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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
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
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
.... cash.
What have you done BigG.
One night, I did try to find enough 2p and 1p coins lying about the house to make the name "Anabobazina" out of cash, but never got round to actually doing it
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 sympathies David. It’s often harder for those who remain in cases like this, especially given how fast glioblastoma can move
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 worked in Finland once many years again for two separate four week stretches.
The first was mid-summer - around end of June. They had all gone - and they admit this - a bit loopy as it was the mid summer and max daylight. Indeed it was a struggle to get flights book as so many Finns coming home for the mid summer party.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
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.
That's a "how" problem. If solved, the greater problem is also solved. I'm sure somebody can work out how to do it humanely.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
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?
I wouldn't have picked it up. I would have come back in the Mercedes. The car was bought from a Suzuki dealer and they did their best to tidy it up, but even after their efforts one could tell it had been abused. Probably the most disgusting issue was the audio manual looked like it had been eaten by a child and the drivers handbook had the remnants of the driver's breakfast all over it. Looking through the one MOT the guy had not fulfilled the requirements of Motability. I can now see that the rear door and the rear quarter have been repainted, and after nearly a year with us it still stinks of cigarettes. People like that should not be allowed custody of a vehicle with a taxpayer input.
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?
One of the strange things about the public debate on this is the idea that you can simply answer "yes" to a descriptor and get it marked by the DWP as such, whilst at the same time they believe that there's widespread social media posts telling people how to "cheat" the system. There's an obvious cognitive dissonance there - where's the need to cheat if you just say "yes" and get it?
The truth is that with PIP, there are far more face-to-face assessments, and both face-to-face assessors and those grading the forms were given targets to increase the volume they processed, and reduce the number of successful claims. Schizophrenia, by definition, is a severe and enduring psychosis, but just look at the stats you'll see the number with that diagnosis that fail to get PIP on first application is >0.
For the "engaging with people" activity, 8 points are only awarded if the person cannot engage with others at all due to overwhelming psychological distress or risk of harm, but this has to be evidenced. By definition, if someone cannot engage with others, they may well find it difficult to evidence such.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
Look at the ensemble set. Several are runs for the ages. The GFS op (I assume that’s what you were looking at from the description) is a cool outlier in the latter half.
State Department employees are bracing for mass layoffs as soon as Friday after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with reorganization and downsizing.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the 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.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the 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.
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?
There should be a crucial difference between UK Government criminality and small boat gang master criminality.
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
That would never have happened under the Tories! Oh wait...
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.
95% of small boat arrivals since 2018 applied for asylum.
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?
There should be a crucial difference between UK Government criminality and small boat gang master criminality.
Smashing the gangs has more than a touch of shooting the messenger about 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
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Maybe starmer should also be tackling Rachman landlords as well as dodgy cash in hand employers.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
Look at the ensemble set. Several are runs for the ages. The GFS op (I assume that’s what you were looking at from the description) is a cool outlier in the latter half.
The top notch ECM is so far also scorching, the other models are mixed but their ensembles are all hot.
Anyone can pick an ensemble member to make a point and I imagine P17 would be horrible but I look at ECM AIFS as well as GFS OP and apart from the current spell (which has been watered down significantly from some of the earlier output) and next weekend's brief hot incursion (again, also watered down from some of the initial forecasts), I'm not seeing a significant hot spell in the reliable by which I mean 33-35c and higher in London.
Looking beyond ten days on the models is a waste of time - I don't rule out another push of heat in August - in fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't another heatwave but at the moment it's all conjecture.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
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?
There should be a crucial difference between UK Government criminality and small boat gang master criminality.
Smashing the gangs has more than a touch of shooting the messenger about it
Alternatively, leave the ECHR and strafe the boats. Which I believe is Nigel's strategy.
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.
I see all the LLM companies now are moving to a model where the frontier models they offer are in the region of $2-3k a year (potentially even more if you pay based upon api call / per token). The days of $20-30 a month for near unlimited access is behind us.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Maybe starmer should also be tackling Rachman landlords as well as dodgy cash in hand employers.
That is some tall order. Rome wasn't built in a day.
My question is what dereliction of duty Government allowed industrial scale slum housing to burgeon in the first place?
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
It doesn't feel like this is being enforced very strongly. The only thing that appear to happen if somebody points out all the Deliveroo riders emerging from accommodation housing such people appears to be to ensure the people doing the pointing out are removed from the area ASAP.
Also, given some of the reasons that appear to win on appeal and people who have been convicted of serious crimes not being able to be removed, I wonder how much that actually works out in the end.
It appears basically impossible to send people back to certain countries regardless, because the overriding factor is always it is deemed they won't be safe there. Make some spicy posts on Facebook about the rulers of your country of origin, you aren't going back.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
Look at the ensemble set. Several are runs for the ages. The GFS op (I assume that’s what you were looking at from the description) is a cool outlier in the latter half.
The top notch ECM is so far also scorching, the other models are mixed but their ensembles are all hot.
Anyone can pick an ensemble member to make a point and I imagine P17 would be horrible but I look at ECM AIFS as well as GFS OP and apart from the current spell (which has been watered down significantly from some of the earlier output) and next weekend's brief hot incursion (again, also watered down from some of the initial forecasts), I'm not seeing a significant hot spell in the reliable by which I mean 33-35c and higher in London.
Looking beyond ten days on the models is a waste of time - I don't rule out another push of heat in August - in fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't another heatwave but at the moment it's all conjecture.
Only on a political betting site would someone try to start an argument about a light hearted weather prognostication.
Actually that’s not true, they do it on weather forums too.
It also says a lot about how climate change has altered our perception of what a heatwave is.
But keep an eye on next week. We’re really not that far away from a total scorcher.
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?
There should be a crucial difference between UK Government criminality and small boat gang master criminality.
Smashing the gangs has more than a touch of shooting the messenger about it
Alternatively, leave the ECHR and strafe the boats. Which I believe is Nigel's strategy.
Btw in the week that saw the demise of the semi-house-trained polecat I'm pleased to report that the creature has been reincarnated in the shape of Rupert Lowe
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.
Fleeing persecution in France.
There is no requirement in law to stop in the first safe country. Perhaps there should be, but there isn't.
(In practice the vast majority of the world's refugees are either internally displaced in their own country, or are in adjacent countries.)
I am as keen as anyone to get to grips with the issue, but lies and myths spread on social media do not help.
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.
Fleeing persecution in France.
The Huguenots were one thing, I think that our immigration policy has made a few missteps since.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about 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
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Maybe starmer should also be tackling Rachman landlords as well as dodgy cash in hand employers.
Councils have the responsibility for licencing and enforcing HMO regulations.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
If you are granted asylum in the UK, don't you become eligible to claim certain benefits, including housing benefits and Universal Credit?
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
Look at the ensemble set. Several are runs for the ages. The GFS op (I assume that’s what you were looking at from the description) is a cool outlier in the latter half.
The top notch ECM is so far also scorching, the other models are mixed but their ensembles are all hot.
Anyone can pick an ensemble member to make a point and I imagine P17 would be horrible but I look at ECM AIFS as well as GFS OP and apart from the current spell (which has been watered down significantly from some of the earlier output) and next weekend's brief hot incursion (again, also watered down from some of the initial forecasts), I'm not seeing a significant hot spell in the reliable by which I mean 33-35c and higher in London.
Looking beyond ten days on the models is a waste of time - I don't rule out another push of heat in August - in fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't another heatwave but at the moment it's all conjecture.
Only on a political betting site would someone try to start an argument about a light hearted weather prognostication.
Actually that’s not true, they do it on weather forums too.
It also says a lot about how climate change has altered our perception of what a heatwave is.
But keep an eye on next week. We’re really not that far away from a total scorcher.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
It doesn't feel like this is being enforced very strongly. The only thing that appear to happen if somebody points out all the Deliveroo riders emerging from accommodation housing such people appears to be to ensure the people doing the pointing out are removed from the area ASAP.
Also, given some of the reasons that appear to win on appeal and people who have been convicted of serious crimes not being able to be removed, I wonder how much that actually works out in the end.
It may well be that the rules are not being enforced*, but they do exist. Deliveroo should be amply fined if you do have evidence of this. My experience of asylum seekers is that they are bored stiff by the enforced idleness of their situation.
*one of the bigger issues is the failure to deport those refused asylum. These do disappear into the underground economy. This is something that Labour have cracked down on, with deportations and "voluntary" returns sharply up from a year ago.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Indeed and the summer brings out the rough sleepers who are prevalent in my part of East London such as under the A406, in shop doorways and in the doorway of the local Church.
One is even at the door of the local funeral director which is disturbing...
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
Look at the ensemble set. Several are runs for the ages. The GFS op (I assume that’s what you were looking at from the description) is a cool outlier in the latter half.
The top notch ECM is so far also scorching, the other models are mixed but their ensembles are all hot.
Anyone can pick an ensemble member to make a point and I imagine P17 would be horrible but I look at ECM AIFS as well as GFS OP and apart from the current spell (which has been watered down significantly from some of the earlier output) and next weekend's brief hot incursion (again, also watered down from some of the initial forecasts), I'm not seeing a significant hot spell in the reliable by which I mean 33-35c and higher in London.
Looking beyond ten days on the models is a waste of time - I don't rule out another push of heat in August - in fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't another heatwave but at the moment it's all conjecture.
Only on a political betting site would someone try to start an argument about a light hearted weather prognostication.
Actually that’s not true, they do it on weather forums too.
It also says a lot about how climate change has altered our perception of what a heatwave is.
But keep an eye on next week. We’re really not that far away from a total scorcher.
'a political betting site', 'a political betting site' !! Surely you mean 'the political betting site'.
I wonder if you think it's of concern that the models whilst unlikely to accurately be predicting beyond a week or so, so show alarmingly high temperatures. Surely if the models are goodish then whilst they may have missed the most likely cluster of outcomes that doesn't mean that there was no chance of the grim ones?
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
If you are granted asylum in the UK, don't you become eligible to claim certain benefits, including housing benefits and Universal Credit?
Yes, but many are homeless first. Both of those are paid in arrears.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
If you are granted asylum in the UK, don't you become eligible to claim certain benefits, including housing benefits and Universal Credit?
Yes, but many are homeless first. Both of those are paid in arrears.
You get 2 months of extra support once your claim has been accepted to sort yourself out. That seems more and then generous.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Both parties are responsible for weapons grade homelessness as, thanks to our disastrous planning rules, we have not built enough houses for decades. We are short 8 million compared to the Frogs.
Actually the highest rise in house prices from the mid-90s to 2010 was mostly under New Labour. Completely misunderstanding the lessons of the early 90s property market crash, Blair and Brown thought that high house prices were essential to keep Middle England on their side. And the Conservatives continued their disastrous policies.
And, unsurprisingly, where the government causes a shortage through its usual mix of cowardice, complacency and monumental incompetence, the poor suffer the most.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
It doesn't feel like this is being enforced very strongly. The only thing that appear to happen if somebody points out all the Deliveroo riders emerging from accommodation housing such people appears to be to ensure the people doing the pointing out are removed from the area ASAP.
Also, given some of the reasons that appear to win on appeal and people who have been convicted of serious crimes not being able to be removed, I wonder how much that actually works out in the end.
It may well be that the rules are not being enforced*, but they do exist. Deliveroo should be amply fined if you do have evidence of this. My experience of asylum seekers is that they are bored stiff by the enforced idleness of their situation.
*one of the bigger issues is the failure to deport those refused asylum. These do disappear into the underground economy. This is something that Labour have cracked down on, with deportations and "voluntary" returns sharply up from a year ago.
The uptick is still quite small numbers in the grand scheme of things and wasn't it overwhelmingly to Brazil, which is low hanging fruit. And particularly as the incoming numbers are up significantly (50% from last year and I think 80% from a 2-3 years ago), particular from a few years ago.
I reckon it could be argued parts of Brazil are just as dangerous as lots of other countries we just can't send people back to.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Indeed and the summer brings out the rough sleepers who are prevalent in my part of East London such as under the A406, in shop doorways and in the doorway of the local Church.
One is even at the door of the local funeral director which is disturbing...
Something like homeless would be a relatively cheap, quick and easy problem to resolve within a year. Instead of chasing the Farage vote something tangible could have been achieved.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Surely admitting to buying that sort of plonk even for a punch is a sin bin offence on PB?
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Surely admitting to buying that sort of plonk even for a punch is a sin bin offence on PB?
The difficulty is that one can't criticise without falling foul of the 'Have you tasted it?' question. Either you have, in which case you clearly are in the same boat, or you haven't and you clearly don't know what you're talking about
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Different with European wines because it’s much cheaper to bottle locally where there are huge facilities and low labour costs, and then bung it on pallets and into normal lorries. It would cost a relative fortune to put it in big tanks on a cargo ship (which don’t really exist from Spain to UK) or in a tanker lorry.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
If you are granted asylum in the UK, don't you become eligible to claim certain benefits, including housing benefits and Universal Credit?
Yes, but it takes a while to sort the paperwork out. The refugee has to get an appointment with DWP to obtain a national insurance number first, for example.
I'm glad if they've increased the cut off period to 8 weeks. The 28-day cut-off put people with refugee status straight into absolute destitution.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Different with European wines because it’s much cheaper to bottle locally where there are huge facilities and low labour costs, and then bung it on pallets and into normal lorries. It would cost a relative fortune to put it in big tanks on a cargo ship (which don’t really exist from Spain to UK) or in a tanker lorry.
I am surprised with the taxation, inflation and Brexit makes it still worth sending such cheap plonk to the UK.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Surely admitting to buying that sort of plonk even for a punch is a sin bin offence on PB?
I maintain the heretical view that a lot of the cheapest plonk is better for cooking than expensive wine, whatever the chefs claim. And for things like punch - basic linear flavours.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
If you are granted asylum in the UK, don't you become eligible to claim certain benefits, including housing benefits and Universal Credit?
Yes, but many are homeless first. Both of those are paid in arrears.
You get 2 months of extra support once your claim has been accepted to sort yourself out. That seems more and then generous.
It's basically a question of which department's budget the money is coming from. There should be a process that makes the handover of support from the Home Office to DWP seamless, and then the chances of anyone falling into the gap would be minimal.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
It doesn't feel like this is being enforced very strongly. The only thing that appear to happen if somebody points out all the Deliveroo riders emerging from accommodation housing such people appears to be to ensure the people doing the pointing out are removed from the area ASAP.
Also, given some of the reasons that appear to win on appeal and people who have been convicted of serious crimes not being able to be removed, I wonder how much that actually works out in the end.
It may well be that the rules are not being enforced*, but they do exist. Deliveroo should be amply fined if you do have evidence of this. My experience of asylum seekers is that they are bored stiff by the enforced idleness of their situation.
*one of the bigger issues is the failure to deport those refused asylum. These do disappear into the underground economy. This is something that Labour have cracked down on, with deportations and "voluntary" returns sharply up from a year ago.
The uptick is still quite small numbers in the grand scheme of things and wasn't it overwhelmingly to Brazil, which is low hanging fruit. And particularly as the incoming numbers are up significantly (50% from last year and I think 80% from a 2-3 years ago), particular from a few years ago.
I reckon it could be argued parts of Brazil are just as dangerous as lots of other countries we just can't send people back to.
When fixing any situation, we have to start from here.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Surely admitting to buying that sort of plonk even for a punch is a sin bin offence on PB?
Some of us are on a budget
The big mistake with red wine punch is accidentally using something oaked. No level of quality will save you there...
A fellow at my Fen Poly college used to produce a summer lunch made from bargain basement white wine, vodka, fruit juice and Midori. Highly dangerous, depending on the day's proportions.
A fellow at my Fen Poly college used to produce a summer lunch made from bargain basement white wine, vodka, fruit juice and Midori. Highly dangerous, depending on the day's proportions.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
It doesn't feel like this is being enforced very strongly. The only thing that appear to happen if somebody points out all the Deliveroo riders emerging from accommodation housing such people appears to be to ensure the people doing the pointing out are removed from the area ASAP.
Also, given some of the reasons that appear to win on appeal and people who have been convicted of serious crimes not being able to be removed, I wonder how much that actually works out in the end.
It may well be that the rules are not being enforced*, but they do exist. Deliveroo should be amply fined if you do have evidence of this. My experience of asylum seekers is that they are bored stiff by the enforced idleness of their situation.
*one of the bigger issues is the failure to deport those refused asylum. These do disappear into the underground economy. This is something that Labour have cracked down on, with deportations and "voluntary" returns sharply up from a year ago.
The uptick is still quite small numbers in the grand scheme of things and wasn't it overwhelmingly to Brazil, which is low hanging fruit. And particularly as the incoming numbers are up significantly (50% from last year and I think 80% from a 2-3 years ago), particular from a few years ago.
I reckon it could be argued parts of Brazil are just as dangerous as lots of other countries we just can't send people back to.
When fixing any situation, we have to start from here.
Deportations are not yet back to 2010 figures. There's a massive Smartphones to deal with, of people who everyone agrees have no right to be here.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
It doesn't feel like this is being enforced very strongly. The only thing that appear to happen if somebody points out all the Deliveroo riders emerging from accommodation housing such people appears to be to ensure the people doing the pointing out are removed from the area ASAP.
Also, given some of the reasons that appear to win on appeal and people who have been convicted of serious crimes not being able to be removed, I wonder how much that actually works out in the end.
It may well be that the rules are not being enforced*, but they do exist. Deliveroo should be amply fined if you do have evidence of this. My experience of asylum seekers is that they are bored stiff by the enforced idleness of their situation.
*one of the bigger issues is the failure to deport those refused asylum. These do disappear into the underground economy. This is something that Labour have cracked down on, with deportations and "voluntary" returns sharply up from a year ago.
The uptick is still quite small numbers in the grand scheme of things and wasn't it overwhelmingly to Brazil, which is low hanging fruit. And particularly as the incoming numbers are up significantly (50% from last year and I think 80% from a 2-3 years ago), particular from a few years ago.
I reckon it could be argued parts of Brazil are just as dangerous as lots of other countries we just can't send people back to.
When fixing any situation, we have to start from here.
Deportations are not yet back to 2010 figures. There's a massive Smartphones to deal with, of people who everyone agrees have no right to be here.
I think your autocorrect had a stroke while you were typing "backlog".
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
It doesn't feel like this is being enforced very strongly. The only thing that appear to happen if somebody points out all the Deliveroo riders emerging from accommodation housing such people appears to be to ensure the people doing the pointing out are removed from the area ASAP.
Also, given some of the reasons that appear to win on appeal and people who have been convicted of serious crimes not being able to be removed, I wonder how much that actually works out in the end.
It may well be that the rules are not being enforced*, but they do exist. Deliveroo should be amply fined if you do have evidence of this. My experience of asylum seekers is that they are bored stiff by the enforced idleness of their situation.
*one of the bigger issues is the failure to deport those refused asylum. These do disappear into the underground economy. This is something that Labour have cracked down on, with deportations and "voluntary" returns sharply up from a year ago.
The uptick is still quite small numbers in the grand scheme of things and wasn't it overwhelmingly to Brazil, which is low hanging fruit. And particularly as the incoming numbers are up significantly (50% from last year and I think 80% from a 2-3 years ago), particular from a few years ago.
I reckon it could be argued parts of Brazil are just as dangerous as lots of other countries we just can't send people back to.
When fixing any situation, we have to start from here.
Deportations are not yet back to 2010 figures. There's a massive Smartphones to deal with, of people who everyone agrees have no right to be here.
I think your autocorrect had a stroke while you were typing "backlog".
Some details of the deal, including how the UK would decide who to accept and who to send back to France, remain unclear. There could also be legal challenges over the selection process.
Other EU countries – such as Spain and Italy - may have concerns that returned migrants could then be sent to them. Under EU rules, individuals sent back to France would have to claim asylum in the first European country they arrived in, often places bordering the Mediterranean Sea.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Both parties are responsible for weapons grade homelessness as, thanks to our disastrous planning rules, we have not built enough houses for decades. We are short 8 million compared to the Frogs.
Actually the highest rise in house prices from the mid-90s to 2010 was mostly under New Labour. Completely misunderstanding the lessons of the early 90s property market crash, Blair and Brown thought that high house prices were essential to keep Middle England on their side. And the Conservatives continued their disastrous policies.
And, unsurprisingly, where the government causes a shortage through its usual mix of cowardice, complacency and monumental incompetence, the poor suffer the most.
The problem is that rising home prices make the 28 million people who own their own homes (and who vote) richer.
But they do so at the cost of making it harder for everyone else to get on the property ladder.
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 worked in Finland once many years again for two separate four week stretches.
The first was mid-summer - around end of June. They had all gone - and they admit this - a bit loopy as it was the mid summer and max daylight. Indeed it was a struggle to get flights book as so many Finns coming home for the mid summer party.
Early September was next trip. Already frosty.
Yes, it’s important to remember how unusual this is. I know that, having travelled around Norway before. I’m back in my hotel room, having taken the dog for a good walk around the marina (having a boat is exceptionally popular here); below the window there are people sitting out on the street terrace, eating and drinking (it’s now after 9.30 pm and I have to keep reminding myself that the sun isn’t going to set), and in the marina there are people setting out for evening trips on their boats. Around the harbour there are people in various states of undress, taking the sun.
On my last trip, I remember seeing the restaurants with all their outside seating and wondering why they bothered, since come the evening it was never warm or dry or calm enough for eating out to be enjoyable. Now, I see 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
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
It doesn't feel like this is being enforced very strongly. The only thing that appear to happen if somebody points out all the Deliveroo riders emerging from accommodation housing such people appears to be to ensure the people doing the pointing out are removed from the area ASAP.
Also, given some of the reasons that appear to win on appeal and people who have been convicted of serious crimes not being able to be removed, I wonder how much that actually works out in the end.
It may well be that the rules are not being enforced*, but they do exist. Deliveroo should be amply fined if you do have evidence of this. My experience of asylum seekers is that they are bored stiff by the enforced idleness of their situation.
*one of the bigger issues is the failure to deport those refused asylum. These do disappear into the underground economy. This is something that Labour have cracked down on, with deportations and "voluntary" returns sharply up from a year ago.
The uptick is still quite small numbers in the grand scheme of things and wasn't it overwhelmingly to Brazil, which is low hanging fruit. And particularly as the incoming numbers are up significantly (50% from last year and I think 80% from a 2-3 years ago), particular from a few years ago.
I reckon it could be argued parts of Brazil are just as dangerous as lots of other countries we just can't send people back to.
When fixing any situation, we have to start from here.
Deportations are not yet back to 2010 figures. There's a massive Smartphones to deal with, of people who everyone agrees have no right to be here.
I think your autocorrect had a stroke while you were typing "backlog".
Some details of the deal, including how the UK would decide who to accept and who to send back to France, remain unclear. There could also be legal challenges over the selection process.
Other EU countries – such as Spain and Italy - may have concerns that returned migrants could then be sent to them. Under EU rules, individuals sent back to France would have to claim asylum in the first European country they arrived in, often places bordering the Mediterranean Sea.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Both parties are responsible for weapons grade homelessness as, thanks to our disastrous planning rules, we have not built enough houses for decades. We are short 8 million compared to the Frogs.
Actually the highest rise in house prices from the mid-90s to 2010 was mostly under New Labour. Completely misunderstanding the lessons of the early 90s property market crash, Blair and Brown thought that high house prices were essential to keep Middle England on their side. And the Conservatives continued their disastrous policies.
And, unsurprisingly, where the government causes a shortage through its usual mix of cowardice, complacency and monumental incompetence, the poor suffer the most.
You can house the homeless in b and bs, shelters etc, you don't need to give them 3 bed semis and also you need to tackle drugs, drink and mental health issues they have too
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Your £3.99 Spanish red is a £5.37 Spanish red in Scotland 😩
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Indeed and the summer brings out the rough sleepers who are prevalent in my part of East London such as under the A406, in shop doorways and in the doorway of the local Church.
One is even at the door of the local funeral director which is disturbing...
Something like homeless would be a relatively cheap, quick and easy problem to resolve within a year. Instead of chasing the Farage vote something tangible could have been achieved.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Your £3.99 Spanish red is a £5.37 Spanish red in Scotland 😩
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?
Why’s this an issue.
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
Farage refused to go to someone's engagement party, unless Bonnie Blue was uninvited.
There's nothing illegal about that, and he's free to make that his condition. But it's a bit of a dick move.
Bonnie Blue is used to dick moves so she shouldn’t have a problem with it.
I misread the initial post and was trying to get my head around why Nigel Farage was insisting Bonnie Blue be invited to an engagement party.
I am glad to find much though I dislike him he’s not that creepy.
To be honest it was a bit of a misunderstanding, the host said that she’d invited someone who had fucked half the country and Nigel didn’t fancy parting with Liz Truss so kicked up a fuss.
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Your £3.99 Spanish red is a £5.37 Spanish red in Scotland 😩
Ouch.
You don’t know about the booze cruises to Asda Carlisle?
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Both parties are responsible for weapons grade homelessness as, thanks to our disastrous planning rules, we have not built enough houses for decades. We are short 8 million compared to the Frogs.
Actually the highest rise in house prices from the mid-90s to 2010 was mostly under New Labour. Completely misunderstanding the lessons of the early 90s property market crash, Blair and Brown thought that high house prices were essential to keep Middle England on their side. And the Conservatives continued their disastrous policies.
And, unsurprisingly, where the government causes a shortage through its usual mix of cowardice, complacency and monumental incompetence, the poor suffer the most.
You can house the homeless in b and bs, shelters etc, you don't need to give them 3 bed semis and also you need to tackle drugs, drink and mental health issues they have too
What's that got to do with the lack of housing stock. As an example earlier today I discovered a family of 5 in a 2 bedroom council flat because the sitting room could be used as a bedroom given there were 500 people of higher priority on that council's housing list..
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Both parties are responsible for weapons grade homelessness as, thanks to our disastrous planning rules, we have not built enough houses for decades. We are short 8 million compared to the Frogs.
Actually the highest rise in house prices from the mid-90s to 2010 was mostly under New Labour. Completely misunderstanding the lessons of the early 90s property market crash, Blair and Brown thought that high house prices were essential to keep Middle England on their side. And the Conservatives continued their disastrous policies.
And, unsurprisingly, where the government causes a shortage through its usual mix of cowardice, complacency and monumental incompetence, the poor suffer the most.
You can house the homeless in b and bs, shelters etc, you don't need to give them 3 bed semis and also you need to tackle drugs, drink and mental health issues they have too
What's that got to do with the lack of housing stock. As an example earlier today I discovered a family of 5 in a 2 bedroom council flat because the sitting room could be used as a bedroom given there were 500 people of higher priority on that council's housing list..
So that family had a roof over their head then still and were not homeless
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.
I wonder if it is in fact true that wine bottles have got smaller over the years? I can imagine that industrial glass-making has lead to tougher bottles and thus lighter and marginally bottles. So my guess is yes.
It’s fluctuated with fashion. Until about 5 years ago (and still in some categories) it had become fashionable to put wine in heavier and heavier bottles, with at times ludicrously deep punts at the base, because consumers had decided this conveyed quality and poshness. The trend was particularly marked in red wines.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
If wine drinkers were fussed about the environmental impact of their booze, they'd be restricting themselves to European wines, not stuff from Oz, RSA or Chile.
A lot of wine professionals make exactly this point. It’s one of the selling points of English wine.
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
I bought a bottle of £3.99 Spanish red from Tescos for some punch the other day and was astonished to find it was bottled in Spain. I would have though they'd do the same thing.
Your £3.99 Spanish red is a £5.37 Spanish red in Scotland 😩
Thankfully leading to a vastly reduced drink'n'drugs outcome!
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Both parties are responsible for weapons grade homelessness as, thanks to our disastrous planning rules, we have not built enough houses for decades. We are short 8 million compared to the Frogs.
Actually the highest rise in house prices from the mid-90s to 2010 was mostly under New Labour. Completely misunderstanding the lessons of the early 90s property market crash, Blair and Brown thought that high house prices were essential to keep Middle England on their side. And the Conservatives continued their disastrous policies.
And, unsurprisingly, where the government causes a shortage through its usual mix of cowardice, complacency and monumental incompetence, the poor suffer the most.
You can house the homeless in b and bs, shelters etc, you don't need to give them 3 bed semis and also you need to tackle drugs, drink and mental health issues they have too
What's that got to do with the lack of housing stock. As an example earlier today I discovered a family of 5 in a 2 bedroom council flat because the sitting room could be used as a bedroom given there were 500 people of higher priority on that council's housing list..
So that family had a roof over their head then still and were not homeless
Well that family doesn't meet the legal minimum for housing but apart from that minor issue...
My viewpoint is that anyone who thinks what you suggest is acceptable should be forced to live that way for a year...
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?
Why’s this an issue.
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
Farage refused to go to someone's engagement party, unless Bonnie Blue was uninvited.
There's nothing illegal about that, and he's free to make that his condition. But it's a bit of a dick move.
Bonnie Blue is used to dick moves so she shouldn’t have a problem with it.
I misread the initial post and was trying to get my head around why Nigel Farage was insisting Bonnie Blue be invited to an engagement party.
I am glad to find much though I dislike him he’s not that creepy.
To be honest it was a bit of a misunderstanding, the host said that she’d invited someone who had fucked half the country and Nigel didn’t fancy parting with Liz Truss so kicked up a fuss.
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.
Piss off. Having a gloomy outlook on a message board isn't giving away territories to potentially hostile countries and 'hiring them back' for millions of pounds drawn out of our defence budget. Or giving away 12 years of fishing rights for a vague promise to stop choking off our imports using SPS checks - which is against WTO rules anyway. Or shutting down homegrown AI projects whilst paying Google millions to host data in a way that even a local council wouldn't allow. Or allowing China to build a vast surveillance and detention centre within a stone's throw of parliament. I could go on.
The man is a national security risk.
Given your repeated shilling for Russia, I'll just LOL at that...
(Oh, and I could add your health and diet 'advice'... )
And the same point again: LG1983 is a bloke on the internet, SKS is the actual PM making all sorts of decisions quite contrary to the British national interest. One of these is clearly a threat to be taken much more seriously than the other.
On the Internet, bots and trolls hold immense power.
Which is why stuff like anti-vax sentiment ends up killing thousands.
Are you seriously saying SKS giving away British territory to allies of the Chinese is a lesser threat to British interests than Leon and Luckyguy1983 complaining about this on the internet?
Are you seriously saying the bots and trolls spreading misinformation and foreign propaganda are not a threat to our interests?
Well yes, but neither Leon nor LG fall into that category. And I'd be surprised if you suggested they were. Whereas SKS very much falls into the category of British Prime Minister acting weirdly against British interests.
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
Are you on ayahuasca?
Whatever this is, it certainly is not “average”
It’s glorious, and it looks like a forecast for Rome rather than London, but it is not average
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.
One to keep an eye on.
I have to say looking at tonight's output, apart from the possibility of a brief (18-24 hour) incursion into the south in ten days, it all looks pretty average through to the end of the month.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
Are you on ayahuasca?
Whatever this is, it certainly is not “average”
It’s glorious, and it looks like a forecast for Rome rather than London, but it is not average
Boiling frog syndrome.
It's funny how my parent's generation are grasping for 1976 as a reason to dismiss concerns about climate change. If you're having to reference 1976 every single summer then you've got a 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.
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
I'm sure that happens though I suspect he'll be paying a lot of his cash for rent in the three bedroom semi he shares with 15 other men.
Which is why we need to question where the prospective migrants are getting their information. What dreams are they being sold, and do they know the downsides?
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
The streets in London are paved with gold. That story runs and runs.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
I accept the Conservative Party were responsible for weapons grade homelessness but after a year Labour have done SFA about it.
Both parties are responsible for weapons grade homelessness as, thanks to our disastrous planning rules, we have not built enough houses for decades. We are short 8 million compared to the Frogs.
Actually the highest rise in house prices from the mid-90s to 2010 was mostly under New Labour. Completely misunderstanding the lessons of the early 90s property market crash, Blair and Brown thought that high house prices were essential to keep Middle England on their side. And the Conservatives continued their disastrous policies.
And, unsurprisingly, where the government causes a shortage through its usual mix of cowardice, complacency and monumental incompetence, the poor suffer the most.
You can house the homeless in b and bs, shelters etc, you don't need to give them 3 bed semis and also you need to tackle drugs, drink and mental health issues they have too
What's that got to do with the lack of housing stock. As an example earlier today I discovered a family of 5 in a 2 bedroom council flat because the sitting room could be used as a bedroom given there were 500 people of higher priority on that council's housing list..
So that family had a roof over their head then still and were not homeless
Well that family doesn't meet the legal minimum for housing but apart from that minor issue...
My viewpoint is that anyone who thinks what you suggest is acceptable should be forced to live that way for a year...
If families of 5 are all to be given 4+ bed houses they cannot afford to rent or buy otherwise then the taxpayer will have to pay for it.
100 years ago 3 children or even more sleeping in one room was common.
Yes we should ensure families have roofs over their heads but that is it accomodation wise
Comments
The first was mid-summer - around end of June. They had all gone - and they admit this - a bit loopy as it was the mid summer and max daylight. Indeed it was a struggle to get flights book as so many Finns coming home for the mid summer party.
Early September was next trip. Already frosty.
I've also heard early August may be less settled (to be fair, August can be a very wet month) but that's a very long way off.
Then the wine cognoscenti started to push back against this on environmental grounds. The backlash coincided with a more general turning away from thick high alcohol wines towards lighter more acidic ones, so now bottle weights are starting to fall again.
The truth is that with PIP, there are far more face-to-face assessments, and both face-to-face assessors and those grading the forms were given targets to increase the volume they processed, and reduce the number of successful claims. Schizophrenia, by definition, is a severe and enduring psychosis, but just look at the stats you'll see the number with that diagnosis that fail to get PIP on first application is >0.
For the "engaging with people" activity, 8 points are only awarded if the person cannot engage with others at all due to overwhelming psychological distress or risk of harm, but this has to be evidenced. By definition, if someone cannot engage with others, they may well find it difficult to evidence such.
https://www.wetterzentrale.de/en/show_diagrams.php?geoid=50715&model=gfs&var=201&run=12&lid=ENS&bw=1
P17 is hilarious. That’s a week nudging 40.
The top notch ECM is so far also scorching, the other models are mixed but their ensembles are all hot.
State Department employees are bracing for mass layoffs as soon as Friday after the Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to proceed with reorganization and downsizing.
(This might actually be an interesting way of tackling the problem.)
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-december-2024/how-many-people-come-to-the-uk-irregularly#:~:text=The vast majority of small,small boat have claimed asylum.
Looking beyond ten days on the models is a waste of time - I don't rule out another push of heat in August - in fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't another heatwave but at the moment it's all conjecture.
The reality is that asylum seekers caught working automatically invalidate their asylum claim.
If granted asylum, all support stops 28 days later and they are evicted from their lodgings. Hence the Red Cross in Leicester gives them sleeping bags so they don't freeze on the streets.
My question is what dereliction of duty Government allowed industrial scale slum housing to burgeon in the first place?
Also, given some of the reasons that appear to win on appeal and people who have been convicted of serious crimes not being able to be removed, I wonder how much that actually works out in the end.
It appears basically impossible to send people back to certain countries regardless, because the overriding factor is always it is deemed they won't be safe there. Make some spicy posts on Facebook about the rulers of your country of origin, you aren't going back.
Actually that’s not true, they do it on weather forums too.
It also says a lot about how climate change has altered our perception of what a heatwave is.
But keep an eye on next week. We’re really not that far away from a total scorcher.
(In practice the vast majority of the world's refugees are either internally displaced in their own country, or are in adjacent countries.)
I am as keen as anyone to get to grips with the issue, but lies and myths spread on social media do not help.
Also, its 8 weeks, not 28 days.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/claiming-universal-credit-and-other-benefits-if-you-are-a-refugee/refugee-guide-urgent-things-you-need-to-do
That said, wines imported in bulk from the Southern Hemisphere on ships and then bottled in Britain have quite a limited footprint, and the climate where they come from often means higher yields for lower inputs.
*one of the bigger issues is the failure to deport those refused asylum. These do disappear into the underground economy. This is something that Labour have cracked down on, with deportations and "voluntary" returns sharply up from a year ago.
One is even at the door of the local funeral director which is disturbing...
I wonder if you think it's of concern that the models whilst unlikely to accurately be predicting beyond a week or so, so show alarmingly high temperatures. Surely if the models are goodish then whilst they may have missed the most likely cluster of outcomes that doesn't mean that there was no chance of the grim ones?
Actually the highest rise in house prices from the mid-90s to 2010 was mostly under New Labour. Completely misunderstanding the lessons of the early 90s property market crash, Blair and Brown thought that high house prices were essential to keep Middle England on their side. And the Conservatives continued their disastrous policies.
And, unsurprisingly, where the government causes a shortage through its usual mix of cowardice, complacency and monumental incompetence, the poor suffer the most.
I reckon it could be argued parts of Brazil are just as dangerous as lots of other countries we just can't send people back to.
I'm glad if they've increased the cut off period to 8 weeks. The 28-day cut-off put people with refugee status straight into absolute destitution.
The big mistake with red wine punch is accidentally using something oaked. No level of quality will save you there...
Other EU countries – such as Spain and Italy - may have concerns that returned migrants could then be sent to them. Under EU rules, individuals sent back to France would have to claim asylum in the first European country they arrived in, often places bordering the Mediterranean Sea.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g2edx410wo
But they do so at the cost of making it harder for everyone else to get on the property ladder.
There's nothing illegal about that, and he's free to make that his condition. But it's a bit of a dick move.
On my last trip, I remember seeing the restaurants with all their outside seating and wondering why they bothered, since come the evening it was never warm or dry or calm enough for eating out to be enjoyable. Now, I see it.
https://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewziegler/autocorrect-fails-of-the-decade
I am glad to find much though I dislike him he’s not that creepy.
...
Right?
My viewpoint is that anyone who thinks what you suggest is acceptable should be forced to live that way for a year...
Whereas SKS very much falls into the category of British Prime Minister acting weirdly against British interests.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14884849/Swiss-public-pool-foreigners-sexual-harassment.html
Whatever this is, it certainly is not “average”
It’s glorious, and it looks like a forecast for Rome rather than London, but it is not average
https://andrewspreviews.substack.com/p/previewing-the-ten-local-by-elections-e5c
It's funny how my parent's generation are grasping for 1976 as a reason to dismiss concerns about climate change. If you're having to reference 1976 every single summer then you've got a problem.
100 years ago 3 children or even more sleeping in one room was common.
Yes we should ensure families have roofs over their heads but that is it accomodation wise