In the very near future (its kinda of already here), both audio and video with audio will be very hard to detect subtle edits to it. If you are a politician, I am not sure how you protect yourself? Record everything yourself?
It is possible to add an encrypted signal to digital video and audio which would reveal any breaks, ommissions or additions. I suspect this will become the norm going forward.
If somebody else was taking the footage then did the edit, it wouldn't stop them. You can of course always film the editted footage. That is why I am saying the politician will have to record everything themselves with the proof that it is unedited.
I've not been able to find any of those flags on lamp posts.
But I did see today two warning signs for hedgehogs.
I've seen them for children, deer and ducks before but not hedgehogs.
And toads.
And badgers (Isle of Wight).
Frogs on the Strathconan road west from Dingwall.
Otters on the causeways in the Hebrides.
I've seen red squirrel warning signs in quite a few places too.
I think there used to be a joke warning sign for Nessie on the A82 but fortunately only in a layby otherwise it would have added considerably to the accident rate.
In the very near future (its kinda of already here), both audio and video with audio will be very hard to detect subtle edits to it. If you are a politician, I am not sure how you protect yourself? Record everything yourself?
It is possible to add an encrypted signal to digital video and audio which would reveal any breaks, ommissions or additions. I suspect this will become the norm going forward.
If somebody else was taking the footage then did the edit, it wouldn't stop them. You can of course always film the editted footage. That is why I am saying the politician will have to record everything themselves with the proof that it is unedited.
Indeed. You are right that people will start recording their own speeches or ensure someone with official standing (such as TV companies) are filming using the technology. But once that is established it will become difficult to fake speaches as people will start to doubt the veracity of anything that does not have the official encrypted signal.
In the very near future (its kinda of already here), both audio and video with audio will be very hard to detect subtle edits to it. If you are a politician, I am not sure how you protect yourself? Record everything yourself?
It is possible to add an encrypted signal to digital video and audio which would reveal any breaks, ommissions or additions. I suspect this will become the norm going forward.
If somebody else was taking the footage then did the edit, it wouldn't stop them. You can of course always film the editted footage. That is why I am saying the politician will have to record everything themselves with the proof that it is unedited.
Indeed. You are right that people will start recording their own speeches or ensure someone with official standing (such as TV companies) are filming using the technology. But once that is established it will become difficult to fake speaches as people will start to doubt the veracity of anything that does not have the official encrypted signal.
1) Encrypted signal type approaches have in the past always been broken. The hacker community love these kind of puzzles.
2) It still doesn't stop the film the edited footage and add the encrypt on top (with time / data / location spoofed).
It might well stop amateur dickheads, but it won't stop determined individuals with skills, particularly nation state actors. I think social media will have to insist on the encrypt signatures when you upload video otherwise the amateur dickheads can still get the fake videos trending before they get pulled. Its back enough at the moment with carefully edited footage.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Interesting maybe to fast forward a few years with Mr Goodwin. Douglas Carswell, who was in some respects the Goodwin of a few years ago is now in the USA slowly going bonkers supporting Connolly and the deportation of millions. Not so long ago he had a more or less sane plan for national renewal.
Mr Goodwin was interesting a few years ago, but is less so now. Two questions arise. What are his ambitions over the next 10 years, and where will be be and doing what in 5 and 10 years?
I suspect Goodwin lives or dies with Reform. If they succeed then I can very much see him being bussed in as a kind of court intellectual; if they flop I can't see him keeping this sort of stuff up for much longer - it would all seen a bit sad and forlorn with insufficient pay.
The problem is, as Goodwin must be able to see, that while there is a clear route to Reform being elected - it looks to me about a 30% chance at the moment - there is no route to them governing successfully. The evidence for this is that even their brightest and best supporters are completely unable to give a coherent account of how this would be done.
There are times when you can govern OK by carrying on carrying on. 2029 doesn't look like being one of those dull but welcome times.
Surely Goodwin wants to take over when Farage retires.
Perhaps he thinks he is one of those smooth propaganda types who gets all the girls?
I've not been able to find any of those flags on lamp posts.
But I did see today two warning signs for hedgehogs.
I've seen them for children, deer and ducks before but not hedgehogs.
And toads.
And badgers (Isle of Wight).
Frogs on the Strathconan road west from Dingwall.
Otters on the causeways in the Hebrides.
I've seen red squirrel warning signs in quite a few places too.
I think there used to be a joke warning sign for Nessie on the A82 but fortunately only in a layby otherwise it would have added considerably to the accident rate.
Folks, we need to resit our theory tests. The deer sign is actually "wild animals". The duck sign is actually "wildfowl" and the hedgehog "small wild animals". The only other official ones are:
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Interesting maybe to fast forward a few years with Mr Goodwin. Douglas Carswell, who was in some respects the Goodwin of a few years ago is now in the USA slowly going bonkers supporting Connolly and the deportation of millions. Not so long ago he had a more or less sane plan for national renewal.
Mr Goodwin was interesting a few years ago, but is less so now. Two questions arise. What are his ambitions over the next 10 years, and where will be be and doing what in 5 and 10 years?
I suspect Goodwin lives or dies with Reform. If they succeed then I can very much see him being bussed in as a kind of court intellectual; if they flop I can't see him keeping this sort of stuff up for much longer - it would all seen a bit sad and forlorn with insufficient pay.
The problem is, as Goodwin must be able to see, that while there is a clear route to Reform being elected - it looks to me about a 30% chance at the moment - there is no route to them governing successfully. The evidence for this is that even their brightest and best supporters are completely unable to give a coherent account of how this would be done.
There are times when you can govern OK by carrying on carrying on. 2029 doesn't look like being one of those dull but welcome times.
Surely Goodwin wants to take over when Farage retires.
Perhaps he thinks he is one of those smooth propaganda types who gets all the girls?
Does he? Doesn't his substack have a shit load of paid subscribers and so is coining it in without any of the hassles or responsibility of having to be a politician. Same with Owen Jones on the left. Its much easier and more profitable to be on the outside.
I've not been able to find any of those flags on lamp posts.
But I did see today two warning signs for hedgehogs.
I've seen them for children, deer and ducks before but not hedgehogs.
And toads.
And badgers (Isle of Wight).
Frogs on the Strathconan road west from Dingwall.
Otters on the causeways in the Hebrides.
I've seen red squirrel warning signs in quite a few places too.
I think there used to be a joke warning sign for Nessie on the A82 but fortunately only in a layby otherwise it would have added considerably to the accident rate.
Folks, we need to resit our theory tests. The deer sign is actually "wild animals". The duck sign is actually "wildfowl" and the hedgehog "small wild animals". The only other official ones are:
"Migratory toad crossing"
"Wild horses or ponies"
"Sheep"
"Cattle"
The one I saw in Isle of Wight was an "exclamation mark" triangular warning sign, with the word "badgers" on a white panel underneath.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Interesting maybe to fast forward a few years with Mr Goodwin. Douglas Carswell, who was in some respects the Goodwin of a few years ago is now in the USA slowly going bonkers supporting Connolly and the deportation of millions. Not so long ago he had a more or less sane plan for national renewal.
Mr Goodwin was interesting a few years ago, but is less so now. Two questions arise. What are his ambitions over the next 10 years, and where will be be and doing what in 5 and 10 years?
I suspect Goodwin lives or dies with Reform. If they succeed then I can very much see him being bussed in as a kind of court intellectual; if they flop I can't see him keeping this sort of stuff up for much longer - it would all seen a bit sad and forlorn with insufficient pay.
The problem is, as Goodwin must be able to see, that while there is a clear route to Reform being elected - it looks to me about a 30% chance at the moment - there is no route to them governing successfully. The evidence for this is that even their brightest and best supporters are completely unable to give a coherent account of how this would be done.
There are times when you can govern OK by carrying on carrying on. 2029 doesn't look like being one of those dull but welcome times.
Surely Goodwin wants to take over when Farage retires.
Perhaps he thinks he is one of those smooth propaganda types who gets all the girls?
Does he? Doesn't his substack have a shit load of paid subscribers and so is coining it in without any of the hassles or responsibility of having to be a politician. Same with Owen Jones on the left. Its much easier and more profitable to be on the outside.
I'm not aware that Substack, unlike Patreon, publishes much detail.
If you are not from the UK then you should know there are currently dozens of protests happening right now across the country against illegal migration, broken borders, the sexual assault of our children, and the fact our own government is using our own money to outbid our own people in our own housing market by bankrolling private firms to put illegal migrants into the heart of our communities with more favourable rental contracts, all while giving us a bill of £7 BILLION a year and calling us “far right” if we say anything about it.
Interesting maybe to fast forward a few years with Mr Goodwin. Douglas Carswell, who was in some respects the Goodwin of a few years ago is now in the USA slowly going bonkers supporting Connolly and the deportation of millions. Not so long ago he had a more or less sane plan for national renewal.
Mr Goodwin was interesting a few years ago, but is less so now. Two questions arise. What are his ambitions over the next 10 years, and where will be be and doing what in 5 and 10 years?
I suspect Goodwin lives or dies with Reform. If they succeed then I can very much see him being bussed in as a kind of court intellectual; if they flop I can't see him keeping this sort of stuff up for much longer - it would all seen a bit sad and forlorn with insufficient pay.
The problem is, as Goodwin must be able to see, that while there is a clear route to Reform being elected - it looks to me about a 30% chance at the moment - there is no route to them governing successfully. The evidence for this is that even their brightest and best supporters are completely unable to give a coherent account of how this would be done.
There are times when you can govern OK by carrying on carrying on. 2029 doesn't look like being one of those dull but welcome times.
Surely Goodwin wants to take over when Farage retires.
Perhaps he thinks he is one of those smooth propaganda types who gets all the girls?
Does he? Doesn't his substack have a shit load of paid subscribers and so is coining it in without any of the hassles or responsibility of having to be a politician. Same with Owen Jones on the left. Its much easier and more profitable to be on the outside.
I'm not aware that Substack, unlike Patreon, publishes much detail.
I just looked at his profile on Substack, and it says has 83k "followers" (not paid), #6 in world politics on all of substack and he claims many 1000s of paid members. Lets say its just 1000 (I don't think it is unrealistic) and it looks like it costs £7.50 a month. Kerrrrching. Say it is only 500, still kerrrching.
The same with Owen Jones.
I don't follow either, but do they do "ads" for other companies or sell their mailing lists? Goodwin definitely gets loads of media appearances on the back of that big substack following. I think Goodwin has also followed the Owen Jones path of doing YouTube now as well.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
None of the appeals are automatic. You have to make a case to be allowed to appeal. Just saying you don't like the decision doesn't count. With no case, you won't even be appealing the first decision.
The Overton Window is moving so fast on this issue that Starmer is several streets away from it.
Top comment on The Times: "Deport immediately with no right to appeal. Enter the UK illegally from a safe country and never be allowed asylum."
That's just the nature of online comment sections though isn't it, it always attracts the most extreme views.
If comments had their way we'd be living in a Corbynite, fascist regime where everyone else is forbidden from doing anything, you are permitted to do whatever you want, and taxes are cut while being high for the rich meaning anyone who earns more than you.
The Overton Window is moving so fast on this issue that Starmer is several streets away from it.
Top comment on The Times: "Deport immediately with no right to appeal. Enter the UK illegally from a safe country and never be allowed asylum."
I don't think it's shifted at all, just that we are discussing it as a country for the first time. I don't really understand how the Conservatives got away with it given this escalated way back in 2021/2022.
Even I agree with that position in principle, particularly given what is going to happen due to climate change in my lifetime, and you can hardly call me a fervent right-winger. It seems eminently sensible to me. We desperately need to reform our application of the Refugee Convention, ideally with international agreement but if necessary alone. It can still be generous and reflect our values, picking up 10s of thousands of refugees a year. But not like this.
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
The Overton Window is moving so fast on this issue that Starmer is several streets away from it.
Top comment on The Times: "Deport immediately with no right to appeal. Enter the UK illegally from a safe country and never be allowed asylum."
That's just the nature of online comment sections though isn't it, it always attracts the most extreme views.
If comments had their way we'd be living in a Corbynite, fascist regime where everyone else is forbidden from doing anything, you are permitted to do whatever you want, and taxes are cut while being high for the rich meaning anyone who earns more than you.
That's true, but I also think that position would enjoy 80%+ support, at least.
The Overton Window is moving so fast on this issue that Starmer is several streets away from it.
Top comment on The Times: "Deport immediately with no right to appeal. Enter the UK illegally from a safe country and never be allowed asylum."
That's just the nature of online comment sections though isn't it, it always attracts the most extreme views.
If comments had their way we'd be living in a Corbynite, fascist regime where everyone else is forbidden from doing anything, you are permitted to do whatever you want, and taxes are cut while being high for the rich meaning anyone who earns more than you.
It remains a long time until the next election. Starmer needs to hope it won't be fought over whether the boats were stopped. It might not be. Starmer or a new Labour leader might get a Canada '25 or an Australia '25, or even a France '24.
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Non-refoulement applies to sending people back to their own state where they'll face abuse, it does not apply to them being sent to third party states.
There are to my eyes three possible solutions.
1: Accept everyone who wants to come. 2: Change the rules. 3: Find a third party (like Rwanda) happy to accept people and send them there instead.
That's it as far I can see. Pick your poison.
'Smashing the gangs' etc will be as plausible as winning the war on drugs.
He won't. It'd also mean a fight with the EU over the TCA and he'd then lose his throne because there would be a fear that would risk an even harder Brexit than Boris, and the hordes of muppets on his backbenches would rebel.
He will tinker pointlessly around the edges and then go down with the ship.
Best thing he could do is call an early election on the issue for a mandate, but the guy is a coward so we will have 3 years 11 months of the country going up in smoke instead.
He won't. It'd also mean a fight with the EU over the TCA and he'd then lose his throne because there would be a fear that would risk an even harder Brexit than Boris, and the hordes of muppets on his backbenches would rebel.
He will tinker pointlessly around the edges and then go down with the ship.
Best thing he could do is call an early election on the issue for a mandate, but the guy is a coward so we will have 3 years 11 months of the country going up in smoke instead.
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Non-refoulement applies to sending people back to their own state where they'll face abuse, it does not apply to them being sent to third party states.
There are to my eyes three possible solutions.
1: Accept everyone who wants to come. 2: Change the rules. 3: Find a third party (like Rwanda) happy to accept people and send them there instead.
That's it as far I can see. Pick your poison.
'Smashing the gangs' etc will be as plausible as winning the war on drugs.
Agree with the last bit.
Here's the thing: everyone thinks it's all bollocks now. Because it is.
So many people can fabricate a case that they will "face abuse" on going back to their own state - the criteria being so absurdly generous and wide-ranging, and open to multiple appeals - that no-one believes its sincere any more. And, even if they did, they don't believe its our problem- especially if they spent £8k paying people smugglers to get here over many months over multiple safe countries.
Everyone knows they're playing the game. And, sure, their countries are pretty shit - I wouldn't fancy Pakistan either - but that's not our problem.
I want everyone who comes over on a boat back on a plane (I don't care where) within 72 hours, even if they're Mother Theresa or have a cure for cancer.
As it took me some time to persuade our AI overlords that doing a satirical image of Keir Starmer was just about OK if we pretended it wasn't Keir Starmer but just someone who looked like him. I bring you "Miss the Boat". Which was GPT-5's amazing attempt at satire. I should have used Claude...
He can't do it because the only way is by renouncing the sort of human rights legislation of which he and his followers are so fond.
It would also mean a fight with the European Union and over the Good Friday Agreement he's ill prepared to have.
Also, it would bring out every single one of these lobby groups.. Liberty, Amnesty, the Refugee Council, the Law Society, the Bar Society, the UN, judges, every NGO you could think of, "experts", and academics.
It'd be like being disowned by his whole family to him.
Its a bit weird that the week before, 21 boats arrived, 24 events prevented, 1500 arrived, 675 prevented. So still loads of activity.
Are we sure somebody hasn't filled in the spreadsheet fully yet?
This has happened before.
Nothing for 7 to 10 to 14 days and then, suddenly, two dozen boats.
Yes, the zoomed out view is showing significantly more people so far this past year and of course the news this week that asylum claims are at a record high.
Back in the 80s Brian Redhead used to take great relish in asking Conservative ministers, on Radio 4 about the latest unemployment figures, when unemployment was going up.
Then he stopped.
Norman Tebbit with equal relish started an interview with repeated questions to Redhead about why he wasn’t asking about unemployment. “You always used to ask”…
Finally Redhead asked, through gritted teeth, about the unemployment numbers. Tebbit replied that the current month showed a fall just like the previous x months.
People convicted of crimes in England and Wales could find themselves barred from going to pubs, concerts and sports matches under changes to sentencing rules being planned by the government.
The reforms would allow courts imposing non-custodial terms to also have the power to hand out driving and travel bans, as well as order offenders to remain in specific areas.
Offenders released from prison who are supervised by the Probation Service could also face similar restrictions under the plans - as well as more mandatory drug testing, even if they do not have a history of misuse.
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
None of the appeals are automatic. You have to make a case to be allowed to appeal. Just saying you don't like the decision doesn't count. With no case, you won't even be appealing the first decision.
You don’t understand. We’re done
We just want them all to go home, and if you enter illegally, we kick you out instantly
"Approval rates were updated this week: 98 per cent for Sudanese and Syrians, 87 per cent for Eritreans. Such figures serve as adverts, saying that an Eritrean who finds £10,000 to pay the gangs has a nine-in-ten chance of success — probably higher when you factor in appeals and the chance to disappear if it goes wrong. By no coincidence, Eritreans have now risen to the top of small-boat arrivals. Bad laws are driving desperate people straight into traffickers’ hands."
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
None of the appeals are automatic. You have to make a case to be allowed to appeal. Just saying you don't like the decision doesn't count. With no case, you won't even be appealing the first decision.
You don’t understand. We’re done
We just want them all to go home, and if you enter illegally, we kick you out instantly
It’s also an incorrect description. If you aren’t granted an appeal, you can appeal that decision not to grant you an appeal, three times. That’s excessive.
Maga can go fxck themselves given the Trump administration is turning into a dictatorship. The UK doesn’t need lectures from the most corrupt administration of all time .
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
None of the appeals are automatic. You have to make a case to be allowed to appeal. Just saying you don't like the decision doesn't count. With no case, you won't even be appealing the first decision.
You don’t understand. We’re done
We just want them all to go home, and if you enter illegally, we kick you out instantly
He does understand. He just thinks all this stuff is axiomatic and rejects the notion that it should even be the subject of debate.
Those who do are either idiots or malignants guilty of moral turpitude who can be best dealt with by technocratic pedantry and demanding they provide "examples" to hopefully expose their 'ignorance'.
"Approval rates were updated this week: 98 per cent for Sudanese and Syrians, 87 per cent for Eritreans. Such figures serve as adverts, saying that an Eritrean who finds £10,000 to pay the gangs has a nine-in-ten chance of success — probably higher when you factor in appeals and the chance to disappear if it goes wrong. By no coincidence, Eritreans have now risen to the top of small-boat arrivals. Bad laws are driving desperate people straight into traffickers’ hands."
And what happens here is that Eritreans club together in their village to fund one fit and healthy young one, who has the best chance to make it. When they do they succeed because, lol, they're from Eritrea, and they remit back their earnings to repay their investment (and more) and use the Right to Family Life to bring over their families as well.
The whole thing is bollocks. Utter utter bollocks.
Wikipedia has a new Opinium poll with Ref 29%, Lab 23%, Con 17%, LD 14%, Grn 9% but I can't find reference to it anywhere else, and the link given in Wikipedia isn't working. So not sure it's genuine.
Back in the 80s Brian Redhead used to take great relish in asking Conservative ministers, on Radio 4 about the latest unemployment figures, when unemployment was going up.
Then he stopped.
Norman Tebbit with equal relish started an interview with repeated questions to Redhead about why he wasn’t asking about unemployment. “You always used to ask”…
Finally Redhead asked, through gritted teeth, about the unemployment numbers. Tebbit replied that the current month showed a fall just like the previous x months.
If anecdotal Redhead had been a bit sharper he would have asked why unemployment was still higher than when the dreadful socialists were in power, then how much any notional falls were due to large numbers of the unemployed being shunted onto disability.
Labour have till the end of the year to reverse things.
Which year ?
2025. Next year we start speculating about an election 'the year after next' and it's too late to start the hard graft of painful government towards sunlit uplands. October's budget is the key make or break event.
Well. We speculate about elections because we're all political wonks. But really, I don't think any talk of election will start amongst the general public until mid 2027 at the earliest, and only because people might wonder if Starmer 'might go early' in 2028 if he has turned it around and it's looking more likely Labour might pull off a win.
"Approval rates were updated this week: 98 per cent for Sudanese and Syrians, 87 per cent for Eritreans. Such figures serve as adverts, saying that an Eritrean who finds £10,000 to pay the gangs has a nine-in-ten chance of success — probably higher when you factor in appeals and the chance to disappear if it goes wrong. By no coincidence, Eritreans have now risen to the top of small-boat arrivals. Bad laws are driving desperate people straight into traffickers’ hands."
And what happens here is that Eritreans club together in their village to fund one fit and healthy young one, who has the best chance to make it. When they do they succeed because, lol, they're from Eritrea, and they remit back their earnings to repay their investment (and more) and use the Right to Family Life to bring over their families as well.
The whole thing is bollocks. Utter utter bollocks.
Yes. The system is now collapsing, and with it an entire worldview - the worldview of lying fools like @bondegezou
I’ve heard the most bloodcurdling stuff from friends and acquaintances these last months. And they’re getting MORE strident, not less
Some of it is outright racism, which is grim and deplorable. Britain feels like a pan of oily cooking on the stove which is now boiling over and threatens to catch fire.
So what’s the first thing you do? Take it away from the heat source
Call a halt to 90% of migration, end the right to asylum, deport all foreign criminals, stop the boats. Do that and the seething mess will subside, the immediate danger is averted
"Approval rates were updated this week: 98 per cent for Sudanese and Syrians, 87 per cent for Eritreans. Such figures serve as adverts, saying that an Eritrean who finds £10,000 to pay the gangs has a nine-in-ten chance of success — probably higher when you factor in appeals and the chance to disappear if it goes wrong. By no coincidence, Eritreans have now risen to the top of small-boat arrivals. Bad laws are driving desperate people straight into traffickers’ hands."
And what happens here is that Eritreans club together in their village to fund one fit and healthy young one, who has the best chance to make it. When they do they succeed because, lol, they're from Eritrea, and they remit back their earnings to repay their investment (and more) and use the Right to Family Life to bring over their families as well.
The whole thing is bollocks. Utter utter bollocks.
Yes. The system is now collapsing, and with it an entire worldview - the worldview of lying fools like @bondegezou
I’ve heard the most bloodcurdling stuff from friends and acquaintances these last months. And they’re getting MORE strident, not less
Some of it is outright racism, which is grim and deplorable. Britain feels like a pan of oily cooking on the stove which is now boiling over and threatens to catch fire.
So what’s the first thing you do? Take it away from the heat source
Call a halt to 90% of migration, end the right to asylum, deport all foreign criminals, stop the boats. Do that and the seething mess will subside, the immediate danger is averted
It's true that Eritrea in one of the grimmest places in the world to live, but that isn't our fault.
"Approval rates were updated this week: 98 per cent for Sudanese and Syrians, 87 per cent for Eritreans. Such figures serve as adverts, saying that an Eritrean who finds £10,000 to pay the gangs has a nine-in-ten chance of success — probably higher when you factor in appeals and the chance to disappear if it goes wrong. By no coincidence, Eritreans have now risen to the top of small-boat arrivals. Bad laws are driving desperate people straight into traffickers’ hands."
And what happens here is that Eritreans club together in their village to fund one fit and healthy young one, who has the best chance to make it. When they do they succeed because, lol, they're from Eritrea, and they remit back their earnings to repay their investment (and more) and use the Right to Family Life to bring over their families as well.
The whole thing is bollocks. Utter utter bollocks.
Not entirely bollocks, sounds like a pretty logical and sensible investment from their perspective.
Going back to my prior post, there's no realistic way to "smash" that since they're acting in a productive manner for their own interests. Smash one gang and another will rapidly take their place.
We need to either decide to accept whoever wants to come, change the rules, or find somewhere else to send them instead. Pick your poison.
"Approval rates were updated this week: 98 per cent for Sudanese and Syrians, 87 per cent for Eritreans. Such figures serve as adverts, saying that an Eritrean who finds £10,000 to pay the gangs has a nine-in-ten chance of success — probably higher when you factor in appeals and the chance to disappear if it goes wrong. By no coincidence, Eritreans have now risen to the top of small-boat arrivals. Bad laws are driving desperate people straight into traffickers’ hands."
And what happens here is that Eritreans club together in their village to fund one fit and healthy young one, who has the best chance to make it. When they do they succeed because, lol, they're from Eritrea, and they remit back their earnings to repay their investment (and more) and use the Right to Family Life to bring over their families as well.
The whole thing is bollocks. Utter utter bollocks.
Not entirely bollocks, sounds like a pretty logical and sensible investment from their perspective.
Going back to my prior post, there's no realistic way to "smash" that since they're acting in a productive manner for their own interests. Smash one gang and another will rapidly take their place.
We need to either decide to accept whoever wants to come, change the rules, or find somewhere else to send them instead. Pick your poison.
The rules will be changed. It's just a question of which political party does it.
"Approval rates were updated this week: 98 per cent for Sudanese and Syrians, 87 per cent for Eritreans. Such figures serve as adverts, saying that an Eritrean who finds £10,000 to pay the gangs has a nine-in-ten chance of success — probably higher when you factor in appeals and the chance to disappear if it goes wrong. By no coincidence, Eritreans have now risen to the top of small-boat arrivals. Bad laws are driving desperate people straight into traffickers’ hands."
And what happens here is that Eritreans club together in their village to fund one fit and healthy young one, who has the best chance to make it. When they do they succeed because, lol, they're from Eritrea, and they remit back their earnings to repay their investment (and more) and use the Right to Family Life to bring over their families as well.
The whole thing is bollocks. Utter utter bollocks.
Not entirely bollocks, sounds like a pretty logical and sensible investment from their perspective.
Going back to my prior post, there's no realistic way to "smash" that since they're acting in a productive manner for their own interests. Smash one gang and another will rapidly take their place.
We need to either decide to accept whoever wants to come, change the rules, or find somewhere else to send them instead. Pick your poison.
You summarise it well. Maybe we should have a three way plebiscite
No idea, but why would you use them? The range of options for cards / apps for using abroad is seemingly infinite.
Thanks.
I would add that the last time I had travellers cheques was maybe 15 years ago (maybe longer) and they were nearly impossible to use in daily environment. This was in the US, where in the noughties, they were super easy way of getting cash i.e. you went to big chain supermarket, bought some items, used the travellers cheque, got cash as the change. Even far less touristy places were aware of them and happy to take them (although you might have to wait for the checkout girl to get a manager to give the thumbs up). From my memory, when I last tried to use them in that way, all of a sudden it was a straight no won't take them from lots of places.
I can't think of a reason you wouldn't either have a bank account link Monzo or Revolut, or a card like FairFX, for most major tourist destinations. Although off to China soonish and looks like I need to get WeChat and Alipay setup for there.
"Approval rates were updated this week: 98 per cent for Sudanese and Syrians, 87 per cent for Eritreans. Such figures serve as adverts, saying that an Eritrean who finds £10,000 to pay the gangs has a nine-in-ten chance of success — probably higher when you factor in appeals and the chance to disappear if it goes wrong. By no coincidence, Eritreans have now risen to the top of small-boat arrivals. Bad laws are driving desperate people straight into traffickers’ hands."
And what happens here is that Eritreans club together in their village to fund one fit and healthy young one, who has the best chance to make it. When they do they succeed because, lol, they're from Eritrea, and they remit back their earnings to repay their investment (and more) and use the Right to Family Life to bring over their families as well.
The whole thing is bollocks. Utter utter bollocks.
Not entirely bollocks, sounds like a pretty logical and sensible investment from their perspective.
Going back to my prior post, there's no realistic way to "smash" that since they're acting in a productive manner for their own interests. Smash one gang and another will rapidly take their place.
We need to either decide to accept whoever wants to come, change the rules, or find somewhere else to send them instead. Pick your poison.
You summarise it well. Maybe we should have a three way plebiscite
Pretty sure the voters won’t choose option 1
The thing is that those in power have a mentality that "international law" is a real thing and that any agreements need to be agreed multilaterally. When nations like Italy, or Turkey, or wherever can have very different goals to us.
We are an independent, sovereign democracy that can set our own laws unilaterally. The question is are we willing to do so and discard the shibboleth of "international law"?
On the other hand if I KEEP the Bhutanese silk I can feel smug every day til I die and think “oooh I bought some amazing silk for a song because I hVe brilliant taste”. And I CAN look at them every day and admire the luminescent beauty
And then they get eaten by moths
You sell them, buy a business class ticket to Bhutan and replace them (plus with two extra sets just because)
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
You can finess it. Limit its jurisdiction to the high-water mark, so any action taken outside that is not justicable. Remove the Supreme Court from the military justice system so the highest court for a warfighter is the National Security Council, not the Supreme Court, and the governing law is the military code of justice not the HRA. That way any action taken by warfighters at sea is not covered by HRA and ECHR and we can refoul as much as we like.
Laws don't have to be changed to ignore them. You can supersede them with a later law or make them non-prosecutable (decriminalisation) or limit the jurisdiction. Drama is not necessary and a couple of Acts and Orders-in-Council should do the trick.
"Rich economies will need foreign workers to fuel growth, policymakers warn Central bankers say low birth rates in world’s largest economies pose threat to productivity and prices" (£)
"Rich economies will need foreign workers to fuel growth, policymakers warn Central bankers say low birth rates in world’s largest economies pose threat to productivity and prices" (£)
Keir Starmer to curb judges’ power in asylum cases
The main tribunal courts used by failed refugees to challenge Home Office decisions are to be phased out and replaced by a fast-track system under plans to be announced by ministers within weeks.
Let's hope they do this. It's a crucial first step. The public have lost all confidence in this system
Lets wait and see. Is a good decision if magically this fast track system starts to have a much higher rate of acceptance of asylum claims? Some will say yes its clearing the backlog, some will be suspicious.
And of course, there will be seemingly infinite legal challenges at every stage.
Yes, I've just read the actual article and... hmmmmm
I reckon the mess will simply be shifted to more approvals and more use of houses rather than hotels, and blah blah blah. Labour are emotionally and constitutionally incapable of really addressing this crisis
The answer is to end the right of asylum as we know it. Simple. Only Reform will do that
Look at this: it all ends at 'upper tribunal hearing' or 'possibility to apply for a judicial review.'
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
None of the appeals are automatic. You have to make a case to be allowed to appeal. Just saying you don't like the decision doesn't count. With no case, you won't even be appealing the first decision.
Except you get to appeal the refusal to hear and appeal and then to judicially review that decision.
That’s two more delays and utilisation of court resources. I think it should be simply one appeal if there is an error in law and you’re done
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
Its a bit weird that the week before, 21 boats arrived, 24 events prevented, 1500 arrived, 675 prevented. So still loads of activity.
Are we sure somebody hasn't filled in the spreadsheet fully yet?
This has happened before.
Nothing for 7 to 10 to 14 days and then, suddenly, two dozen boats.
Presumably stock and flow?
You don’t want to send a boat until it is full (maximising your ROIC). You can also make the “convoy” argument that there is safety in numbers as the coastguard can focus on a solitary craft
Its a bit weird that the week before, 21 boats arrived, 24 events prevented, 1500 arrived, 675 prevented. So still loads of activity.
Are we sure somebody hasn't filled in the spreadsheet fully yet?
This has happened before.
Nothing for 7 to 10 to 14 days and then, suddenly, two dozen boats.
Presumably stock and flow?
You don’t want to send a boat until it is full (maximising your ROIC). You can also make the “convoy” argument that there is safety in numbers as the coastguard can focus on a solitary craft
Remember not more than 79 in a boat, otherwise Starmer and Cooper will wag their finger at you for breaking the rules.
"Rich economies will need foreign workers to fuel growth, policymakers warn Central bankers say low birth rates in world’s largest economies pose threat to productivity and prices" (£)
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
You can finess it. Limit its jurisdiction to the high-water mark, so any action taken outside that is not justicable. Remove the Supreme Court from the military justice system so the highest court for a warfighter is the National Security Council, not the Supreme Court, and the governing law is the military code of justice not the HRA. That way any action taken by warfighters at sea is not covered by HRA and ECHR and we can refoul as much as we like.
Laws don't have to be changed to ignore them. You can supersede them with a later law or make them non-prosecutable (decriminalisation) or limit the jurisdiction. Drama is not necessary and a couple of Acts and Orders-in-Council should do the trick.
You need a creative Attorney-General. So Hermer will have to go.
And the political will - Sunak Rishi seemed willing to spend billions on the hare-brained Rwanda scheme rather than do the kind of legal work you are suggesting.
Trump’s election has changed the political space, however. Britain risked being an outlier before if it changed the way the ECHR applied. Now, I suggest it would be seen as an innovator.
I am. I'm unsure how an National-Front style kidnapping of the flag(s) is supposed to be positive.
As an aside, I did a ?300 mile drive yesterday. Three or four bridges over the A14 near Kettering were festooned with flags; there was one solitary flag on a bridge over the M1 near Leicester. And another on a bridge over the A50 near Doveridge. Uttoxeter was festooned by red, white and blue bunting, but there's a festival on.
All in all, rather underwhelming, and hardly the phenomenon that @Leon was breathlessly going on about.
Back in the 80s Brian Redhead used to take great relish in asking Conservative ministers, on Radio 4 about the latest unemployment figures, when unemployment was going up.
Then he stopped.
Norman Tebbit with equal relish started an interview with repeated questions to Redhead about why he wasn’t asking about unemployment. “You always used to ask”…
Finally Redhead asked, through gritted teeth, about the unemployment numbers. Tebbit replied that the current month showed a fall just like the previous x months.
If anecdotal Redhead had been a bit sharper he would have asked why unemployment was still higher than when the dreadful socialists were in power, then how much any notional falls were due to large numbers of the unemployed being shunted onto disability.
Was well known for his head-to-heads with Conservative ministers.
The unemployment figures thing became a bit of a discussion in the general media - some argued that the job of the news wasn’t to present positives for the government.
Which is exactly what was being mentioned above.
As to the value of the figures - the falls at the end of 1980s recession were like for like.
He's correct on Farage - a wumpus * who will grasp for the next random piece of BS whenever the current fairy story starts stinking. Going directly for Farage will be like nailing said diarrhoea to the wall. The way to deal with it is for a practical policy to have a sufficient impact.
Farage’s plan doesn’t even seem to convince him, because he has not one but two back-up plans, presumably in case public servants refuse to carry out instructions that may be unlawful in common law. ... Attempts to point out the practical drawbacks of Farage’s policy are beside the point. The failures of existing asylum policy are so shocking, and the government seems to be so powerless to fix them, that almost any alternative policy seems worth a try. ... It is no use gambling the survival of the Labour government on the vagaries of judges and the whims of the French president. Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, have worked diligently within the constraints of normal politics. ... they have been treating the small boats issue as if it is just an ordinary problem, instead of an emergency that threatens to make Farage prime minister. Starmer needs to throw everything at this problem. He needs to have been throwing everything at it since last year. ... The only thing that will defeat Farage’s unworkable asylum policy is a workable one. Starmer and Cooper have to find one, and quickly.
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
You can finess it. Limit its jurisdiction to the high-water mark, so any action taken outside that is not justicable. Remove the Supreme Court from the military justice system so the highest court for a warfighter is the National Security Council, not the Supreme Court, and the governing law is the military code of justice not the HRA. That way any action taken by warfighters at sea is not covered by HRA and ECHR and we can refoul as much as we like.
Laws don't have to be changed to ignore them. You can supersede them with a later law or make them non-prosecutable (decriminalisation) or limit the jurisdiction. Drama is not necessary and a couple of Acts and Orders-in-Council should do the trick.
You need a creative Attorney-General. So Hermer will have to go.
And the political will - Sunak Rishi seemed willing to spend billions on the hare-brained Rwanda scheme rather than do the kind of legal work you are suggesting.
Trump’s election has changed the political space, however. Britain risked being an outlier before if it changed the way the ECHR applied. Now, I suggest it would be seen as an innovator.
Trump won't be in office by the time this Labour government ends.
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
You can finess it. Limit its jurisdiction to the high-water mark, so any action taken outside that is not justicable. Remove the Supreme Court from the military justice system so the highest court for a warfighter is the National Security Council, not the Supreme Court, and the governing law is the military code of justice not the HRA. That way any action taken by warfighters at sea is not covered by HRA and ECHR and we can refoul as much as we like.
Laws don't have to be changed to ignore them. You can supersede them with a later law or make them non-prosecutable (decriminalisation) or limit the jurisdiction. Drama is not necessary and a couple of Acts and Orders-in-Council should do the trick.
You need a creative Attorney-General. So Hermer will have to go.
And the political will - Sunak Rishi seemed willing to spend billions on the hare-brained Rwanda scheme rather than do the kind of legal work you are suggesting.
Trump’s election has changed the political space, however. Britain risked being an outlier before if it changed the way the ECHR applied. Now, I suggest it would be seen as an innovator.
Trump won't be in office by the time this Labour government ends.
The next 4 years will feel like forever.
The UK electorate will, however, see if the USA decides to back a Trumpish candidate and continue the fickle unreliability, or go for someone vaguely normal.
He's correct on Farage - a wumpus * who will grasp for the next random piece of BS whenever the current fairy story starts stinking. Going directly for Farage will be like nailing said diarrhoea to the wall. The way to deal with it is for a practical policy to have a sufficient impact.
Farage’s plan doesn’t even seem to convince him, because he has not one but two back-up plans, presumably in case public servants refuse to carry out instructions that may be unlawful in common law. ... Attempts to point out the practical drawbacks of Farage’s policy are beside the point. The failures of existing asylum policy are so shocking, and the government seems to be so powerless to fix them, that almost any alternative policy seems worth a try. ... It is no use gambling the survival of the Labour government on the vagaries of judges and the whims of the French president. Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, have worked diligently within the constraints of normal politics. ... they have been treating the small boats issue as if it is just an ordinary problem, instead of an emergency that threatens to make Farage prime minister. Starmer needs to throw everything at this problem. He needs to have been throwing everything at it since last year. ... The only thing that will defeat Farage’s unworkable asylum policy is a workable one. Starmer and Cooper have to find one, and quickly.
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
You can finess it. Limit its jurisdiction to the high-water mark, so any action taken outside that is not justicable. Remove the Supreme Court from the military justice system so the highest court for a warfighter is the National Security Council, not the Supreme Court, and the governing law is the military code of justice not the HRA. That way any action taken by warfighters at sea is not covered by HRA and ECHR and we can refoul as much as we like.
Laws don't have to be changed to ignore them. You can supersede them with a later law or make them non-prosecutable (decriminalisation) or limit the jurisdiction. Drama is not necessary and a couple of Acts and Orders-in-Council should do the trick.
You need a creative Attorney-General. So Hermer will have to go.
And the political will - Sunak Rishi seemed willing to spend billions on the hare-brained Rwanda scheme rather than do the kind of legal work you are suggesting.
Trump’s election has changed the political space, however. Britain risked being an outlier before if it changed the way the ECHR applied. Now, I suggest it would be seen as an innovator.
Trump won't be in office by the time this Labour government ends.
You sure about that ?
Or are you expecting him to kark it just as he seizes power for a third term ?
I've just re-read the ECHR. The principle of non-refoulement is absolute: "they do not allow for any derogation, exception or limitation. The prohibition of refoulement applies both at the border and within the territory of a state"
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
You can finess it. Limit its jurisdiction to the high-water mark, so any action taken outside that is not justicable. Remove the Supreme Court from the military justice system so the highest court for a warfighter is the National Security Council, not the Supreme Court, and the governing law is the military code of justice not the HRA. That way any action taken by warfighters at sea is not covered by HRA and ECHR and we can refoul as much as we like.
Laws don't have to be changed to ignore them. You can supersede them with a later law or make them non-prosecutable (decriminalisation) or limit the jurisdiction. Drama is not necessary and a couple of Acts and Orders-in-Council should do the trick.
You need a creative Attorney-General. So Hermer will have to go.
And the political will - Sunak Rishi seemed willing to spend billions on the hare-brained Rwanda scheme rather than do the kind of legal work you are suggesting.
Trump’s election has changed the political space, however. Britain risked being an outlier before if it changed the way the ECHR applied. Now, I suggest it would be seen as an innovator.
Trump won't be in office by the time this Labour government ends.
The next 4 years will feel like forever.
What makes you think there will be a free and fair US Presidential Election in 2028? I suspect the Grim Reaper might have done his work by then anyway.
In the meantime it will be interesting to see how the US Government retaliate for the political incarceration of PB national treasure Lucy Connolly. Soon to be President Vance has taken quite an interest.
I am. I'm unsure how an National-Front style kidnapping of the flag(s) is supposed to be positive.
As an aside, I did a ?300 mile drive yesterday. Three or four bridges over the A14 near Kettering were festooned with flags; there was one solitary flag on a bridge over the M1 near Leicester. And another on a bridge over the A50 near Doveridge. Uttoxeter was festooned by red, white and blue bunting, but there's a festival on.
All in all, rather underwhelming, and hardly the phenomenon that @Leon was breathlessly going on about.
Its another media concoction so of course he will revert to old habits.. Just hope it doesn't put him in hospital this time.
I am. I'm unsure how an National-Front style kidnapping of the flag(s) is supposed to be positive.
As an aside, I did a ?300 mile drive yesterday. Three or four bridges over the A14 near Kettering were festooned with flags; there was one solitary flag on a bridge over the M1 near Leicester. And another on a bridge over the A50 near Doveridge. Uttoxeter was festooned by red, white and blue bunting, but there's a festival on.
All in all, rather underwhelming, and hardly the phenomenon that @Leon was breathlessly going on about.
Probably people should just insert a few swastikas among them, labelled "FTFY".
Comments
My God, they had some belters in that set!
(The Strathconan one is a toad I think - I'm sure some PB expert will confirm but I don't think frogs do mass migrations in the same way)
I think there used to be a joke warning sign for Nessie on the A82 but fortunately only in a layby otherwise it would have added considerably to the accident rate.
2) It still doesn't stop the film the edited footage and add the encrypt on top (with time / data / location spoofed).
It might well stop amateur dickheads, but it won't stop determined individuals with skills, particularly nation state actors. I think social media will have to insist on the encrypt signatures when you upload video otherwise the amateur dickheads can still get the fake videos trending before they get pulled. Its back enough at the moment with carefully edited footage.
Perhaps he thinks he is one of those smooth propaganda types who gets all the girls?
Apparently the current US which is descending into a dictatorship wants to lecture us here about our freedom of speech.
The same with Owen Jones.
I don't follow either, but do they do "ads" for other companies or sell their mailing lists? Goodwin definitely gets loads of media appearances on the back of that big substack following. I think Goodwin has also followed the Owen Jones path of doing YouTube now as well.
Maybe it's me but it seems to be missing an "immediately fuck off" outcome:
Top comment on The Times: "Deport immediately with no right to appeal. Enter the UK illegally from a safe country and never be allowed asylum."
If comments had their way we'd be living in a Corbynite, fascist regime where everyone else is forbidden from doing anything, you are permitted to do whatever you want, and taxes are cut while being high for the rich meaning anyone who earns more than you.
https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1959279084204126315?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Even I agree with that position in principle, particularly given what is going to happen due to climate change in my lifetime, and you can hardly call me a fervent right-winger. It seems eminently sensible to me. We desperately need to reform our application of the Refugee Convention, ideally with international agreement but if necessary alone. It can still be generous and reflect our values, picking up 10s of thousands of refugees a year. But not like this.
Which of course means the mid-point of the channel where British and French waters meet. There is no "international" zone and the French will always escort out migrants until they've hit British waters.
Snookered.
Under the European Convention of Human Rights don't see any way out of this. Unless the ECHR is fundamentally reformed, we will have to opt out, modify the 1998 Human Rights Act and derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention.
I don't see any alternative.
https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-coe-2020-european-law-land-borders_en.pdf
That's where I'm at.
There are to my eyes three possible solutions.
1: Accept everyone who wants to come.
2: Change the rules.
3: Find a third party (like Rwanda) happy to accept people and send them there instead.
That's it as far I can see. Pick your poison.
'Smashing the gangs' etc will be as plausible as winning the war on drugs.
He will tinker pointlessly around the edges and then go down with the ship.
Best thing he could do is call an early election on the issue for a mandate, but the guy is a coward so we will have 3 years 11 months of the country going up in smoke instead.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats/migrants-detected-crossing-the-english-channel-in-small-boats-last-7-days
Here's the thing: everyone thinks it's all bollocks now. Because it is.
So many people can fabricate a case that they will "face abuse" on going back to their own state - the criteria being so absurdly generous and wide-ranging, and open to multiple appeals - that no-one believes its sincere any more. And, even if they did, they don't believe its our problem- especially if they spent £8k paying people smugglers to get here over many months over multiple safe countries.
Everyone knows they're playing the game. And, sure, their countries are pretty shit - I wouldn't fancy Pakistan either - but that's not our problem.
I want everyone who comes over on a boat back on a plane (I don't care where) within 72 hours, even if they're Mother Theresa or have a cure for cancer.
Its a bit weird that the week before, 21 boats arrived, 24 events prevented, 1500 arrived, 675 prevented. So still loads of activity.
Are we sure somebody hasn't filled in the spreadsheet fully yet?
You'll pay a third of the price for the same boat if you just wait until the kids go back to school.
79 migrants in a single boat were brought to Dover yesterday - the first crossing in a week due to windy weather in the Channel.
https://x.com/SimonJonesNews/status/1959162820689338520
Also, it would bring out every single one of these lobby groups.. Liberty, Amnesty, the Refugee Council, the Law Society, the Bar Society, the UN, judges, every NGO you could think of, "experts", and academics.
It'd be like being disowned by his whole family to him.
Nothing for 7 to 10 to 14 days and then, suddenly, two dozen boats.
Bet we'd get successfully sued over that as well.
The newly freed mother is a proxy for Maga fears about Britain's authoritarian turn.
By Freddie Hayward"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2025/08/why-lucy-connolly-fascinates-the-trump-administration
Then he stopped.
Norman Tebbit with equal relish started an interview with repeated questions to Redhead about why he wasn’t asking about unemployment. “You always used to ask”…
Finally Redhead asked, through gritted teeth, about the unemployment numbers. Tebbit replied that the current month showed a fall just like the previous x months.
The reforms would allow courts imposing non-custodial terms to also have the power to hand out driving and travel bans, as well as order offenders to remain in specific areas.
Offenders released from prison who are supervised by the Probation Service could also face similar restrictions under the plans - as well as more mandatory drug testing, even if they do not have a history of misuse.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ypej14j2xo
We just want them all to go home, and if you enter illegally, we kick you out instantly
https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/tories-are-the-insurgents-after-hotel-judgment-vx0xbb568
Those who do are either idiots or malignants guilty of moral turpitude who can be best dealt with by technocratic pedantry and demanding they provide "examples" to hopefully expose their 'ignorance'.
Fine. He will be ignored.
The whole thing is bollocks. Utter utter bollocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2025
https://www.opinium.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/VI-2025-08-20-Data-Tables-1256.xlsx
I’ve heard the most bloodcurdling stuff from friends and acquaintances these last months. And they’re getting MORE strident, not less
Some of it is outright racism, which is grim and deplorable. Britain feels like a pan of oily cooking on the stove which is now boiling over and threatens to catch fire.
So what’s the first thing you do? Take it away from the heat source
Call a halt to 90% of migration, end the right to asylum, deport all foreign criminals, stop the boats. Do that and the seething mess will subside, the immediate danger is averted
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2025/jan/20/eritrea-torture-terror-prisons-former-prisoners
Going back to my prior post, there's no realistic way to "smash" that since they're acting in a productive manner for their own interests. Smash one gang and another will rapidly take their place.
We need to either decide to accept whoever wants to come, change the rules, or find somewhere else to send them instead. Pick your poison.
Pretty sure the voters won’t choose option 1
I can't think of a reason you wouldn't either have a bank account link Monzo or Revolut, or a card like FairFX, for most major tourist destinations. Although off to China soonish and looks like I need to get WeChat and Alipay setup for there.
We are an independent, sovereign democracy that can set our own laws unilaterally. The question is are we willing to do so and discard the shibboleth of "international law"?
Laws don't have to be changed to ignore them. You can supersede them with a later law or make them non-prosecutable (decriminalisation) or limit the jurisdiction. Drama is not necessary and a couple of Acts and Orders-in-Council should do the trick.
Central bankers say low birth rates in world’s largest economies pose threat to productivity and prices" (£)
https://www.ft.com
Importing foreign workers increases demand, as well as supply.
That’s two more delays and utilisation of court resources. I think it should be simply one appeal if there is an error in law and you’re done
Refoulement: the forcible return of refugees or asylum seekers to a country where they are liable to be subjected to persecution.
You don’t want to send a boat until it is full (maximising your ROIC). You can also make the “convoy” argument that there is safety in numbers as the coastguard can focus on a solitary craft
A welfare scheme expanded into absurdity is being boosted by viral social media accounts
Artillery Row
By Theo Wild
22 August, 2025"
https://thecritic.co.uk/how-tik-tok-is-helping-motability-claims
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx271162ee3o
And the political will - Sunak Rishi seemed willing to spend billions on the hare-brained Rwanda scheme rather than do the kind of legal work you are suggesting.
Trump’s election has changed the political space, however. Britain risked being an outlier before if it changed the way the ECHR applied. Now, I suggest it would be seen as an innovator.
As an aside, I did a ?300 mile drive yesterday. Three or four bridges over the A14 near Kettering were festooned with flags; there was one solitary flag on a bridge over the M1 near Leicester. And another on a bridge over the A50 near Doveridge. Uttoxeter was festooned by red, white and blue bunting, but there's a festival on.
All in all, rather underwhelming, and hardly the phenomenon that @Leon was breathlessly going on about.
Was well known for his head-to-heads with Conservative ministers.
The unemployment figures thing became a bit of a discussion in the general media - some argued that the job of the news wasn’t to present positives for the government.
Which is exactly what was being mentioned above.
As to the value of the figures - the falls at the end of 1980s recession were like for like.
He's correct on Farage - a wumpus * who will grasp for the next random piece of BS whenever the current fairy story starts stinking. Going directly for Farage will be like nailing said diarrhoea to the wall. The way to deal with it is for a practical policy to have a sufficient impact.
Farage’s plan doesn’t even seem to convince him, because he has not one but two back-up plans, presumably in case public servants refuse to carry out instructions that may be unlawful in common law.
...
Attempts to point out the practical drawbacks of Farage’s policy are beside the point. The failures of existing asylum policy are so shocking, and the government seems to be so powerless to fix them, that almost any alternative policy seems worth a try.
...
It is no use gambling the survival of the Labour government on the vagaries of judges and the whims of the French president. Starmer and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, have worked diligently within the constraints of normal politics.
...
they have been treating the small boats issue as if it is just an ordinary problem, instead of an emergency that threatens to make Farage prime minister. Starmer needs to throw everything at this problem. He needs to have been throwing everything at it since last year.
...
The only thing that will defeat Farage’s unworkable asylum policy is a workable one. Starmer and Cooper have to find one, and quickly.
* With apologies to wumpods.
The next 4 years will feel like forever.
Matt Gaetz grew up in Truman Burbank's house from the Truman Show set in Seaside, Florida. (Wiki and below)
https://www.realtor.com/news/celebrity-real-estate/matt-gaetz-home-truman-show-jim-carrey/
Or are you expecting him to kark it just as he seizes power for a third term ?
In the meantime it will be interesting to see how the US Government retaliate for the political incarceration of PB national treasure Lucy Connolly. Soon to be President Vance has taken quite an interest.