
Seems likely that is a brilliant and useful initial idea that has gone very wrong.
Defo needs review.
No idea why Timms has ruled it out.
Labour have completely fluffed their welfare strategy. In opposition they acted horrified that temporary cost-of-living payments might have to end at some time, won an election with a small proportion of the electorate, and then out-of-the-blue decided to tell the people convinced by that pre-election strategy to piss off whilst they kicked people with severe enduring psychosis in the head if they had failed to score more than four points on a descriptor. They also tried to freeze your grannies to death. (This is certainly how they would have framed these policies whilst in opposition.)
Surely severe psychosis gets at very least 8 points on engaging with people?
This continual daylight is a trial. When the weather is as good as it is now, it seems sad to be going to bed when you can walk the dog in warm sunshine; when you eventually get into bed, sleep comes easy but when you're of an age that the bladder stops you sleeping all the way through, whereas in the darkness of home, returning to sleep is easy, when sunlight is already streaming around the curtains (only the most expensive places here having proper 100% blackout), it's hard to resist the temptation to get up, especially with a dog even more triggered by the light of the day than I am. And so sleep deprivation slowly approaches.
The bottle of wine I ordered in error, then deciding to drink half and keep half, now has so little left in it that it is embarrassing to take it away.
I’m very light sensitive and always need an eye mask outside of the winter months if I’m away from home. Your sleep problems remind me of that Al Pacino film Insomnia based in Alaska , it’s a pretty good film directed by Christopher Nolan .
This pilot framework will be decided once the legal issues are resolved and agreed in the EU
So not agreed yet
Hello ECHR
Oh god. He hasn’t actually got any agreement at all, yet?
He is so dismally wet
Got an agreement to try to agree an agreement....
I know I keep banging on about this, but Starmer needs to stop seeking agreements by consent using legal frameworks, and start imposing solutions by force without consent. The small boats should be turned around and sent back whence they came.
If the French disapprove they can start a war. If the lawyers disapprove then laws should be passed to disapply human rights legislation outside the UK jurisdiction against the armed forces. If the Navy disagree, then a new branch ("Border Security") should be created to do it and the RN can bugger off to the Falklands.
But we need to stop asking people, since they obviously aren't getting it done.
You’re asking those deemed with that task to try and force boats to turn back to France and what happens when some sink and people drown. Practically forcing a boat to turn round isn’t easy notwithstanding the moral issues.
You bring them ashore safely then fly them to a processing centre outside Europe
And if necessary leave the ECHR
This present position cannot continue if the country wants to prevent a Farage coronation
Yeah that’s fine. We just have to (a) build a processing centre, (b) staff a processing centre, (c) pay for regular secure flights to said processing centre, (d) ensure that lawyers and judges have reasonable access in order to in fact process applications, (e) have a plan to deal with asylum seekers who do not declare where they are from and are not willing to leave.
Expensive. And time consuming. Suddenly “outside Europe” seems impractical. Of course it’s possible and we should probably do it if we can find a suitable location but it’s not simple with no downsides, as with everything.
A few flights and the boats would stop
Labour should have refined Rwanda but certainly today's announcement was a farce
Oh BigG. Rwanda was utter rubbish and probably illegal.
Sneaking into the UK on small boats is probably illegal?
It's not if you intend to seek asylum, even if people wish it were.
How do you know they're seeking asylum? Most of them come here for the freebies.
Sky interviewed a migrant in Calais who.openly said in the UK he could work for cash and pay no tax
It was quite stark actually being expressed to camera
Comments
Which Tory MP just had his honorary professorship from Oxford rescinded in writing because they’d apparently “offered too many”, and, more importantly, the university deemed him “a low quality candidate”? Ouch.
Indeed there were signs Rwanda was having that effect but the GE cancelled that
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy9xyn30yj0o
Simple answer, there isn't one and indeed the UK has the same problem as Spain, Greece, Italy, France and Germany.
It's not like he's ever been very good, and there are several other excellent openers banging down the door, including Alex Lees, Ben Slater and Tom Haines.
Ladybirds attacking Stokes apparently
You couldn't make that line up could you ?
Which is why spreading disinformation is so egregious.
Something Blue
Speak now or forever hold your peace
Congratulations to GB News presenter Nana Akua, who had her engagement party this past weekend.
It was a real riot of a bash, with some big dogs like Dan Wootton attending, but sadly one person was missing.
Bonnie Blue had been hastily taken off the guest-list at the last minute after Nigel Farage refused to attend the same do as her.
Bonnie had originally copped an invite because Nana had interviewed her a few times on the weekend show.
Whatever happened to freedom of expression, Nige?
Hopefully you gave them a nudge. Hell, I know you did.
East Falklands. Build a camp there including a processing centre. Not that expensive.
Staff it - pay people from the immigration service (or whoever is doing the work at the moment) a 50% premium on a 6 month rotation. Peanuts in the scheme of things.
Lawyer and judges the same.
Asylum seekers who won’t declare / won’t leave can just stay there for all I care. One winter should do it.
The point remains that their scheme was a success
I am very anti Motability. My wife exchange her immaculate c300 cabriolet for a Suzuki Swift (don't ask me why). The Suzuki was ex- Motability and operated by a f*****'' animal who should have been made to take the bus.
And how long are you going to maintain this expense and camp with no residents (but obviously with the ability to ramp up demand at a moments demand) to maintain the deterrent.
Alternatively, what if the Falklands population gets pissed off that their island is suddenly swamped with immigrants?
I cast no aspersions on you as a person - I believe you to be decent and fair but...
My point is that your proposed solution is as bad as the outcome it seeks to avoid. Leaving the ECHR would itself be a terrible step imo.
Joe Root.
If you have some free cash (after selling everything and living in a tent) please support this organisation.
There are some true believers (anti vax as well) that I didn’t because I like them and it would make me angry. But others are revulsed.
*Blame autocorrect!
Motability is a separate charit people choose to use.
However, the question of the ECHR on this subject is not just being discussed here in the UK but in the EU as well who also want to see a change in his particular issue
https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/05/23/nine-eu-countries-seek-european-human-rights-conventions-rethink-on-migration
I meant West Falklands, population of less than 200 in 4,500 km2 . I’m sure they can find the space.
They would probably like the jobs / money. And we have a lot of influence there even if they do get grumpy.
Good fucking grief
In the UK in 1990 polls having a Major led Tories beating Labour and a Thatcher led Tories losing were correct, as were polls in 2019 having a Boris led Tories beating Labour and a May led Tories losing.
I suspect Starmer will be secretly pleased more Green voters would vote for a Corbyn led new party than 2024 Labour voters would
Mark Twain's comment is insightful.
"When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years.”"
The training is intense and thorough and they will go to save lives in seas you would not want to be on
They do have some paid crew, but the vast majority offer their time entirely freely
I endorse you appeal to support them with a donation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan
How she uses it and evolves over the next few years will be interesting to follow
But it just needs enough who are, and who care, care enough to vote Dem or abstain in the midterms having voted for him in November.
And if not? ... well the abyss awaits.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3071vp2d8yo
Having been to the wonderful Falklands I doubt the isolation and climate would appeal to migrants
I could easily imagine it would take 2-3 years to put in place. And yes you probably do 3 weeks on, 1 week in Port Stanley on leave.
Asylum is, of course, more difficult and does need proper support.
The issue in the US is the way ICE is behaving and not caring.
Not that I can speak, having got so used to expensive Norwegian meals that now at a cheaper place I have ordered a bottle of wine intending for just a glass.
This place has the most aggressive seagulls ever. I was wise enough to sit under the canopy and have only been dive bombed once, the bird just getting away with a small piece of tomato. Those people foolish enough to sit by the street are dramatically under attack, once their food arrives.
You need to stop watching SkyNews. I've been watching it all day and it is rubbish. If you want the real deal try GBNews.
In your little corner of the world.
She has freedom of expression, she has free speech
She doesn’t have the right to an audience of a platform with other people
Farage is not denying her anything
And there is potentially something for the ages in store there. Several global models and their ensemble sets are throwing out the landmark heatwave, the one which gets remembered for posterity: in other words, that June-July 1976 spell but with 50 years of climate change.
In these scenarios this current hot spell is just a warm up act.
Several are not though. They’re just showing an extended spell of quite hot weather with some showers.
One to keep an eye on.
He died of cancer, it got into his brain. It was horrendous.
You’re right about life.enjoy the time you have left. You don’t know how long it will be and don’t waste it on garbage.
It’s why some people here, even if they reply to my posts, I won’t engage with them.
Life is so precious.
The current situation is unworkable and, depending on viewpoint, immoral.
Charity
Defo needs review.
No idea why Timms has ruled it out.
A strange people with, oh I dunno, let’s say one stumpy leg and eagles’ eyes, standing at the gates of the Red Sea shouting “who goes there?” and lobbing missiles at passing sailors in an attempt to frustrate them in their epic quests to deliver tat to Europe.
* I am being more insensitive than I should be...
The bottle of wine I ordered in error, then deciding to drink half and keep half, now has so little left in it that it is embarrassing to take it away.
You were put on this planet to encourage those of weaker faith to f**k off and join the LibDems.
At this point Labour just need to find a way to make arriving by small boat both illegal and an automatic and permanent disqualifier to asylum and UK citizenship. If that means some fudge around the ECHR, a new treaty, or a new UK bill of rights that reflects the sensible ECHR rulings then so be it.
If they also commit to maintaining or increasing the number of asylum claims that are approved, and start shipping people in from Turkey or something by RAF plane, then they'll have most lefties on board too.
It was quite stark actually being expressed to camera
What have you done BigG.