"UK to tighten family member rules for asylum cases"
This is a classic example of the lunacy of Britain’s migration policies. The government thinks it is doing a good, popular thing in tightening an immigration loophole, but the publicity merely reveals that an insane loophole exists and everyone is astonished that it wasn’t tightened before
So everyone gets angrier
True. Though it sounds like it will end the absurd situation where someone born here has to prove minimum income to bring in a spouse, but an successful asylee doesn't.
Though presumably if the spouse applies for asylum as they're fleeing persecution then the minimum income rule doesn't apply. I'd have thought it fairly obvious that the immediate family of someone fleeing persecution is also at risk.
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
We're all allowed one lapse.
Given that @Dura_Ace said yesterday he was off to study Arabic until Christmas I think we can insult him as much as we want.
Although he left us this header he won’t be seeing the replies at all
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
We're all allowed one lapse.
indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus
"The sleep of Homer brings forth solecisms" ?
Traditionally, "Even the good Homer nods", ie we all make mistakes.
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
We're all allowed one lapse.
indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus
"The sleep of Homer brings forth solecisms" ?
Traditionally, "Even the good Homer nods", ie we all make mistakes.
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
I suspect because the client isn’t the accounts team and has been told in no uncertain terms that payment terms are x days and if you fail to pay by then no future work will be done.
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
Strikes me that the client has financial problems.
Not an unusual Big Client / Small Supplier dynamic, Big Client accounts dept just thinks they can get away without paying or not the full amount. IIRC some big firms were exposed as asking for a discount to pay invoices in a reasonable time frame. There was talk about legislation on late payment but doesn't seem to be happening, Norway has laws to prevent this.
"UK to tighten family member rules for asylum cases"
This is a classic example of the lunacy of Britain’s migration policies. The government thinks it is doing a good, popular thing in tightening an immigration loophole, but the publicity merely reveals that an insane loophole exists and everyone is astonished that it wasn’t tightened before
So everyone gets angrier
True. Though it sounds like it will end the absurd situation where someone born here has to prove minimum income to bring in a spouse, but an successful asylee doesn't.
That's what tends to happen when you change immigration rules with such frequency - there have been a bewildering number of changes since my wife migrated, and more since she was granted citizenship. When you also lose control of the numbers to the extent Boris did, you leave your successors in government a problem which makes them look less than competent, whatever they do.
I strongly suspect it wouldn't be greatly different in that particular respect, were Reform to be running things.
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
I suspect because the client isn’t the accounts team and has been told in no uncertain terms that payment terms are x days and if you fail to pay by then no future work will be done.
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
Strikes me that the client has financial problems.
Not an unusual Big Client / Small Supplier dynamic, Big Client accounts dept just thinks they can get away without paying or not the full amount. IIRC some big firms were exposed as asking for a discount to pay invoices in a reasonable time frame. There was talk about legislation on late payment but doesn't seem to be happening, Norway has laws to prevent this.
We have such legislation: Late payment of commercial debts Act 1998. Enforcing it, however, is very much dependent upon not wanting an ongoing relationship with the tardy payer.
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
We're all allowed one lapse.
indignor quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus
"The sleep of Homer brings forth solecisms" ?
Traditionally, "Even the good Homer nods", ie we all make mistakes.
I was mixing in a Goya reference.
Apologies, that passed me by I am afraid.
TSE's legendary subtlety must be rubbing off on me.
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
I suspect because the client isn’t the accounts team and has been told in no uncertain terms that payment terms are x days and if you fail to pay by then no future work will be done.
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
Strikes me that the client has financial problems.
Not an unusual Big Client / Small Supplier dynamic, Big Client accounts dept just thinks they can get away without paying or not the full amount. IIRC some big firms were exposed as asking for a discount to pay invoices in a reasonable time frame. There was talk about legislation on late payment but doesn't seem to be happening, Norway has laws to prevent this.
IIRC John Major put through some laws on this and stopped some of the governmental late payment - which used to be the worst of the lot.
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
You have a statutory right to charge interest at 8% over base.
(Why did you agree to 120 days? That’s egregious. I put my invoices on 7 days but usually try to get paid via the funds flow)
To combine two topics of the day, here is something other than dirndl that they make in Styria (from Mrs Flatlander's collection of lethal weapons land management tools), complete with slightly iffy logo.
Where is The Donald? Out practicing for the Ryder Cup as a wild card pick?
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
The captain of our cruise ship got one as well in the Faroes when he accidentally dropped his anchor on some undersea cables !!!
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
The captain of our cruise ship got one as well in the Faroes when he accidentally dropped his anchor on some undersea cables !!!
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
I suspect because the client isn’t the accounts team and has been told in no uncertain terms that payment terms are x days and if you fail to pay by then no future work will be done.
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
Strikes me that the client has financial problems.
Larger companies have been pushing payment terms for years now, as it’s way easier to push your small suppliers than the bank to cover cash flow requirements. Makes them look like total charlatans with small business contractors though, who have bigger cash flow problems and need to be paid in 7-14 days.
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
The captain of our cruise ship got one as well in the Faroes when he accidentally dropped his anchor on some undersea cables !!!
If you arrive here from France, you are not fleeing persecution.
So either piss off somewhere else, or live destitute on the street. Your choice.
Ultimately this is the issue for many, many people. Legally the applicant does not have to claim asylum in the first safe country. Morally people in this country think that they should.
If you are being attacked in your home and you flee, where do you go for help? The closest door or the one with the nicest furniture?
Because those in France are asylum shopping, to many it diminishes the strength of the claim.
Now PB'ers will no doubt now reel off a list of things why this post is wrong (factually, morally, legally) but to the person on the Clapham omnibus this is what they think. And its why my next door neighbour, unprovoked, told me he was listening to Farage "because he's right".
I don't think that we can ethically say that because we happen to be further from (e.g.) Afghanistan than (e.g.) France, all Afghani refugees should go to France. In practice, most refugees already end up in countries close to where they started - the boats stand out as the obvious exception, but it is an exception.
Rather, we should announce stricter criteria, probably including some connection with Britain (language, relatives) but allow applications to the nearest British Embassy. Having relaxed criteria but applying them only to people who cross the Channel invites the boats issue.
"UK to tighten family member rules for asylum cases"
This is a classic example of the lunacy of Britain’s migration policies. The government thinks it is doing a good, popular thing in tightening an immigration loophole, but the publicity merely reveals that an insane loophole exists and everyone is astonished that it wasn’t tightened before
So everyone gets angrier
True. Though it sounds like it will end the absurd situation where someone born here has to prove minimum income to bring in a spouse, but an successful asylee doesn't.
That's what tends to happen when you change immigration rules with such frequency - there have been a bewildering number of changes since my wife migrated, and more since she was granted citizenship. When you also lose control of the numbers to the extent Boris did, you leave your successors in government a problem which makes them look less than competent, whatever they do.
I strongly suspect it wouldn't be greatly different in that particular respect, were Reform to be running things.
Really? It’s much easier to enforce a system which says
1. No more asylum seekers
And
2. If you come over on a boat you’ve committed a crime and you’re going straight into detention. In a freezing tent. In sheppey
Excellent advice all round, I'd say. Try as many things as you can, keep as many options open for as long as you can.
Then you can find the job you truly love, destroy your work-life boundaries and that's possibly a mistake and it's too late for me but you can still get out...
Big client not paying my invoices - they've been put on 120 days payment terms. Which the client thinks is wholly unacceptable and is pushing to change.
Lets just say that I won't be doing a lot of work for them on 120 days terms...
Why does the client think 120 days is unacceptable ? Do they want to make it 180 or something ?
I suspect because the client isn’t the accounts team and has been told in no uncertain terms that payment terms are x days and if you fail to pay by then no future work will be done.
I know that’s my viewpoint - anyone paying me beyond 30 day terms is taking the Mickey and will discover that they are no longer a priority customer or if I’m vaguely busy a customer at all.
Strikes me that the client has financial problems.
Not an unusual Big Client / Small Supplier dynamic, Big Client accounts dept just thinks they can get away without paying or not the full amount. IIRC some big firms were exposed as asking for a discount to pay invoices in a reasonable time frame. There was talk about legislation on late payment but doesn't seem to be happening, Norway has laws to prevent this.
We have such legislation: Late payment of commercial debts Act 1998. Enforcing it, however, is very much dependent upon not wanting an ongoing relationship with the tardy payer.
This. My company's biggest client currently owes £x00,000 >30 days, this happens every few years - they are cynically using us and other suppliers as an overdraft facility while they buy another business - but we make a handsome profit out of the work we do for them, even allowing for the 1% or so that late payment effectively costs us.
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
The captain of our cruise ship got one as well in the Faroes when he accidentally dropped his anchor on some undersea cables !!!
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
The captain of our cruise ship got one as well in the Faroes when he accidentally dropped his anchor on some undersea cables !!!
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
You didn't block that underground roundabout, did you?
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
There were. Boyne, for instance. (In Irelan d, but all part of it ...).
Sure, but Ireland isn't part of Britain. The question was about invasions of Britain.
But Britain is meaningless in 1066 anyway ...
No it wasn't. There might not have been a British political state, but Britain as a concept existed, and done previous English Kings had been recognised as overlord of Britain, and received homage from Kings on the rest of the island.
And it would be perfectly valid to say that a successful invasion of Scotland, from outwith Britain, would have been a successful invasion of Britain, even had such an invasion left England undisturbed.
Mm. But not homage from the whole of the rest of the island (archipelago strictly) - much of Scotland was Norse at the relevant time, quite apart from Orkney and Shetland).
Afternoon to all from sunny Athens. Weren't Shetland and the Orkneys originally part of the same norse group as Iceland, who were all offered to Henry VIii in a deal ?
Doesn't sound right to me. Timing is off. S&O were formally part of Scotland in 1472 (partly dowry deal asnd partly unredeemed pawn) which is all before Henry VIII.
It's good that even Merz is now being clear about Europe's red lines on Ukraine. (Even if he's being clear in German.)
Ich stelle mich auf einen langen Krieg in der Ukraine ein. Wir versuchen, ihn so schnell wie möglich zu beenden, aber nicht zum Preis der Kapitulation der Ukraine. Denn dann verliert das Land seine Eigenständigkeit. Dann ist morgen das nächste Land dran und übermorgen wir. https://x.com/bundeskanzler/status/1962207582958813654
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
You didn't block that underground roundabout, did you?
Nah, he probably parked in the only passing place on 2km of single track road.
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
I'm thinking you got it for parking illegally? That's usually the reason.
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
You didn't block that underground roundabout, did you?
Nah, he probably parked in the only passing place on 2km of single track road.
There was probably a big sign saying DON'T PARK HERE which he thought he could ignore because he's British.
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
You didn't block that underground roundabout, did you?
Nah, he probably parked in the only passing place on 2km of single track road.
There was probably a big sign saying DON'T PARK HERE which he thought he could ignore because he's British.
Well, it would have said HØR IKKE PARK HER or something, which could be misunderstood ...
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
We're all allowed one lapse.
Given that @Dura_Ace said yesterday he was off to study Arabic until Christmas I think we can insult him as much as we want.
Although he left us this header he won’t be seeing the replies at all
I was surprised to see it, and not surprised Leon took great delight in picking him up on it. Rare slip ups are all the more enjoyable when they happen.
I just got a fucking parking ticket from the fucking Faroe Islands. This has to be a record. How do you even do that? The whole place is a desolate lava scape shrouded in ice. It’s like getting caught speeding on Neptune
You didn't block that underground roundabout, did you?
Nah, he probably parked in the only passing place on 2km of single track road.
There was probably a big sign saying DON'T PARK HERE which he thought he could ignore because he's British.
Well, it would have said HØR IKKE PARK HER or something, which could be misunderstood ...
Ok but that's what google translate is for. Perhaps it doesn't work out there.
I note Sky have coverage of Tice at a lecturn about the boats just now
Reform are really having extraordinary media coverage and so much so that Starmer has just announced he will be leading labour into the next GE
Strange that even Starmer thinks he needs to say that
I don't think seeing Tice on tv at a lecturn is why Starmer said that. He was just giving the only answer possible to "will you lead Labour into the next election?"
The illegal immigrants who are trying to claim false asylum are to blame for any genuine asylum seekers being poorly treated. The temptation to put it on the public, who are rightly concerned about tens of thousands of chancers slipping into their society, should be resisted.
I doubt many people are against genuine refugees being given a home and integrated into British life, but what we are actually getting is thousands of young men with no real claim to be here, making Britain resemble the third world they came from
I also had no idea - until today - that once they get asylum status they can ask to be reunited with their family - wife and six kids in Aleppo or Kabul - and that is nearly automatically allowed. We apply none of the usual criteria - English language, spousal income
In other words we have set up an informal and easily gamed migration route for entire families, and unsurprisingly chancers are exploiting it
We have to cease offering all asylum for five or ten years and deport hundreds of thousands already here
I think almost all British people support an asylum system - but in their minds this meant very few desperate cases via an international agreement where other countries each took a share. The result might be less than a hundred to the UK per year, say.
This faulty understanding bears no comparison to how the asylum system is being used and abused today, often with legal and other services paid for from our taxes.
It's not surprising the British are furious.
This idea other countries don't take a share is bizarre.
More in many cases. The anger and commotion on account of not particularly high numbers of refugees and the demand for ever more draconian 'solutions' does not support the comforting idea that the British people are paragons of tolerance who have had their reserves of patience tested to destruction.
The one thing I agree on with what for sake of convenience I'll call Leonism is that the small boats (the bad migrant kind, not the good 1940 kind) touch something deep in the English psyche. The mentality that confuses having several billion gallons of water between England and mainland Europe with some kind of exceptional martial abilty, is now raging that neither our govenments or all that water can keep the invader out.
We saw this the other day, with the rather incredible claim that our borders had been under control for most of the last thousand years.
We haven't been successfully invaded for nearly a thousand years was clearly the point I was making. That's what most people would understand by the phrase "borders under control". For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is interesting.
We're talking about immigration, not a war. People coming over here, not an invading army. Though some racists do like the parallels.
For you to misunderstand this, either deliberately or accidentally, is hilarious.
Amazing how many people ignore William of Orange and his allies in the 1680s.
The thing is, that wasn't an opposed invasion. The incumbent simply ran away, and William was invited in.
I think there has to be at least one battle to make it an invasion.
There were. Boyne, for instance. (In Irelan d, but all part of it ...).
Sure, but Ireland isn't part of Britain. The question was about invasions of Britain.
But Britain is meaningless in 1066 anyway ...
No it wasn't. There might not have been a British political state, but Britain as a concept existed, and done previous English Kings had been recognised as overlord of Britain, and received homage from Kings on the rest of the island.
And it would be perfectly valid to say that a successful invasion of Scotland, from outwith Britain, would have been a successful invasion of Britain, even had such an invasion left England undisturbed.
Mm. But not homage from the whole of the rest of the island (archipelago strictly) - much of Scotland was Norse at the relevant time, quite apart from Orkney and Shetland).
Afternoon to all from sunny Athens. Weren't Shetland and the Orkneys originally part of the same norse group as Iceland, who were all offered to Henry VIii in a deal ?
Doesn't sound right to me. Timing is off. S&O were formally part of Scotland in 1472 (partly dowry deal asnd partly unredeemed pawn) which is all before Henry VIII.
Yes, I think relevantly for Leon's travails, it was actually the Faroe Islands packaged up with Iceland, who were offered to Henry VIII, by the Norwegian King of the time, as the Viking era was packing up. Leon would have been able to get a UK parking ticket.
I’m not going to wade through. 98 paragraphs of quasi-military crepitations first thing in the morning. If you can’t make an argument in five sentences, don’t make it
Next
TikTok brain. It's a good article and demonstrates the military babble BTL is a choice, not a condition.
I’m teasing @Dura_Ace as he has, in the past, been incredibly rude to other prolix commenters. The threader is informative and useful
His misuse of “approbation” is surprisingly poor form, however
We're all allowed one lapse.
Given that @Dura_Ace said yesterday he was off to study Arabic until Christmas I think we can insult him as much as we want.
Although he left us this header he won’t be seeing the replies at all
I was surprised to see it, and not surprised Leon took great delight in picking him up on it. Rare slip ups are all the more enjoyable when they happen.
Yes. That's why people piled on me for calling the last US election wrong. And why I didn't mind.
If you arrive here from France, you are not fleeing persecution.
So either piss off somewhere else, or live destitute on the street. Your choice.
Ultimately this is the issue for many, many people. Legally the applicant does not have to claim asylum in the first safe country. Morally people in this country think that they should.
If you are being attacked in your home and you flee, where do you go for help? The closest door or the one with the nicest furniture?
Because those in France are asylum shopping, to many it diminishes the strength of the claim.
Now PB'ers will no doubt now reel off a list of things why this post is wrong (factually, morally, legally) but to the person on the Clapham omnibus this is what they think. And its why my next door neighbour, unprovoked, told me he was listening to Farage "because he's right".
I don't think that we can ethically say that because we happen to be further from (e.g.) Afghanistan than (e.g.) France, all Afghani refugees should go to France. In practice, most refugees already end up in countries close to where they started - the boats stand out as the obvious exception, but it is an exception.
Rather, we should announce stricter criteria, probably including some connection with Britain (language, relatives) but allow applications to the nearest British Embassy. Having relaxed criteria but applying them only to people who cross the Channel invites the boats issue.
Agree, but as well as stricter criteria we ahould have an annual quota we take, and no more.
If you arrive here from France, you are not fleeing persecution.
So either piss off somewhere else, or live destitute on the street. Your choice.
Ultimately this is the issue for many, many people. Legally the applicant does not have to claim asylum in the first safe country. Morally people in this country think that they should.
If you are being attacked in your home and you flee, where do you go for help? The closest door or the one with the nicest furniture?
Because those in France are asylum shopping, to many it diminishes the strength of the claim.
Now PB'ers will no doubt now reel off a list of things why this post is wrong (factually, morally, legally) but to the person on the Clapham omnibus this is what they think. And its why my next door neighbour, unprovoked, told me he was listening to Farage "because he's right".
I don't think that we can ethically say that because we happen to be further from (e.g.) Afghanistan than (e.g.) France, all Afghani refugees should go to France. In practice, most refugees already end up in countries close to where they started - the boats stand out as the obvious exception, but it is an exception.
Rather, we should announce stricter criteria, probably including some connection with Britain (language, relatives) but allow applications to the nearest British Embassy. Having relaxed criteria but applying them only to people who cross the Channel invites the boats issue.
Agree, but as well as stricter criteria we ahould have an annual quota we take, and no more.
With perhaps a provision for a time-limited increase in numbers from a specific catastrophe, subject to a vote in parliament. Ukraine, Gaza, Hong Kong, Myanmar etc etc
Comments
I'd have thought it fairly obvious that the immediate family of someone fleeing persecution is also at risk.
Although he left us this header he won’t be seeing the replies at all
There was talk about legislation on late payment but doesn't seem to be happening, Norway has laws to prevent this.
When you also lose control of the numbers to the extent Boris did, you leave your successors in government a problem which makes them look less than competent, whatever they do.
I strongly suspect it wouldn't be greatly different in that particular respect, were Reform to be running things.
https://x.com/adamscochran/status/1962233429770285093
Here's some decent advice on that score.
https://x.com/CalumDouglas1/status/1962261918946820442
(Why did you agree to 120 days? That’s egregious. I put my invoices on 7 days but usually try to get paid via the funds flow)
lethal weaponsland management tools), complete with slightly iffy logo.Where is The Donald? Out practicing for the Ryder Cup as a wild card pick?
Rather, we should announce stricter criteria, probably including some connection with Britain (language, relatives) but allow applications to the nearest British Embassy. Having relaxed criteria but applying them only to people who cross the Channel invites the boats issue.
1. No more asylum seekers
And
2. If you come over on a boat you’ve committed a crime and you’re going straight into detention. In a freezing tent. In sheppey
Reform are really having extraordinary media coverage and so much so that Starmer has just announced he will be leading labour into the next GE
Strange that even Starmer thinks he needs to say that
Then you can find the job you truly love, destroy your work-life boundaries and that's possibly a mistake and it's too late for me but you can still get out...
(Even if he's being clear in German.)
Ich stelle mich auf einen langen Krieg in der Ukraine ein. Wir versuchen, ihn so schnell wie möglich zu beenden, aber nicht zum Preis der Kapitulation der Ukraine. Denn dann verliert das Land seine Eigenständigkeit. Dann ist morgen das nächste Land dran und übermorgen wir.
https://x.com/bundeskanzler/status/1962207582958813654
https://x.com/front_ukrainian/status/1962426586386370940
To paraphrase, bombing the British Council building in Kyiv was a good thing because we know what really goes on there.
What are the current odds on Vance being president this year?
The blind woman says we are in an Eliot poem. Grüß Gott
NEW THREAD