Skip to content

Why you shouldn’t sign up to Corbyn’s new party – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,687
edited 1:52PM in General
Why you shouldn’t sign up to Corbyn’s new party – politicalbetting.com

? | Jeremy Corbyn has confirmed that the YourParty membership sign up link posted this morning by Zarah Sultana was unauthorised.Over 20,000 people had already signed up, with the standard rate being £55 per annum. These are set to be cancelled. https://t.co/FPbaiWWdWF

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,338
    Popcorn starter before the presser
    Bonus
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,586
    Absolutely no one could have predicted this....

    Good news for the Greens
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,338
    https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1968673897701679450?s=19

    Lololololol
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,816
    wooliedyed said:

    https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1968673897701679450?s=19

    Lololololol

    I’ve updated the header.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,772
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,333
    Going back to the fast track rape case earlier where I said the case I know is in 2027 here is an assault case from November 2024, court date is August 9th 2028

    https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/25475170.darlington-man-will-wait-three-years-trial/?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,338
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    wooliedyed said:

    https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1968673897701679450?s=19

    Lololololol

    I’ve updated the header.
    Good man. This is comedy gold
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,586
    Off topic, Surrey vs Notts going down to the wire in what could be the championship decider if rain washes out next week's final matches.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,048
    Back in the old days control of a left-wing party was measured in terms of who controlled the printing press. These days it's about who has control of the membership data and bank account.

    I'm a leftie, and I always will be by virtue of fundamental belief - I believe that people are best able to improve the world by cooperating - but it's notable how bad so many left-wing parties are at cooperating, even with other like-minded lefties.

    It does rather shake one's confidence that they would be able to implement left-wing policies, if they can't even cooperate in a political party.
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,586
    Dopermean said:

    Off topic, Surrey vs Notts going down to the wire in what could be the championship decider if rain washes out next week's final matches.

    Live on youtube as well
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,772
    Brilliant comedy this afternoon.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 56,395
    wooliedyed said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    wooliedyed said:

    https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1968673897701679450?s=19

    Lololololol

    I’ve updated the header.
    Good man. This is comedy gold
    As usual Pratchett did it best:

    "William: "I'm sure we can all pull together, sir." Vetinari: "Oh, I do hope not. Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions."

    Good effort though
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,816
    edited 2:05PM
    MaxPB said:

    Brilliant comedy this afternoon.

    As somebody who is works in financial service regulation and loves taking the piss out of left wing splitters politics this story has hit my sweet spot.

    I am filled to the brim with girlish glee.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,905
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,128
    edited 2:08PM
    Curious terms in "Your party" terms of service:

    15.5.
    Commencing Arbitration. Before initiating arbitration, a party must first send a written notice of the dispute to the other party by certified U.S. Mail or by Federal Express (signature required) or, only if that other party has not provided a current physical address, then by electronic mail ("Notice of Arbitration"). Community Owner's address for Notice is: Your Party Membership, MOU Operations Limited, 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, United Kingdom, WC2H 9JQ. The Notice of Arbitration must: (a) identify the name or account number of the party making the claim; (b) describe the nature and basis of the claim or dispute; and (c) set forth the specific relief sought ("Demand"). The parties will make good faith efforts to resolve the claim directly, but if the parties do not reach an agreement to do so within 30 days after the Notice of Arbitration is received, you or Community Owner may commence an arbitration proceeding. If you commence arbitration in accordance with these Terms, Community Owner will reimburse you for your payment of the filing fee, unless your claim is for more than US$10,000 or if Community Owner has received 25 or more similar demands for arbitration, in which case the payment of any fees will be decided by the JAMS Rules. If the arbitrator finds that either the substance of the claim or the relief sought in the Demand is frivolous or brought for an improper purpose (as measured by the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)), then the payment of all fees will be governed by the JAMS Rules and the other party may seek reimbursement for any fees paid to JAMS.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,905
    @Pulpstar that’s almost certainly against the Consumer Rights Act.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,283
    Press conference live now
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,816
    Pulpstar said:

    Curious terms in "Your party" terms of service:

    15.5.
    Commencing Arbitration. Before initiating arbitration, a party must first send a written notice of the dispute to the other party by certified U.S. Mail or by Federal Express (signature required) or, only if that other party has not provided a current physical address, then by electronic mail ("Notice of Arbitration"). Community Owner's address for Notice is: Your Party Membership, MOU Operations Limited, 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, United Kingdom, WC2H 9JQ. The Notice of Arbitration must: (a) identify the name or account number of the party making the claim; (b) describe the nature and basis of the claim or dispute; and (c) set forth the specific relief sought ("Demand"). The parties will make good faith efforts to resolve the claim directly, but if the parties do not reach an agreement to do so within 30 days after the Notice of Arbitration is received, you or Community Owner may commence an arbitration proceeding. If you commence arbitration in accordance with these Terms, Community Owner will reimburse you for your payment of the filing fee, unless your claim is for more than US$10,000 or if Community Owner has received 25 or more similar demands for arbitration, in which case the payment of any fees will be decided by the JAMS Rules. If the arbitrator finds that either the substance of the claim or the relief sought in the Demand is frivolous or brought for an improper purpose (as measured by the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)), then the payment of all fees will be governed by the JAMS Rules and the other party may seek reimbursement for any fees paid to JAMS.

    Oh God, they’ve copied and pasted from somewhere else and not updated it all for Blighty.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,251
    @breeallegretti

    NEW: Zarah Sultana confirms she set up a new membership portal that has now been denounced by Corbyn.

    She says she's been "subjected to what can only be described as a sexist boys' club" and has been "excluded completley" by the Your Party co-founder.

    She confirms money has been taken from members - and will be handled by MOU Operations Ltd.

    This is an organisation being run by Jamie Dricoll, Beth Winter and Andrew Feinstein.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,140
    The French are revolting:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9zvg03elzo
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,251
    Anybody surprised that the clown car has disintegrated has never seen the circus...
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,128
    16.3.
    Governing Law. These Terms are governed by the laws of the State of New York without regard to conflict of law principles.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,568
    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,980
    Pulpstar said:

    Curious terms in "Your party" terms of service:

    15.5.
    Commencing Arbitration. Before initiating arbitration, a party must first send a written notice of the dispute to the other party by certified U.S. Mail or by Federal Express (signature required) or, only if that other party has not provided a current physical address, then by electronic mail ("Notice of Arbitration"). Community Owner's address for Notice is: Your Party Membership, MOU Operations Limited, 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, United Kingdom, WC2H 9JQ. The Notice of Arbitration must: (a) identify the name or account number of the party making the claim; (b) describe the nature and basis of the claim or dispute; and (c) set forth the specific relief sought ("Demand"). The parties will make good faith efforts to resolve the claim directly, but if the parties do not reach an agreement to do so within 30 days after the Notice of Arbitration is received, you or Community Owner may commence an arbitration proceeding. If you commence arbitration in accordance with these Terms, Community Owner will reimburse you for your payment of the filing fee, unless your claim is for more than US$10,000 or if Community Owner has received 25 or more similar demands for arbitration, in which case the payment of any fees will be decided by the JAMS Rules. If the arbitrator finds that either the substance of the claim or the relief sought in the Demand is frivolous or brought for an improper purpose (as measured by the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)), then the payment of all fees will be governed by the JAMS Rules and the other party may seek reimbursement for any fees paid to JAMS.

    Almost as if it was cut and pasted from either another website or an AI.

    Of all the crap going on in politics at the moment, watching the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front arguing loudly in public is good entertainment.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,128
    17.
    Notice Regarding Apple. This Section 17 (Notice Regarding Apple) only applies to the extent you are using our mobile application on an iOS device. You acknowledge that these Terms are between you and Community Owner only, not with Apple Inc. ("Apple"), and Apple is not responsible for the Community or the content of it. Apple has no obligation to furnish any maintenance and support services with respect to the Community.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,905
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Curious terms in "Your party" terms of service:

    15.5.
    Commencing Arbitration. Before initiating arbitration, a party must first send a written notice of the dispute to the other party by certified U.S. Mail or by Federal Express (signature required) or, only if that other party has not provided a current physical address, then by electronic mail ("Notice of Arbitration"). Community Owner's address for Notice is: Your Party Membership, MOU Operations Limited, 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, United Kingdom, WC2H 9JQ. The Notice of Arbitration must: (a) identify the name or account number of the party making the claim; (b) describe the nature and basis of the claim or dispute; and (c) set forth the specific relief sought ("Demand"). The parties will make good faith efforts to resolve the claim directly, but if the parties do not reach an agreement to do so within 30 days after the Notice of Arbitration is received, you or Community Owner may commence an arbitration proceeding. If you commence arbitration in accordance with these Terms, Community Owner will reimburse you for your payment of the filing fee, unless your claim is for more than US$10,000 or if Community Owner has received 25 or more similar demands for arbitration, in which case the payment of any fees will be decided by the JAMS Rules. If the arbitrator finds that either the substance of the claim or the relief sought in the Demand is frivolous or brought for an improper purpose (as measured by the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)), then the payment of all fees will be governed by the JAMS Rules and the other party may seek reimbursement for any fees paid to JAMS.

    Almost as if it was cut and pasted from either another website or an AI.

    Of all the crap going on in politics at the moment, watching the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front arguing loudly in public is good entertainment.
    AI would have done a better job
  • maaarshmaaarsh Posts: 3,604
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Curious terms in "Your party" terms of service:

    15.5.
    Commencing Arbitration. Before initiating arbitration, a party must first send a written notice of the dispute to the other party by certified U.S. Mail or by Federal Express (signature required) or, only if that other party has not provided a current physical address, then by electronic mail ("Notice of Arbitration"). Community Owner's address for Notice is: Your Party Membership, MOU Operations Limited, 71-75 Shelton Street, Covent Garden, London, United Kingdom, WC2H 9JQ. The Notice of Arbitration must: (a) identify the name or account number of the party making the claim; (b) describe the nature and basis of the claim or dispute; and (c) set forth the specific relief sought ("Demand"). The parties will make good faith efforts to resolve the claim directly, but if the parties do not reach an agreement to do so within 30 days after the Notice of Arbitration is received, you or Community Owner may commence an arbitration proceeding. If you commence arbitration in accordance with these Terms, Community Owner will reimburse you for your payment of the filing fee, unless your claim is for more than US$10,000 or if Community Owner has received 25 or more similar demands for arbitration, in which case the payment of any fees will be decided by the JAMS Rules. If the arbitrator finds that either the substance of the claim or the relief sought in the Demand is frivolous or brought for an improper purpose (as measured by the standards set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)), then the payment of all fees will be governed by the JAMS Rules and the other party may seek reimbursement for any fees paid to JAMS.

    Almost as if it was cut and pasted from either another website or an AI.

    Of all the crap going on in politics at the moment, watching the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front arguing loudly in public is good entertainment.
    Of course the only issue they all agree on is the need to destroy Judea.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,457
    I can't help note that both Zahra and Corbyn used X rather than Bluesky.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,982
    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,230
    Please tell me she/they have committed a criminal offence with this nonsense.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,772
    rcs1000 said:

    I can't help note that both Zahra and Corbyn used X rather than Bluesky.

    Bluesky for freaks and weirdos. The place gives me both heebies and jeebies.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,905
    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,568
    carnforth said:

    The French are revolting:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9zvg03elzo

    Not entirely. A correction in the Times (I think - not quite sure I have it right) is reported in the Graun feed:

    https://x.com/georgegrylls/status/1968672486297366596
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,680
    Trump making up BIGLY numbers.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,729
    Pulpstar said:

    17.
    Notice Regarding Apple. This Section 17 (Notice Regarding Apple) only applies to the extent you are using our mobile application on an iOS device. You acknowledge that these Terms are between you and Community Owner only, not with Apple Inc. ("Apple"), and Apple is not responsible for the Community or the content of it. Apple has no obligation to furnish any maintenance and support services with respect to the Community.

    Can they get sued for copying someone else's T&Cs?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,251
    rcs1000 said:

    I can't help note that both Zahra and Corbyn used X rather than Bluesky.

    They have already shown they are backwards, incompetent and technically illiterate. We don't need more proof...
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,338
    Trump rambling
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,905
    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    17.
    Notice Regarding Apple. This Section 17 (Notice Regarding Apple) only applies to the extent you are using our mobile application on an iOS device. You acknowledge that these Terms are between you and Community Owner only, not with Apple Inc. ("Apple"), and Apple is not responsible for the Community or the content of it. Apple has no obligation to furnish any maintenance and support services with respect to the Community.

    Can they get sued for copying someone else's T&Cs?
    Unlikely. There would be no loss.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 60,729
    Gallowgate said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    17.
    Notice Regarding Apple. This Section 17 (Notice Regarding Apple) only applies to the extent you are using our mobile application on an iOS device. You acknowledge that these Terms are between you and Community Owner only, not with Apple Inc. ("Apple"), and Apple is not responsible for the Community or the content of it. Apple has no obligation to furnish any maintenance and support services with respect to the Community.

    Can they get sued for copying someone else's T&Cs?
    Unlikely. There would be no loss.
    What about to the lawyers that draft them? ;)
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,140
    RobD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    17.
    Notice Regarding Apple. This Section 17 (Notice Regarding Apple) only applies to the extent you are using our mobile application on an iOS device. You acknowledge that these Terms are between you and Community Owner only, not with Apple Inc. ("Apple"), and Apple is not responsible for the Community or the content of it. Apple has no obligation to furnish any maintenance and support services with respect to the Community.

    Can they get sued for copying someone else's T&Cs?
    Unlikely. There would be no loss.
    What about to the lawyers that draft them? ;)
    Don't lawyers copy & paste for a living? When you start a new law firm, you don't sit down and write this stuff from scratch do you?
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,086
    wooliedyed said:

    Trump rambling

    He just waffles and meanders, doesn't he? No structure at all, really.
    Makes even Starmer sound precise and concise.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,338
    BBC avoid Mandelson
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 45,568
    carnforth said:

    RobD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    17.
    Notice Regarding Apple. This Section 17 (Notice Regarding Apple) only applies to the extent you are using our mobile application on an iOS device. You acknowledge that these Terms are between you and Community Owner only, not with Apple Inc. ("Apple"), and Apple is not responsible for the Community or the content of it. Apple has no obligation to furnish any maintenance and support services with respect to the Community.

    Can they get sued for copying someone else's T&Cs?
    Unlikely. There would be no loss.
    What about to the lawyers that draft them? ;)
    Don't lawyers copy & paste for a living? When you start a new law firm, you don't sit down and write this stuff from scratch do you?
    They still charge for it.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,905
    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    RobD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    17.
    Notice Regarding Apple. This Section 17 (Notice Regarding Apple) only applies to the extent you are using our mobile application on an iOS device. You acknowledge that these Terms are between you and Community Owner only, not with Apple Inc. ("Apple"), and Apple is not responsible for the Community or the content of it. Apple has no obligation to furnish any maintenance and support services with respect to the Community.

    Can they get sued for copying someone else's T&Cs?
    Unlikely. There would be no loss.
    What about to the lawyers that draft them? ;)
    Don't lawyers copy & paste for a living? When you start a new law firm, you don't sit down and write this stuff from scratch do you?
    They still charge for it.
    You’re paying for the professional indemnity insurance cover
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,907
    wooliedyed said:

    Trump rambling

    Pope Catholic.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,283
    edited 2:29PM
    Trump disagrees with Starmer over Gaza
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,980
    Has anyone yet mentioned to Trump the new European economic sanctions on China?

    Poland’s closure of the railway line from Belarus, the Russian and Belarusian part of which was funded by the CCP Belt & Road project, that transports around 90% of the €25bn/year land corridor logistics between China and the EU.

    https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1968594307184521622

    The Chinese diplomats are absolutely furious, and there’s already thousands of containers backed up along the rail line towards China.

    Well we all know what the Chinese need to stop doing…
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,499
    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Can't see how that all works as Parliament (and their decisions) are supreme. It's almost as mad as Marjorie Taylor Green's statement the other day ... "Government is not the solution. God is" (and those that interpret God's work etc...)

    Presume she was only referring to the US as there appear to be over 18,000 different Gods.

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-brain-food/202107/why-do-humans-keep-inventing-gods-worship
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,982
    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    There have muttering about pushback on primary legislation.

    Governments have been very careful *not* to use primary legislation. Curious, isn’t it?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,338
    The Sun also avoid Mandelson. I wonder if they've been told not to ask about it
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,980
    Gallowgate said:

    Carnyx said:

    carnforth said:

    RobD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    RobD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    17.
    Notice Regarding Apple. This Section 17 (Notice Regarding Apple) only applies to the extent you are using our mobile application on an iOS device. You acknowledge that these Terms are between you and Community Owner only, not with Apple Inc. ("Apple"), and Apple is not responsible for the Community or the content of it. Apple has no obligation to furnish any maintenance and support services with respect to the Community.

    Can they get sued for copying someone else's T&Cs?
    Unlikely. There would be no loss.
    What about to the lawyers that draft them? ;)
    Don't lawyers copy & paste for a living? When you start a new law firm, you don't sit down and write this stuff from scratch do you?
    They still charge for it.
    You’re paying for the professional indemnity insurance cover
    Yup, if a lawyer screws up something that badly, it’s their problem to fix it.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 67,283
    wooliedyed said:

    The Sun also avoid Mandelson. I wonder if they've been told not to ask about it

    Only 2nd question
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,338
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    wooliedyed said:

    The Sun also avoid Mandelson. I wonder if they've been told not to ask about it

    Only 2nd question
    True true
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,905
    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    There have muttering about pushback on primary legislation.

    Governments have been very careful *not* to use primary legislation. Curious, isn’t it?
    Mutterings by whom?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,980
    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    More like the government, despite having a huge majority in the Commons, can’t herd their own cats through the lobbies for anything that makes it easier to deport people.
  • CiceroCicero Posts: 3,806
    Well, as PBers around the world predicted, the Jezzbollah cannot even organize to the level of becoming an irrelevant rabble.

    The left wing choice will be Labour with a side order of Green, while on the right the Tories and Reform will rip chunks out of each other while Sir Ed gradually cleans up in the middle.

    So, despite the onanistic ravings of the distinguished representatives of the media here present, and I say this with some regret, I think the safe money is still on SKS.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 52,841
    Scott_xP said:

    Anybody surprised that the clown car has disintegrated has never seen the circus...

    The normal way of attacking a circus is to go for the juggler
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,884
    I can't take this press conference.

    I need a News Bunny:

    https://youtu.be/H4p-4B1Qr6g?t=14
  • eekeek Posts: 31,333
    edited 2:38PM
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Anybody surprised that the clown car has disintegrated has never seen the circus...

    The normal way of attacking a circus is to go for the juggler
    You wander away to do some work and someone nicks your “joke”
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,982
    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    There have muttering about pushback on primary legislation.

    Governments have been very careful *not* to use primary legislation. Curious, isn’t it?
    Mutterings by whom?
    I’ll have to dig it out - a senior lawyer was talking in terms of fundamental rights coming out of common law. That would be beyond parliamentary reach.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 34,288
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    Trump disagrees with Starmer over Gaza

    Starmer having a shocker? Bev Turner smashes it out of the park.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,333
    Sandpit said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    More like the government, despite having a huge majority in the Commons, can’t herd their own cats through the lobbies for anything that makes it easier to deport people.
    We seem to have a dislike (unlike the 1830s) of writing explicit laws that start don’t have get out clauses that create work and profit for lawyers.

    If you want to do something we can’t amend an existing law, we really need to write the law from scratch so there is minimal attack surface to exploit
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,128
    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    There have muttering about pushback on primary legislation.

    Governments have been very careful *not* to use primary legislation. Curious, isn’t it?
    Mutterings by whom?
    I’ll have to dig it out - a senior lawyer was talking in terms of fundamental rights coming out of common law. That would be beyond parliamentary reach.
    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2020/02/12/the-fundamentality-of-rights-at-common-law/ ?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 61,457
    wooliedyed said:

    BBC avoid Mandelson

    He's going to be the new Governor, so can you blame them?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,816
    Yay.

    Apple have sent out emails confirming my new watch and AirPods will be delivered tomorrow.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 20,048
    Cicero said:

    Well, as PBers around the world predicted, the Jezzbollah cannot even organize to the level of becoming an irrelevant rabble.

    The left wing choice will be Labour with a side order of Green, while on the right the Tories and Reform will rip chunks out of each other while Sir Ed gradually cleans up in the middle.

    So, despite the onanistic ravings of the distinguished representatives of the media here present, and I say this with some regret, I think the safe money is still on SKS.

    Sad to say, I disagree. Here are the key points of evidence.

    1. Starmer and his government is unprecedentedly unpopular so soon after coming to office, and the election was less than 15 months ago. The order one decision for the voters is whether they want to kick out the government. If they do then they will find a way. Looks like they will want to.

    2. Farage, despite attracting a lot of well-deserved opposition, also has the highest positive ratings for any British party leader. The 30% or so that like him will be enough to send him to Number Ten, given that the rest of the votes will be split about four ways.

    3. Added to this the geopolitical backdrop is awful for whoever is in government. Trump in the White House. The demographic transition. Competition from China. War with Russia. Global warming. Even the most skilled political leader would struggle to lead a country through all this and keep the public on side. We should expect our political leaders to struggle and fail and to be replaced often in this context.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,884
    edited 2:47PM
    Whilst poking around for the News Bunny, I came across Nick Ferrari launching topless darts.

    https://reuters.screenocean.com/record/336291

    (No topless is involved in the launch.)

    I'll make this my piccie today, as he resembles a Union Rep for striking waste disposal operatives in around 1978:

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,982
    Pulpstar said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    There have muttering about pushback on primary legislation.

    Governments have been very careful *not* to use primary legislation. Curious, isn’t it?
    Mutterings by whom?
    I’ll have to dig it out - a senior lawyer was talking in terms of fundamental rights coming out of common law. That would be beyond parliamentary reach.
    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2020/02/12/the-fundamentality-of-rights-at-common-law/ ?
    That’s the one. Nice find.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,128
    Malmesbury said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    There have muttering about pushback on primary legislation.

    Governments have been very careful *not* to use primary legislation. Curious, isn’t it?
    Mutterings by whom?
    I’ll have to dig it out - a senior lawyer was talking in terms of fundamental rights coming out of common law. That would be beyond parliamentary reach.
    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2020/02/12/the-fundamentality-of-rights-at-common-law/ ?
    That’s the one. Nice find.
    ... and parliamentary sovereignty sit facilitates an understanding of such rights that accords to them a meaningful, if not an unqualified, form of fundamentality.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,680
    MattW said:

    Whilst poking around for the News Bunny, I came across Nick Ferrari launching topless darts.

    https://reuters.screenocean.com/record/336291

    (No topless is involved in the launch.)

    Hopefully not Ferrari topless.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 9,086
    Starmer is doing just fine. He must have the patience of a saint. In his head he's screaming "shut the fuck up" at Trump's meanderings, but shows no external sign. And he's not agreeing with Trump on everything. No problem.

    I do think Starmer's underrated. In this sort of context - he's positively statesmanlike in his dealings with the nutter Trump, and is dealing with the press pack with measured calm.
  • BattlebusBattlebus Posts: 1,499
    MattW said:

    Whilst poking around for the News Bunny, I came across Nick Ferrari launching topless darts.

    https://reuters.screenocean.com/record/336291

    (No topless is involved in the launch.)

    I'll make this my piccie today, as he resembles a Union Rep for striking waste disposal operatives in around 1978:

    If you like overweight men with large beer guts, I suppose its an option.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,816
    Q: Why aren’t dogs good dancers?

    A: They have two left feet.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 7,140
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Yay.

    Apple have sent out emails confirming my new watch and AirPods will be delivered tomorrow.

    Please advise in due course on how much better the noise-cancelling on the AirPods Pro 3 is vs 2. I am trying to justify a purchase!
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 14,338
    edited 2:53PM
    Not a single question on Mandelson.
    Muzzled.

    Ah Rigby slips it in last second
  • MattWMattW Posts: 29,884
    dixiedean said:

    MattW said:

    Whilst poking around for the News Bunny, I came across Nick Ferrari launching topless darts.

    https://reuters.screenocean.com/record/336291

    (No topless is involved in the launch.)

    Hopefully not Ferrari topless.
    Mr Ferrari elucidates:

    "What we're looking to do in the spring is to get over to Spain and have a sort of Eurovision style contest. Only this time they won't be singing, they'll be topless and playing darts."
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,816
    From another PB.

    It’s not just Kemi Badenoch who has to worry about losing her staff. But while Tory MPs are defecting to reform, Keir Starmer has a slightly different issue.

    He’s just lost a campaign manager on the HQ elections team after she became the most recent winner of the Omaze house prize draw.

    Good news for her, not great timing for Keir.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 40,251
    wooliedyed said:

    Not a single question on Mandelson.
    Muzzled.

    Ah Rigby slips it in last second

    https://x.com/mikeysmith/status/1968689967074324864
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 34,288
    wooliedyed said:

    Not a single question on Mandelson.
    Muzzled.

    Ah Rigby slips it in last second

    A zinger from Beth. She just crushed Starmer.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,980
    carnforth said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Yay.

    Apple have sent out emails confirming my new watch and AirPods will be delivered tomorrow.

    Please advise in due course on how much better the noise-cancelling on the AirPods Pro 3 is vs 2. I am trying to justify a purchase!
    The Pro 2 are pretty damn good already, to the point where the Bose NC700 headphones stayed in the bag on a six hour flight last month, and I probably can’t be arsed to pack them any more unless it’s an ultra long haul.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,688
    edited 2:59PM
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From another PB.

    It’s not just Kemi Badenoch who has to worry about losing her staff. But while Tory MPs are defecting to reform, Keir Starmer has a slightly different issue.

    He’s just lost a campaign manager on the HQ elections team after she became the most recent winner of the Omaze house prize draw.

    Good news for her, not great timing for Keir.

    Which reminds me of a bubbling scandal. Just to be clear absolutely not accusing Omaze of anything (waves at the lawyers), but in recent years there has been this upward trend of people on social media using the lightly / not regulated raffle space to push some very dodgy raffle type competitions of dubious legitimacy.

    There is a big suspicion that there are two strands. The outright cons, where the draw is fixed and no punter can actually win. And money laundering.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,982
    Pulpstar said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    There have muttering about pushback on primary legislation.

    Governments have been very careful *not* to use primary legislation. Curious, isn’t it?
    Mutterings by whom?
    I’ll have to dig it out - a senior lawyer was talking in terms of fundamental rights coming out of common law. That would be beyond parliamentary reach.
    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2020/02/12/the-fundamentality-of-rights-at-common-law/ ?
    That’s the one. Nice find.
    ... and parliamentary sovereignty sit facilitates an understanding of such rights that accords to them a meaningful, if not an unqualified, form of fundamentality.
    The real fun comes in the implication - rights that are above parliament. Which means, that cannot be changed by anyone or anything. Apart from the courts - who would interpret them into existence.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 56,982
    Pulpstar said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    There have muttering about pushback on primary legislation.

    Governments have been very careful *not* to use primary legislation. Curious, isn’t it?
    Mutterings by whom?
    I’ll have to dig it out - a senior lawyer was talking in terms of fundamental rights coming out of common law. That would be beyond parliamentary reach.
    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2020/02/12/the-fundamentality-of-rights-at-common-law/ ?
    That’s the one. Nice find.
    ... and parliamentary sovereignty sit facilitates an understanding of such rights that accords to them a meaningful, if not an unqualified, form of fundamentality.
    The real fun comes in the implication - rights that are above parliament. Which means, that cannot be changed by anyone or anything. Apart from the courts - who would interpret them into existence.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,706
    Sandpit said:

    Has anyone yet mentioned to Trump the new European economic sanctions on China?

    Poland’s closure of the railway line from Belarus, the Russian and Belarusian part of which was funded by the CCP Belt & Road project, that transports around 90% of the €25bn/year land corridor logistics between China and the EU.

    https://x.com/gerashchenko_en/status/1968594307184521622

    The Chinese diplomats are absolutely furious, and there’s already thousands of containers backed up along the rail line towards China.

    Well we all know what the Chinese need to stop doing…

    When will the queue of containers reach Moscow?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,816
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From another PB.

    It’s not just Kemi Badenoch who has to worry about losing her staff. But while Tory MPs are defecting to reform, Keir Starmer has a slightly different issue.

    He’s just lost a campaign manager on the HQ elections team after she became the most recent winner of the Omaze house prize draw.

    Good news for her, not great timing for Keir.

    Which reminds me of a bubbling scandal. Just to be clear absolutely not accusing Omaze of anything (waves at the lawyers), but in recent years there has been this upward trend of people on social using the lightly / not regulated raffle space to push some very dodgy raffle type competitions of dubious legitimacy.

    There is a big suspicion that there are two strands. The outright cons, where the draw is fixed and no punter can actually win. And money laundering.
    I am aware of those professionally.

    There’s another one that says you can win a prize of lots of money but if you do win it is paid out over 30 years almost like an annuity but if you complain or tell the press you forfeit the prize.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 37,518
    Interesting article in UnHerd.

    "Why Farage is a Burkean
    Prepare for the counter-revolution
    Aris Roussinos"

    http://unherd.com/2025/09/why-farage-is-a-burkean
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,688
    edited 3:06PM
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From another PB.

    It’s not just Kemi Badenoch who has to worry about losing her staff. But while Tory MPs are defecting to reform, Keir Starmer has a slightly different issue.

    He’s just lost a campaign manager on the HQ elections team after she became the most recent winner of the Omaze house prize draw.

    Good news for her, not great timing for Keir.

    Which reminds me of a bubbling scandal. Just to be clear absolutely not accusing Omaze of anything (waves at the lawyers), but in recent years there has been this upward trend of people on social using the lightly / not regulated raffle space to push some very dodgy raffle type competitions of dubious legitimacy.

    There is a big suspicion that there are two strands. The outright cons, where the draw is fixed and no punter can actually win. And money laundering.
    I am aware of those professionally.

    There’s another one that says you can win a prize of lots of money but if you do win it is paid out over 30 years almost like an annuity but if you complain or tell the press you forfeit the prize.
    Definitely sounds on the up and up. I mean the National Lottery are famous for their rule, say anything bad about The Voice of the Balls and we will yank your pay out.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 21,085
    edited 3:07PM
    As the ad says you only get one chance to make a first impression. The Corbyn Sultana combo had inbuilt problems. Sultana's wildly ambitious whereas Corbyn's been there and now just enjoys causes..

    I admire them both but would never vote for either of them. I think it's a pity both are out of the labour Party. Compassionate voices are at a serious premium there at the moment
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,772
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Yay.

    Apple have sent out emails confirming my new watch and AirPods will be delivered tomorrow.

    My phone's on the way 👌
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,980
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From another PB.

    It’s not just Kemi Badenoch who has to worry about losing her staff. But while Tory MPs are defecting to reform, Keir Starmer has a slightly different issue.

    He’s just lost a campaign manager on the HQ elections team after she became the most recent winner of the Omaze house prize draw.

    Good news for her, not great timing for Keir.

    Which reminds me of a bubbling scandal. Just to be clear absolutely not accusing Omaze of anything (waves at the lawyers), but in recent years there has been this upward trend of people on social using the lightly / not regulated raffle space to push some very dodgy raffle type competitions of dubious legitimacy.

    There is a big suspicion that there are two strands. The outright cons, where the draw is fixed and no punter can actually win. And money laundering.
    I am aware of those professionally.

    There’s another one that says you can win a prize of lots of money but if you do win it is paid out over 30 years almost like an annuity but if you complain or tell the press you forfeit the prize.
    That last clause sounds rather illegal, if not made clear before the entry was made.

    Does it have to wait until an already old and rich person wins it and sues them?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 20,905
    Malmesbury said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Gallowgate said:

    Malmesbury said:

    Carnyx said:

    Gallowgate said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    wooliedyed said:

    eek said:

    rkrkrk said:

    LostPassword said:

    carnforth said:

    So the migrant we returned to France was an Indian national. We have a returns agreement with India:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/migration-and-mobility-partnership/mou-on-migration-and-mobility-partnership-between-india-and-the-united-kingdom#chapter-4

    So I wonder if there are special circumstances?

    The special circumstance is that they needed to find someone to return to France to get the ball rolling so they could say that they'd started.
    Starmer 1, Rwanda policy nil.

    I hadn't realised until I read on BBC that because people processed in France are already approved for asylum, we can also skip the stay in hotel while waiting for decision.
    The annoying bit is that I think most of us would accept 25,000 approved asylum seekers preferring the U.K. to France in exchange for reducing the incentive to come by boat by returning those who arrive by boat.

    Heck that’s probably the best solution, do a deal with France where we accept x0,000, even 100,000 of their asylum seekers and return anyone arriving here back to France and say please apply there

    The French could just wave through anyone applying and saying 'Royaume Uni S"Il Vous Plait' and we will have zero input into who comes here.
    Only works if we have immigration officials in France at the processing centre
    So given the choice of 50,000 arriving here by boat or trusting France to approve people, you would prefer 50,000 arriving by boat because you don’t trust the French?
    Neither, bring back the Rwanda scheme and deport all arrivals either to their home country or to a safe third country like Rwanda. Watch the arrivals stop within weeks.
    Did we send anyone to Rwanda and has Nigel got a country lined up that isn’t asking £1m a refugee
    Yes I think 4 people got deported to Rwanda iirc.

    We could quite easily pick that scheme up and sign other deals just as the US has done.

    They key to any deportation scheme will be to overrule the judges and remove HRA protections from deportation cases with primary legislation. Dare the judges to overrule parliament and watch them slink back into their hidey holes.
    I don’t know why you’re obsessed with judges overruling parliament because judges don’t and can’t overrule parliament. This isn’t America.
    Your final sentiment perhaps ought to be put in large red (but *not* flashing) letters in the header of PB.
    To be fair, it’s quite clear that some judges are taking the view that knitting novel interpretations of the law is the way to go.

    Which is how the whole Living Law thing got started in the US.

    The next step, which has been muttered about, is to find fundamental rights that overrule *any* parliamentary legislation.
    Yeah but they just can’t overrule direct and clear primary legislation. It’s just not in their power. In my view it’s all paranoid scaremongering to cover for shit MPs drafting and passing shit laws.
    There have muttering about pushback on primary legislation.

    Governments have been very careful *not* to use primary legislation. Curious, isn’t it?
    Mutterings by whom?
    I’ll have to dig it out - a senior lawyer was talking in terms of fundamental rights coming out of common law. That would be beyond parliamentary reach.
    https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2020/02/12/the-fundamentality-of-rights-at-common-law/ ?
    That’s the one. Nice find.
    Ultimately it’s one academic paper which concludes nothing but uncertainty. A far cry from serious “mutterings”. If the Supreme Court ever tried to hang their hat on anything like that you can be certain that Parliament would win that particular battle. There’s just no precedent for it other than academic philosophising.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,816
    edited 3:12PM
    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From another PB.

    It’s not just Kemi Badenoch who has to worry about losing her staff. But while Tory MPs are defecting to reform, Keir Starmer has a slightly different issue.

    He’s just lost a campaign manager on the HQ elections team after she became the most recent winner of the Omaze house prize draw.

    Good news for her, not great timing for Keir.

    Which reminds me of a bubbling scandal. Just to be clear absolutely not accusing Omaze of anything (waves at the lawyers), but in recent years there has been this upward trend of people on social using the lightly / not regulated raffle space to push some very dodgy raffle type competitions of dubious legitimacy.

    There is a big suspicion that there are two strands. The outright cons, where the draw is fixed and no punter can actually win. And money laundering.
    I am aware of those professionally.

    There’s another one that says you can win a prize of lots of money but if you do win it is paid out over 30 years almost like an annuity but if you complain or tell the press you forfeit the prize.
    That last clause sounds rather illegal, if not made clear before the entry was made.

    Does it have to wait until an already old and rich person wins it and sues them?
    People like that don’t play these games.

    Imagine winning £100,000 but then you find out your payout is £300 a month for the next 30 years.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,333
    Sandpit said:

    carnforth said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Yay.

    Apple have sent out emails confirming my new watch and AirPods will be delivered tomorrow.

    Please advise in due course on how much better the noise-cancelling on the AirPods Pro 3 is vs 2. I am trying to justify a purchase!
    The Pro 2 are pretty damn good already, to the point where the Bose NC700 headphones stayed in the bag on a six hour flight last month, and I probably can’t be arsed to pack them any more unless it’s an ultra long haul.
    I have various Sony Xm headphones and likewise just use my pro 2s - I suspect the upgrade is of the when the battery life is 10 minutes and you need to replace category
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 87,688
    edited 3:15PM
    Putting claims of a potential future where AI will take all our jobs, one thing is clear today, huge capital investments today don't necessarily lead to huge number of new jobs. This much touted US / UK AI deal is mostly for data centres, £150bn is by their own docs estimated will generate a total of 7500 new jobs. £20 million / job.

    If anybody has seen Silicon valley, that is unfortunately the reality of massive data centres. They only need a few mole people to run them while a single rack of GPUs costs more than a year's salary for them, that the dirty secret of LLMs is the inference hits the GPUs really hard and they are wearing out extremely quickly (so need constant replacement).
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,816
    MaxPB said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Yay.

    Apple have sent out emails confirming my new watch and AirPods will be delivered tomorrow.

    My phone's on the way 👌
    My phone won’t be arriving until October.

    I’ll be the only person in this house who won’t be getting a new iPhone tomorrow.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 37,518
    edited 3:13PM
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Yay.

    Apple have sent out emails confirming my new watch and AirPods will be delivered tomorrow.

    Still thinking about the time Apple almost went out of business in around 1995/96. That would have been a fantastic time to buy shares in the company.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,772
    FrancisUrquhart said:

    Putting claims of a potential future where AI will take all our jobs, one thing is clear today, huge capital investments today don't necessarily lead to huge number of new jobs. This much touted US / UK deal for data centres, £150bn is by their own docs estimated will generate a total of 7500 new jobs. £20 million / job.

    If anybody has seen Silicon valley, that is unfortunately the reality of massive data centres. They only need a few mole people to run them.

    7,500 jobs directly for sure. Expanding our available processing power locally in the country will, hopefully, help our tech industry to keep growing ahead of the rest of Europe. For each of those direct roles we need to generate a further 10-20 roles indirectly. I'm not sure how that can be achieved but the industry and government need to figure it out.
  • eekeek Posts: 31,333
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Sandpit said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    FrancisUrquhart said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    From another PB.

    It’s not just Kemi Badenoch who has to worry about losing her staff. But while Tory MPs are defecting to reform, Keir Starmer has a slightly different issue.

    He’s just lost a campaign manager on the HQ elections team after she became the most recent winner of the Omaze house prize draw.

    Good news for her, not great timing for Keir.

    Which reminds me of a bubbling scandal. Just to be clear absolutely not accusing Omaze of anything (waves at the lawyers), but in recent years there has been this upward trend of people on social using the lightly / not regulated raffle space to push some very dodgy raffle type competitions of dubious legitimacy.

    There is a big suspicion that there are two strands. The outright cons, where the draw is fixed and no punter can actually win. And money laundering.
    I am aware of those professionally.

    There’s another one that says you can win a prize of lots of money but if you do win it is paid out over 30 years almost like an annuity but if you complain or tell the press you forfeit the prize.
    That last clause sounds rather illegal, if not made clear before the entry was made.

    Does it have to wait until an already old and rich person wins it and sues them?
    People like that don’t play these games.

    Imagine winning £100,000 but then you find out our payout is £300 a month for the next 30 years.
    We also know that the firm isn’t going to be around in 30 years to pay the money because it’s a Ponzi scheme but the people betting won’t grasp that bit because it’s not obvious.

    Got to say I suspect it will be hard to shut down because the Gambling Commission seem to have given up policing such things
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 47,132
    Andy_JS said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Yay.

    Apple have sent out emails confirming my new watch and AirPods will be delivered tomorrow.

    Still thinking about the time Apple almost went out of business in around 1995/96. That would have been a fantastic time to buy shares in the company.
    They only survived because they had shares in ARM... ;)

    https://appleinsider.com/articles/20/06/09/how-arm-has-already-saved-apple---twice
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025