This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Depends how one defines it. One of us on PB is very definitely a nationalist Tory who sees the UK as being founded in Divine will through the Crown, and adamantly declines to separate State and Official Religion, albeit there is none of the latter outwith England.
Though tbf I'm sure he fully takes part in his local branch's deployment of coffee mornings as a key weapon in its role as the ideological arm of the English State.
Christian nationalism is found most strongly in the evangelical churches of the USA or Putin's Orthodox church, neither the US nor Russia have an established church
But Putin has since before his ascendancy sought to tie the Orthodox Church to his person and he to them, to the point that the Church blessed the SMO. He acknowledges the power of religion and harnesses it.
Would you put MAGA in the same category. It has some of the hallmarks, including saintly figures that died for the cause.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Other views are allowed in history.
Much of the western history of the last 2000 years has been written by the 'winning' side, i.e. Christianity. Many of the early 'facts' - as we know them - were written down by Christian scribes, and push their agenda over historical facts.
Christian history tends to write the history of Christianity in a somewhat favourable light; ignoring many abuses and excusing others.
AIUI her latest book looks at the negatives rather more heavily. Which is just as biased, but in another direction. I expect there is a fair amount that can be learnt from it. As ever, the truth might be somewhat in the middle.
(As an aside, it is interesting how many different versions there are of the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, and how they all have differences, some of which are significant. Not all of these differences are down to copying mistakes, and show how different monasteries may have wanted to alter perception of, or remove knowledge of, certain events.)
Funny you mention the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, I just finished re-reading Marc Morris' The Norman Conquest which looks at various differences between C, D, and E versions, among other sources.
And yes, different views are of course 'allowed'. But they still need grounding in facts and reasonable conclusions drawn from available evidence. When someone's revisions to history coincide perfectly with their own personal opinion it's legitimate to wonder whether this is simple bias.
That's the point I'm making: many of the revisions to history coincided perfectly with the personal opinions of the monks that wrote them. And those opinions would be favourable to their church, their patrons, and their wide religion. In other words, simple bias.
Yet now most of us see that as acceptable. Fact, in fact.
Everyone has a bias, but propagandist history is not good history. And, there have always been writers of history who are reasonably objective, and honest. One can usually see through the fabrications of monks who attribute the downfall of those that they loathe to the will of God.
Alice fecking Roberts does not compare to Tom Holland
Tom H (I know him vaguely) writes brilliant books, at his best. Genuinely important histories
She's a pretty glib and trivial TV presenter
She looks OK, mind.
The years have slightly faded her? But I don't wish to be ungallant. Yes she is pretty. But no, not an important historian
OK fairy nuff. How about JAMES Holland being better than Tom?
I've read a couple of James H's books. They are good solid military histories. But Tom H's are much superior. Wider, richer, deeper, better written
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Depends how one defines it. One of us on PB is very definitely a nationalist Tory who sees the UK as being founded in Divine will through the Crown, and adamantly declines to separate State and Official Religion, albeit there is none of the latter outwith England.
Though tbf I'm sure he fully takes part in his local branch's deployment of coffee mornings as a key weapon in its role as the ideological arm of the English State.
Christian nationalism is found most strongly in the evangelical churches of the USA or Putin's Orthodox church, neither the US nor Russia have an established church
But Putin has since before his ascendancy sought to tie the Orthodox Church to his person and he to them, to the point that the Church blessed the SMO. He acknowledges the power of religion and harnesses it.
That as maybe but it is still not recognised formally as the official state religion as it was before the Revolution when it was headed by the Tsar
The Welsh government wants Wales to become "a zero waste nation" by 2050, and recently advised councils against collecting general waste more frequently than once every three or four weeks.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
The boats are large and packed to the rafters. As for the French, why would they want to? They've shown no willingness to do anything on the matter.
‘Dagenham is worried’: London borough in limbo after Smithfield and Billingsgate move axed
Formerly the site of Barking Reach power station, these 17 hectares (42 acres) of industrial land at Dagenham Dock in east London were due to be redeveloped into a new, purpose-built wholesale food market for the capital.
However, that changed late last year when the site’s owners, the City of London Corporation, announced it had cancelled the development, which would have relocated Smithfield meat market and Billingsgate fish market.
Another one. Since I lasted posted one of these, there have been two others (I don't think we've done Gaynor Jean-Louis - non-attendance / ill health, or Angela Nash - now independent).
Reform UK has suspended one of its councillors while the party investigates him over alleged online comments about wanting to kill Keir Starmer.
The suspension came after the party was presented with details indicating that John Allen, a Reform UK Northumberland county councillor, had posted comments online about wanting to shoot the prime minister.
Nigel Farage, the party’s leader, last week challenged police to arrest social media users who he said had been using TikTok to call for him to be shot.
Reform was presented with details of the alleged comments after an investigation by the antifascist group Hope Not Hate.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
Leon's question appears to have united PB. What is it about a multiply convicted football hooligan, idol of Elon, and avowed racist that folk find unsuitable? Oh. And foreign passport holder, too. Now. Farage or Corbyn. In a forced choice. That's a question for all.
That's an interesting one.
Both would be fairly bad for the country, and the way they would fall out with their own parties would be hilarious.
But I think Corbyn's a better person than Farage. Corbyn's wrong about many things, but at heart he doesn't want people to be hurt. Farage is a grifter, and he does not care who gets hurt during his grift.
Also, Farage is at the heart of the Farage Party and would control it. It is a cult. Corbyn would (presumably...) be head of a party that he had less control over - as he proved when Labour leader, or as is happening now with YourParty.
So by a much smaller margin than the last question: I would go for Corbyn.
This is incredible. We KNOW Corbyn is a traitor and supports terrorists that kill Brits. The IRA, Hamas, endless. He loves Putin much more than Farage. Salisbury???
You'd still go for Corbyn?? You guys are beyond help
Why don't you tell us again how your book inspired Anders Breivik?
You're confusing me with another PBer
But I do recall the incident. The comment was made as a wind-up, to test the credulity of someone else on the forum, and they believed it. Amazingly, Anders Breivik's library did NOT contain the Complete Works of a PB commenter
But you're probably determined to believe it now, in your own bubble of truthiness, so knock yourself out, and believe it
So... you lied about inspiring a right-wing mass-murderer?
What sort of stupid dickhead does that? What sort of fascist-loving, people-hating shit *lies* about inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer?
Never trusted him. Pretending he's an Anglo-Saxon warlord from the 11th century. Pff!
I might suggest it's the sort of poster who claims to have had posts removed from this forum because they were so embarrassing for his career, and one who keeps on getting banned and coming back with a new name.
The sort of fascist shit who lies about his writing inspiring a neo-Nazi mass-murderer. Because that's the sort of thing fascist shits do. He does much worse as well, as can be ascertained from his historic posts.
Do you ever do cheerful happy comments? To while away an afternoon? All this anger. Bad for the soul
Frequently.
I am not angry. far from. I've spent the morning with my son as we climbed a local church tower, and he got to ring a church bell. You see, spending time with your children when they are kids is great. Abandoning your kids when they are kids is less so. I can only imagine how someone who abandoned his kids as kids, and has only got to really know them when they are older, might turn to the far right and start criticising centrist dads. Because he missed out on being a dad.
You see, that's a cheerful, happy comment.
Can you say anything that isn't a bad attempt to be an edgelord?
The level of ad homimen is just pathological. It's also fascinating. You are so bitterly angry about.... something. Do continue, I think of you as a case study
In other news I did the Hampton And Kempton Waterworks Railway (2ft gauge) on the Surrey/London borders earlier today. Not too much track captured to be frank, but they have big expansion plans! They decorated one of their engines to look like Stephenson's Rocket, perhaps a bit tacky, but it's all part of Railway 200 this weekend.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
You can't apply logic to the thinking of the mapcap left.
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
We are told that illegal working is harder in France etc. due to ID cards, and so its lack is a pull factor here. But the shadow economy is actually smaller here:
The Welsh government wants Wales to become "a zero waste nation" by 2050, and recently advised councils against collecting general waste more frequently than once every three or four weeks.
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
Given that it's $100K per annum, I understand his unrestrained language.
SUMMARY OF H-1B EXECUTIVE ORDER
- ENTRY BAN: No H-1B visa holder may enter the United States beginning Sunday September 21st, including current visa holders, unles they pay $100K to enter.
- VISA FEE: New H-1B and H-1B extensions must pay 100K to be processed and 100K per year every year thereafter to maintain them.
This will effectively end the H-1B program completely. No one, even the highest paid at 500K will be paying an extra 100K a year to the government.
In other news I did the Hampton And Kempton Waterworks Railway (2ft gauge) on the Surrey/London borders earlier today. Not too much track captured to be frank, but they have big expansion plans! They decorated one of their engines to look like Stephenson's Rocket, perhaps a bit tacky, but it's all part of Railway 200 this weekend.
Bloody fools. Why didn't they go for the Locomotion No. 1?
Honestly, nearly as ignorant of history as Alice Roberts or Catherine Nixey.
‘Dagenham is worried’: London borough in limbo after Smithfield and Billingsgate move axed
Formerly the site of Barking Reach power station, these 17 hectares (42 acres) of industrial land at Dagenham Dock in east London were due to be redeveloped into a new, purpose-built wholesale food market for the capital.
However, that changed late last year when the site’s owners, the City of London Corporation, announced it had cancelled the development, which would have relocated Smithfield meat market and Billingsgate fish market.
Dagenham as much as the Midlands has suffered from deindustrialisation. Large employers like Ford and May & Baker (drugs and chemicals) all gone, the largest council housing estate in the country (well, that's still there, I suppose). It's a shame this latest development has fallen through.
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
We are told that illegal working is harder in France etc. due to ID cards, and so its lack is a pull factor here. But the shadow economy is actually smaller here:
Something to reconcile.
Various governments, since New Labour, have studiously ignored the wider issue of illegal working. Sure, they round up a handful of hairdressers from time to time. But there is zero desire to deal with the bulk of the problem.
My relative, who works in the building trade, actually talked to senior civil servants about the issue. He was told (pretty much) that “Yes, we could shut down the building sites which are operating illegally, and almost certainly employing illegal labour. But this would cause massive disruption for the economy.”
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
Given that it's $100K per annum, I understand his unrestrained language.
SUMMARY OF H-1B EXECUTIVE ORDER
- ENTRY BAN: No H-1B visa holder may enter the United States beginning Sunday September 21st, including current visa holders, unles they pay $100K to enter.
- VISA FEE: New H-1B and H-1B extensions must pay 100K to be processed and 100K per year every year thereafter to maintain them.
This will effectively end the H-1B program completely. No one, even the highest paid at 500K will be paying an extra 100K a year to the government.
‘Dagenham is worried’: London borough in limbo after Smithfield and Billingsgate move axed
Formerly the site of Barking Reach power station, these 17 hectares (42 acres) of industrial land at Dagenham Dock in east London were due to be redeveloped into a new, purpose-built wholesale food market for the capital.
However, that changed late last year when the site’s owners, the City of London Corporation, announced it had cancelled the development, which would have relocated Smithfield meat market and Billingsgate fish market.
Dagenham as much as the Midlands has suffered from deindustrialisation. Large employers like Ford and May & Baker (drugs and chemicals) all gone, the largest council housing estate in the country (well, that's still there, I suppose). It's a shame this latest development has fallen through.
It seems as if the CoLC may just not bother to move the markets at all - just let them close if and when it gets its act of parliament.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
One thing that has changed over time is not just the size of boat, but also the tactics. The preceeding 6 days had no crossings at all. It seems the smugglers co-ordinate to do their crossings together, and preferably at the weekend, presumably because it swamps the counter-measures. It was much the same the last few weekends.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
One thing that has changed over time is not just the size of boat, but also the tactics. The preceeding 6 days had no crossings at all. It seems the smugglers co-ordinate to do their crossings together, and preferably at the weekend, presumably because it swamps the counter-measures. It was much the same the last few weekends.
Pusser convoy organization ((c) Their Lordships of the Admiralty, 1790s on ...), also relies on the same saturation element (though also the efficiency of defence, which is not relevant here).
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
One thing that has changed over time is not just the size of boat, but also the tactics. The preceeding 6 days had no crossings at all. It seems the smugglers co-ordinate to do their crossings together, and preferably at the weekend, presumably because it swamps the counter-measures. It was much the same the last few weekends.
As to the 82 people per boat average
Shows what is going on. The smugglers deliberately load the boat until it is insanely dangerous.
They then rely on the RNLI / Coatsguard to rescue their passengers/victims, just outside French waters.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
We are told that illegal working is harder in France etc. due to ID cards, and so its lack is a pull factor here. But the shadow economy is actually smaller here:
Something to reconcile.
Where is that data from?
The International Labour Organization has data on % of the workforce employed "informally", i.e. without tax, contracts, checks, etc. It is not *just* people without work permits in that group, of course. There will also be people who are paid below minimum wage who are British citizens, and where there are no records kept.
However, thety show the UK informal labor market to be almost 3x the size of the French one:
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
One thing that has changed over time is not just the size of boat, but also the tactics. The preceeding 6 days had no crossings at all. It seems the smugglers co-ordinate to do their crossings together, and preferably at the weekend, presumably because it swamps the counter-measures. It was much the same the last few weekends.
On one hand, that's good news- it implies that whatever the governments have been doing is having an impact. (Though it may just be the weather.) On the other, it's bad news, because the impact so far has been possible to swerve around.
The top story in today's Times is a smuggler saying that deportations need to be 2000 a week to stop the boats. That's clearly silly, because that's more than 100k a year, and that's way over the number of boat people arriving even in the worst year. But somewhere between 2 in a week and 2000 in a week is a figure that will make a difference. Question is- what is that number?
(And if one wanted a cheap debating point, one could note that 2 unwilling deportations is already infinity percent better than the Rwanda scheme ever managed.)
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
I don't know that 'if you can't save them all then you shouldn't save any' is the only sane answer. Britain couldn't save all of the Jews persecuted by the Nazis but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have agreed to the Kinder transport. To be clear I'm not comparing current asylum seekers to the Jews or judging you for advocating for nor asylum cases. I just don't quite agree with your moral premise.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
I don't know that 'if you can't save them all then you shouldn't save any' is the only sane answer. Britain couldn't save all of the Jews persecuted by the Nazis but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have agreed to the Kinder transport. To be clear I'm not comparing current asylum seekers to the Jews or judging you for advocating for nor asylum cases. I just don't quite agree with your moral premise.
The fact is people who are currently in France don't need asylum, they are already in a safe place. Any granting of asylum should be for those who genuinely need it, i.e. from refugee camps in war zones. Not to those strong enough to make the journey on foot, or who can afford to pay the people smugglers.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
We are told that illegal working is harder in France etc. due to ID cards, and so its lack is a pull factor here. But the shadow economy is actually smaller here:
Something to reconcile.
Where is that data from?
The International Labour Organization has data on % of the workforce employed "informally", i.e. without tax, contracts, checks, etc. It is not *just* people without work permits in that group, of course. There will also be people who are paid below minimum wage who are British citizens, and where there are no records kept.
However, thety show the UK informal labor market to be almost 3x the size of the French one:
Morning all. The challenge for the Tories imo is activating some realism on their position and maximum potential in the next few years. They arent forming the next government. Therefore they need to work out what, at best, they can achieve. For the next GE work out the best 200 seats in the country for them - Blue Wall, big Rural in the North, rural East, Scots borders, Labour marginals with below average Reform vote, North, West and Wealthy Central London and where they don't hold them get PPCs in right now and work the arse off them relentlessly. Go into an election to win 90 to 150 of them and hang on. For the locals, identify the councils that can be clung on to and focus on them and throw everything at winning a mayoralty or two, in London they'll definitely lose Bexley to Ref and probably Bromley too (but remaining largest party in NOC) but there is potential for 1 to 3 pick ups further West - Westminster very likely and both Barnet and Wandsworth can be targeted, get a win ot two to celebrate and build on. Holyrood - its going to be their worst ever seat result so try and hold on to constituencies to at least have 'a base' to work from. Ettrick etc, Dumfriesshire should stay blue and I guess West Aberdeenshire, Banff, Ayr, D and G, Perthshire and Eastwood will be where the rest of the effort is entirely focused, winning the initial 2 plus any of those would be 'something' but they realistically are looking at 4th or 5th in seats Senedd - turning out the vote is key to maximising seats. They ought to get something in at least the following pairs - Monmouth/Torfaen, Clwyd (these two are the only ones where 2 seats are possible imo), Bangor/Ynys mon, Vale of Glamorgan pair, Pembrokeshire pair, Brecon pair, so working those heavily to GOTV. They should be aiming for 10 to 12 to stay in the game.
Its dirty work striving only to underachieve vs history but its all they can and should do for now. The alternative is no longer being a thing
I agree completely - Gareth's thread was good as ever but a bit thin on solutions.
The potential glittering prize is (I think) the London Mayoralty, with (I think) newly hunky Boris. He clearly still harbours ambitions, and he's not getting the leadership back just now. Reform seem to be nowhere, without an obvious candidate, and there aren't many Tories who could potentially get Reform voters back onside, and appeal to floating voters who remember London being better when he ran it. Brexit is a big weakness in London, but his opposite weaknesses on immigration and being a big sponger are less salient in London.
As well as finding elections that they can win, the Tories also need to find issues where they can win.
The economy is one. Not surprised Kemi keeps going on the economy (though it was ill-judged when she had Rayner to go on). Fiscal competence is (surprisingly) a Tory strength.
Law and Order they should contest Reform for. Come up with some clever policies. They should align themselves with the 'crush crime' initiative though that is nonpolitical so would need careful handling.
They also need to be absolutely united around some core values, even if that means losing some people.
The big, not unachievable imo goal, is to add to the seat count next election, become a Reform coalition partner but get most of the Tory agenda through, and then effect a backward takeover of Reform.
Thanks. Re: solutions - I feel that the Tories' fate is not entirely in their own hands. They really need Labour to recover at least somewhat or the danger is that the voters will want to sweep the whole system away. And they need Reform to make mistakes.
But neither of those things is guaranteed, or frankly even likely. Reform are constantly making 'mistakes', several a day sometimes, but they are falling and failing forward.
As for Labour recovering, I don't really see why that will benefit the Tories. Conversely, Labour falling below the Tories (as I think they will soon) would be a boost.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
One thing that has changed over time is not just the size of boat, but also the tactics. The preceeding 6 days had no crossings at all. It seems the smugglers co-ordinate to do their crossings together, and preferably at the weekend, presumably because it swamps the counter-measures. It was much the same the last few weekends.
On one hand, that's good news- it implies that whatever the governments have been doing is having an impact. (Though it may just be the weather.) On the other, it's bad news, because the impact so far has been possible to swerve around.
The top story in today's Times is a smuggler saying that deportations need to be 2000 a week to stop the boats. That's clearly silly, because that's more than 100k a year, and that's way over the number of boat people arriving even in the worst year. But somewhere between 2 in a week and 2000 in a week is a figure that will make a difference. Question is- what is that number?
(And if one wanted a cheap debating point, one could note that 2 unwilling deportations is already infinity percent better than the Rwanda scheme ever managed.)
I think it is more than the weather if you look at the arrivals stats, it happens that way almost every weekend.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
I don't know that 'if you can't save them all then you shouldn't save any' is the only sane answer. Britain couldn't save all of the Jews persecuted by the Nazis but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have agreed to the Kinder transport. To be clear I'm not comparing current asylum seekers to the Jews or judging you for advocating for nor asylum cases. I just don't quite agree with your moral premise.
No. We should choose. We accept we cannot take everyone and that’s that. But we can take some. Those who we owe a debt too. Hong Kong. Those who will assimilate and work. Ukrainians
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
Given that it's $100K per annum, I understand his unrestrained language.
SUMMARY OF H-1B EXECUTIVE ORDER
- ENTRY BAN: No H-1B visa holder may enter the United States beginning Sunday September 21st, including current visa holders, unles they pay $100K to enter.
- VISA FEE: New H-1B and H-1B extensions must pay 100K to be processed and 100K per year every year thereafter to maintain them.
This will effectively end the H-1B program completely. No one, even the highest paid at 500K will be paying an extra 100K a year to the government.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Wait till I get my Unitarian Fundamentalist movement off the ground.
Vague ecumenical niceness and cups of tea, enforced with brutal totalitarianism.
Eddie (now Suzie) Izzard used to say that if the Church of England had an Inquisition, it would go on the lines of : "You MUST have a biscuit with your cup of tea."
I'm old enough to remember the days when the top priority interview-response-to-have-ready was what is your favourite biscuit?.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
One thing that has changed over time is not just the size of boat, but also the tactics. The preceeding 6 days had no crossings at all. It seems the smugglers co-ordinate to do their crossings together, and preferably at the weekend, presumably because it swamps the counter-measures. It was much the same the last few weekends.
On one hand, that's good news- it implies that whatever the governments have been doing is having an impact. (Though it may just be the weather.) On the other, it's bad news, because the impact so far has been possible to swerve around.
The top story in today's Times is a smuggler saying that deportations need to be 2000 a week to stop the boats. That's clearly silly, because that's more than 100k a year, and that's way over the number of boat people arriving even in the worst year. But somewhere between 2 in a week and 2000 in a week is a figure that will make a difference. Question is- what is that number?
(And if one wanted a cheap debating point, one could note that 2 unwilling deportations is already infinity percent better than the Rwanda scheme ever managed.)
I think it is more than the weather if you look at the arrivals stats, it happens that way almost every weekend.
They've cottoned on to the fact Starmer doesn't work weekends?
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
I don't know that 'if you can't save them all then you shouldn't save any' is the only sane answer. Britain couldn't save all of the Jews persecuted by the Nazis but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have agreed to the Kinder transport. To be clear I'm not comparing current asylum seekers to the Jews or judging you for advocating for nor asylum cases. I just don't quite agree with your moral premise.
No. We should choose. We accept we cannot take everyone and that’s that. But we can take some. Those who we owe a debt too. Hong Kong. Those who will assimilate and work. Ukrainians
And so forth
And, maybe, some third-worlders who are actually vulnerable, rather than young men with the strength and money to travel across the globe, and the chutzpah to lie about their background.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
We are told that illegal working is harder in France etc. due to ID cards, and so its lack is a pull factor here. But the shadow economy is actually smaller here:
Something to reconcile.
Where is that data from?
The International Labour Organization has data on % of the workforce employed "informally", i.e. without tax, contracts, checks, etc. It is not *just* people without work permits in that group, of course. There will also be people who are paid below minimum wage who are British citizens, and where there are no records kept.
However, thety show the UK informal labor market to be almost 3x the size of the French one:
(I cropped only so the image could be read on Vanilla)
I'm looking through the EY report now, because they will be doing a synthesis of of various other bodies data I suspect.
Of course, it's entirely possible for both to be right, if they're measuring slightly different things. EY may well be measuring total economic activity, while the ILO is measuring percentage of the workforce.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
We are told that illegal working is harder in France etc. due to ID cards, and so its lack is a pull factor here. But the shadow economy is actually smaller here:
Something to reconcile.
Where is that data from?
The International Labour Organization has data on % of the workforce employed "informally", i.e. without tax, contracts, checks, etc. It is not *just* people without work permits in that group, of course. There will also be people who are paid below minimum wage who are British citizens, and where there are no records kept.
However, thety show the UK informal labor market to be almost 3x the size of the French one:
(I cropped only so the image could be read on Vanilla)
I'm looking through the EY report now, because they will be doing a synthesis of of various other bodies data I suspect.
Of course, it's entirely possible for both to be right, if they're measuring slightly different things. EY may well be measuring total economic activity, while the ILO is measuring percentage of the workforce.
Yes: EY is percentage of GDP, while the ILO is measuring workforce.
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
Given that it's $100K per annum, I understand his unrestrained language.
SUMMARY OF H-1B EXECUTIVE ORDER
- ENTRY BAN: No H-1B visa holder may enter the United States beginning Sunday September 21st, including current visa holders, unles they pay $100K to enter.
- VISA FEE: New H-1B and H-1B extensions must pay 100K to be processed and 100K per year every year thereafter to maintain them.
This will effectively end the H-1B program completely. No one, even the highest paid at 500K will be paying an extra 100K a year to the government.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
It is going to be an interesting one, because I don't think there's any way that Starmer has the political capital, or Reeves the money, to get this through. I would imagine from his bunker, Starmer is dreaming of this as his grand legacy.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
The boats are large and packed to the rafters. As for the French, why would they want to? They've shown no willingness to do anything on the matter.
Indeed, they deliberately make sure their camps are (a) easy to leave from, and (b) close to the French borders with the UK and Belgium.
It's politically popular for the French to encourage the self-deportation of asylum seekers.
In other news I did the Hampton And Kempton Waterworks Railway (2ft gauge) on the Surrey/London borders earlier today. Not too much track captured to be frank, but they have big expansion plans! They decorated one of their engines to look like Stephenson's Rocket, perhaps a bit tacky, but it's all part of Railway 200 this weekend.
Bloody fools. Why didn't they go for the Locomotion No. 1?
Honestly, nearly as ignorant of history as Alice Roberts or Catherine Nixey.
I wouldn't mind being washed up on a desert island with Professor Alice
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
We have problems whenever ideology collides with pragmatism.
The trouble with the existing law is that it's a liberal ideology, and thus generates far more resistance.
What is very clear indeed is that Europe and the UK need to further develop their independent military capacity. Relying on future US arms supplies is absolute folly.
We can still do business with Trump, but only if we recognise that he has zero interest in us beyond what directly benefits him.
Morning all. The challenge for the Tories imo is activating some realism on their position and maximum potential in the next few years. They arent forming the next government. Therefore they need to work out what, at best, they can achieve. For the next GE work out the best 200 seats in the country for them - Blue Wall, big Rural in the North, rural East, Scots borders, Labour marginals with below average Reform vote, North, West and Wealthy Central London and where they don't hold them get PPCs in right now and work the arse off them relentlessly. Go into an election to win 90 to 150 of them and hang on. For the locals, identify the councils that can be clung on to and focus on them and throw everything at winning a mayoralty or two, in London they'll definitely lose Bexley to Ref and probably Bromley too (but remaining largest party in NOC) but there is potential for 1 to 3 pick ups further West - Westminster very likely and both Barnet and Wandsworth can be targeted, get a win ot two to celebrate and build on. Holyrood - its going to be their worst ever seat result so try and hold on to constituencies to at least have 'a base' to work from. Ettrick etc, Dumfriesshire should stay blue and I guess West Aberdeenshire, Banff, Ayr, D and G, Perthshire and Eastwood will be where the rest of the effort is entirely focused, winning the initial 2 plus any of those would be 'something' but they realistically are looking at 4th or 5th in seats Senedd - turning out the vote is key to maximising seats. They ought to get something in at least the following pairs - Monmouth/Torfaen, Clwyd (these two are the only ones where 2 seats are possible imo), Bangor/Ynys mon, Vale of Glamorgan pair, Pembrokeshire pair, Brecon pair, so working those heavily to GOTV. They should be aiming for 10 to 12 to stay in the game.
Its dirty work striving only to underachieve vs history but its all they can and should do for now. The alternative is no longer being a thing
I agree completely - Gareth's thread was good as ever but a bit thin on solutions.
The potential glittering prize is (I think) the London Mayoralty, with (I think) newly hunky Boris. He clearly still harbours ambitions, and he's not getting the leadership back just now. Reform seem to be nowhere, without an obvious candidate, and there aren't many Tories who could potentially get Reform voters back onside, and appeal to floating voters who remember London being better when he ran it. Brexit is a big weakness in London, but his opposite weaknesses on immigration and being a big sponger are less salient in London.
As well as finding elections that they can win, the Tories also need to find issues where they can win.
The economy is one. Not surprised Kemi keeps going on the economy (though it was ill-judged when she had Rayner to go on). Fiscal competence is (surprisingly) a Tory strength.
Law and Order they should contest Reform for. Come up with some clever policies. They should align themselves with the 'crush crime' initiative though that is nonpolitical so would need careful handling.
They also need to be absolutely united around some core values, even if that means losing some people.
The big, not unachievable imo goal, is to add to the seat count next election, become a Reform coalition partner but get most of the Tory agenda through, and then effect a backward takeover of Reform.
Thanks. Re: solutions - I feel that the Tories' fate is not entirely in their own hands. They really need Labour to recover at least somewhat or the danger is that the voters will want to sweep the whole system away. And they need Reform to make mistakes.
Oppositions always have to wait for governments to f*** up and can rarely make the weather; typically they have to look credible and then it's a matter of time. The Tories problems are that they don't look credible and voters are spoiled for choice with other routes to oppose the government.
Hopefully there are some Conservatives behind the scenes sketching out & dry running solutions to some pretty intransigent problems. Then future new intake MPs will have some solid ground to stand on.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
I'm not convinced people really genuinely debate with each other anymore.
Instead, they use it as an opportunity to signal their values.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
It is going to be an interesting one, because I don't think there's any way that Starmer has the political capital, or Reeves the money, to get this through. I would imagine from his bunker, Starmer is dreaming of this as his grand legacy.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
I don't know that 'if you can't save them all then you shouldn't save any' is the only sane answer. Britain couldn't save all of the Jews persecuted by the Nazis but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have agreed to the Kinder transport. To be clear I'm not comparing current asylum seekers to the Jews or judging you for advocating for nor asylum cases. I just don't quite agree with your moral premise.
The fact is people who are currently in France don't need asylum, they are already in a safe place. Any granting of asylum should be for those who genuinely need it, i.e. from refugee camps in war zones. Not to those strong enough to make the journey on foot, or who can afford to pay the people smugglers.
They would have passed through a safe country before the got to France, so from a French POV, letting some go to the UK removes some of the pressure from them. So you could stop paying them and deal with the eventual increase in numbers as there would be no incentive for them at all.
So it comes down to whether these are economic migrants of people fleeing war zones. If the consensus is economic migration then you have to deal with the shadow economy. No one is here for the pittance that asylum seekers are paid. Its the casual work they can pick up. And again with many aspects of life in this country, enforcement whether it be for planning or for black markets is not funded.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
The boats are large and packed to the rafters. As for the French, why would they want to? They've shown no willingness to do anything on the matter.
Indeed, they deliberately make sure their camps are (a) easy to leave from, and (b) close to the French borders with the UK and Belgium.
It's politically popular for the French to encourage the self-deportation of asylum seekers.
Well, naturally. How can we encourage self-deportation?
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Wait till I get my Unitarian Fundamentalist movement off the ground.
Vague ecumenical niceness and cups of tea, enforced with brutal totalitarianism.
Eddie (now Suzie) Izzard used to say that if the Church of England had an Inquisition, it would go on the lines of : "You MUST have a biscuit with your cup of tea."
I'm old enough to remember the days when the top priority interview-response-to-have-ready was what is your favourite biscuit?.
My mother was very firm that one should always have one fancy biscuit and one plain. Therefore, my answer would be a Fox's Viennese and an Abernathy (as Lincoln biscuits are now sadly unavailable).
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
The boats are large and packed to the rafters. As for the French, why would they want to? They've shown no willingness to do anything on the matter.
Indeed, they deliberately make sure their camps are (a) easy to leave from, and (b) close to the French borders with the UK and Belgium.
It's politically popular for the French to encourage the self-deportation of asylum seekers.
Well, naturally. How can we encourage self-deportation?
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
One thing that has changed over time is not just the size of boat, but also the tactics. The preceeding 6 days had no crossings at all. It seems the smugglers co-ordinate to do their crossings together, and preferably at the weekend, presumably because it swamps the counter-measures. It was much the same the last few weekends.
On one hand, that's good news- it implies that whatever the governments have been doing is having an impact. (Though it may just be the weather.) On the other, it's bad news, because the impact so far has been possible to swerve around.
The top story in today's Times is a smuggler saying that deportations need to be 2000 a week to stop the boats. That's clearly silly, because that's more than 100k a year, and that's way over the number of boat people arriving even in the worst year. But somewhere between 2 in a week and 2000 in a week is a figure that will make a difference. Question is- what is that number?
(And if one wanted a cheap debating point, one could note that 2 unwilling deportations is already infinity percent better than the Rwanda scheme ever managed.)
I think it is more than the weather if you look at the arrivals stats, it happens that way almost every weekend.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
I don't know that 'if you can't save them all then you shouldn't save any' is the only sane answer. Britain couldn't save all of the Jews persecuted by the Nazis but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have agreed to the Kinder transport. To be clear I'm not comparing current asylum seekers to the Jews or judging you for advocating for nor asylum cases. I just don't quite agree with your moral premise.
The fact is people who are currently in France don't need asylum, they are already in a safe place. Any granting of asylum should be for those who genuinely need it, i.e. from refugee camps in war zones. Not to those strong enough to make the journey on foot, or who can afford to pay the people smugglers.
They would have passed through a safe country before the got to France, so from a French POV, letting some go to the UK removes some of the pressure from them. So you could stop paying them and deal with the eventual increase in numbers as there would be no incentive for them at all.
So it comes down to whether these are economic migrants of people fleeing war zones. If the consensus is economic migration then you have to deal with the shadow economy. No one is here for the pittance that asylum seekers are paid. Its the casual work they can pick up. And again with many aspects of life in this country, enforcement whether it be for planning or for black markets is not funded.
But if they are granted asylum then they can work here like you or me. So it's not entirely the shadow economy that is the draw - indeed, my instinct is it's a fairly small reason.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't target it anyway. Politically it's an obvious thing to do because Facebook is convinced that anyone doing deliveroo on an e-bike/motorycle has come across on a small boat.
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
Given that it's $100K per annum, I understand his unrestrained language.
SUMMARY OF H-1B EXECUTIVE ORDER
- ENTRY BAN: No H-1B visa holder may enter the United States beginning Sunday September 21st, including current visa holders, unles they pay $100K to enter.
- VISA FEE: New H-1B and H-1B extensions must pay 100K to be processed and 100K per year every year thereafter to maintain them.
This will effectively end the H-1B program completely. No one, even the highest paid at 500K will be paying an extra 100K a year to the government.
Meanwhile, in "Trump can't possibly charge $100k for tech visas" news,
Critical part of the President's new $100,000 charge for H1-B visas: The Administration can also offer a $100,000 discount to any person, company, or industry that it wants. Replacing rules with arbitrary discretion.
Want visas? You know who to call and who to flatter.
That's a post from last December though. Elon is also on record as saying there should be an annual fee for H1B to tilt the playing field in favour of US citizens, though he might balk at $100k a year...
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
The boats are large and packed to the rafters. As for the French, why would they want to? They've shown no willingness to do anything on the matter.
Indeed, they deliberately make sure their camps are (a) easy to leave from, and (b) close to the French borders with the UK and Belgium.
It's politically popular for the French to encourage the self-deportation of asylum seekers.
Well, naturally. How can we encourage self-deportation?
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
One thing that has changed over time is not just the size of boat, but also the tactics. The preceeding 6 days had no crossings at all. It seems the smugglers co-ordinate to do their crossings together, and preferably at the weekend, presumably because it swamps the counter-measures. It was much the same the last few weekends.
On one hand, that's good news- it implies that whatever the governments have been doing is having an impact. (Though it may just be the weather.) On the other, it's bad news, because the impact so far has been possible to swerve around.
The top story in today's Times is a smuggler saying that deportations need to be 2000 a week to stop the boats. That's clearly silly, because that's more than 100k a year, and that's way over the number of boat people arriving even in the worst year. But somewhere between 2 in a week and 2000 in a week is a figure that will make a difference. Question is- what is that number?
(And if one wanted a cheap debating point, one could note that 2 unwilling deportations is already infinity percent better than the Rwanda scheme ever managed.)
I think it is more than the weather if you look at the arrivals stats, it happens that way almost every weekend.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
The boats are large and packed to the rafters. As for the French, why would they want to? They've shown no willingness to do anything on the matter.
Indeed, they deliberately make sure their camps are (a) easy to leave from, and (b) close to the French borders with the UK and Belgium.
It's politically popular for the French to encourage the self-deportation of asylum seekers.
Well, naturally. How can we encourage self-deportation?
In other news I did the Hampton And Kempton Waterworks Railway (2ft gauge) on the Surrey/London borders earlier today. Not too much track captured to be frank, but they have big expansion plans! They decorated one of their engines to look like Stephenson's Rocket, perhaps a bit tacky, but it's all part of Railway 200 this weekend.
Bloody fools. Why didn't they go for the Locomotion No. 1?
Honestly, nearly as ignorant of history as Alice Roberts or Catherine Nixey.
I wouldn't mind being washed up on a desert island with Professor Alice
EDIT: Shit! Did I just press send???
I was at Beamish open air museum recently, they have a working replica of Puffing Billy in service, although only pulling passengers on a short waggonway route
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
I don't know that 'if you can't save them all then you shouldn't save any' is the only sane answer. Britain couldn't save all of the Jews persecuted by the Nazis but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have agreed to the Kinder transport. To be clear I'm not comparing current asylum seekers to the Jews or judging you for advocating for nor asylum cases. I just don't quite agree with your moral premise.
The fact is people who are currently in France don't need asylum, they are already in a safe place. Any granting of asylum should be for those who genuinely need it, i.e. from refugee camps in war zones. Not to those strong enough to make the journey on foot, or who can afford to pay the people smugglers.
They would have passed through a safe country before the got to France, so from a French POV, letting some go to the UK removes some of the pressure from them. So you could stop paying them and deal with the eventual increase in numbers as there would be no incentive for them at all.
So it comes down to whether these are economic migrants of people fleeing war zones. If the consensus is economic migration then you have to deal with the shadow economy. No one is here for the pittance that asylum seekers are paid. Its the casual work they can pick up. And again with many aspects of life in this country, enforcement whether it be for planning or for black markets is not funded.
There is some movement in the direction needed, but there could be more. Asylum grants should be for a fixed term, say 5 years with no routine entitlement to permenant settlement. There should be a renewed application before extension with evidence needed that the risk persists, no permission to bring family members, automatic revocation and deportation if convicted of a criminal offence etc.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
The boats are large and packed to the rafters. As for the French, why would they want to? They've shown no willingness to do anything on the matter.
Indeed, they deliberately make sure their camps are (a) easy to leave from, and (b) close to the French borders with the UK and Belgium.
It's politically popular for the French to encourage the self-deportation of asylum seekers.
Well, naturally. How can we encourage self-deportation?
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
They always start with the young.
I assume this is an AI's idea of what a roundabout looks like? Check what's going on with the bars in the middle.
And the paintbrushes: mostly red, but white on the ends where they are currently painting the red stripes.
And the dog's tongue: also changes colour halfway along.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
One thing that has changed over time is not just the size of boat, but also the tactics. The preceeding 6 days had no crossings at all. It seems the smugglers co-ordinate to do their crossings together, and preferably at the weekend, presumably because it swamps the counter-measures. It was much the same the last few weekends.
On one hand, that's good news- it implies that whatever the governments have been doing is having an impact. (Though it may just be the weather.) On the other, it's bad news, because the impact so far has been possible to swerve around.
The top story in today's Times is a smuggler saying that deportations need to be 2000 a week to stop the boats. That's clearly silly, because that's more than 100k a year, and that's way over the number of boat people arriving even in the worst year. But somewhere between 2 in a week and 2000 in a week is a figure that will make a difference. Question is- what is that number?
(And if one wanted a cheap debating point, one could note that 2 unwilling deportations is already infinity percent better than the Rwanda scheme ever managed.)
I think it is more than the weather if you look at the arrivals stats, it happens that way almost every weekend.
That Tobias Elwood article in the Times is an excellent insight into how and why the Tories are fucked. But not in the way he’d like
He presents zero solutions. He has no clue. It’s just “let the right defect to Reform” and then somehow the Tories will return because… crickets. His prescriptions are as vacuous as Starmer’s
“National renewal”. “We need a consensus”. I kept waiting for “smash the gangs”
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
I'm not convinced people really genuinely debate with each other anymore.
Instead, they use it as an opportunity to signal their values.
I am sure this is quite often true. Real debate is engaged only with and among people who are prepared to change their mind as a consequence.
Apropos of which, as it happens I had seen over the last few months quite a few extracts of that man who was assasinated recently in the USA debating at American universities.
While it seemed to me commendable that he did so, and very obviously an abomination that he was murdered doing so, it never seemed to me that he was among those who had any intention of altering his world view by virtue of what he heard from his interlocutors.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
They always start with the young.
I assume this is an AI's idea of what a roundabout looks like? Check what's going on with the bars in the middle.
And the paintbrushes: mostly red, but white on the ends where they are currently painting the red stripes.
And the dog's tongue: also changes colour halfway along.
Timmy's ears markedly asymmetrical, and I worry about his nether regions and rear right leg.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
If reports are correct the next "solution" is ID cards. The civil service answer to everything problem eventually comes to ID cards.
It is going to be an interesting one, because I don't think there's any way that Starmer has the political capital, or Reeves the money, to get this through. I would imagine from his bunker, Starmer is dreaming of this as his grand legacy.
I agree that it'll be very tricky. The effect though might be bigger than we imagine. I'm absolutely convinced that there are far more people in our shadow economy than we realise. (Far more channel crossers too)
The ability to swiftly sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of whether people are legitimately here and paying tax etc could potentially, to my mind, uncover really quite a lot of illegal activity. All of a sudden there would be quite a few of the gazillion or so (conservative estimate) overseas tradespeople and delivery drivers in London who suddenly think it's better to comply with some rules.
The Orwellian fear of ID cards and the like is justified but actually the benefits may really be much larger than the downsides. It's better to manage progress (AI tracking people etc) than to try to suppress it.
In other news I did the Hampton And Kempton Waterworks Railway (2ft gauge) on the Surrey/London borders earlier today. Not too much track captured to be frank, but they have big expansion plans! They decorated one of their engines to look like Stephenson's Rocket, perhaps a bit tacky, but it's all part of Railway 200 this weekend.
Bloody fools. Why didn't they go for the Locomotion No. 1?
Honestly, nearly as ignorant of history as Alice Roberts or Catherine Nixey.
I wouldn't mind being washed up on a desert island with Professor Alice
EDIT: Shit! Did I just press send???
I was at Beamish open air museum recently, they have a working replica of Puffing Billy in service, although only pulling passengers on a short waggonway route
On PB's desert island, you'll be able to see a Puffing Sunil in service, although also not pulling for very long.
The $100k H1B fee is good news for tech centres outside the US: it's not like tech giants aren't going to seek out the cheapest skilled labour they can find, especially in a world where everyone is connected by fiber. This way, it's just that those developers are going to sit in London and Krakow and Bangalore, rather than in Silicon Valley.
We get to keep more taxes, and more talent.
Suddenly the incentive for companies is to build development centres in places where it is easier to get visas for skilled labour.
In other news I did the Hampton And Kempton Waterworks Railway (2ft gauge) on the Surrey/London borders earlier today. Not too much track captured to be frank, but they have big expansion plans! They decorated one of their engines to look like Stephenson's Rocket, perhaps a bit tacky, but it's all part of Railway 200 this weekend.
Bloody fools. Why didn't they go for the Locomotion No. 1?
Honestly, nearly as ignorant of history as Alice Roberts or Catherine Nixey.
I wouldn't mind being washed up on a desert island with Professor Alice
EDIT: Shit! Did I just press send???
I was at Beamish open air museum recently, they have a working replica of Puffing Billy in service, although only pulling passengers on a short waggonway route
On PB's desert island, you'll be able to see a Puffing Sunil in service, although also not pulling for very long.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
I'm not convinced people really genuinely debate with each other anymore.
Instead, they use it as an opportunity to signal their values.
I think part of the problem is that genuine debate is hard on the Internet. On text-based forums, like this, responses catch nuances that happen in person, and do not have an independent moderator to mildly keep it on topic. Responses are also untimely. Take the earlier conversation about Ms Roberts' latest book. It started off about that, and I then started wittering on about the ASC because it was relevant. It wasn't a 'debate', it was a conversation.
And the problem with many 'debates' on YouTube is that they are actually gotcha's; if one side of the 'debate' sets the question, chooses the opponent, and manages the edit, it isn't really a meaningful 'debate'. It's an attempt to show yourself as having beaten the other side.
It'd be great if, instead of loads of so-called 'interview' or 'debate' channels, we could actually get decent channels with real, fair debates; with a good independent moderator who gets the best out of the different respondents. A bit like In Our Time, but on more modern topics.
In other news I did the Hampton And Kempton Waterworks Railway (2ft gauge) on the Surrey/London borders earlier today. Not too much track captured to be frank, but they have big expansion plans! They decorated one of their engines to look like Stephenson's Rocket, perhaps a bit tacky, but it's all part of Railway 200 this weekend.
Bloody fools. Why didn't they go for the Locomotion No. 1?
Honestly, nearly as ignorant of history as Alice Roberts or Catherine Nixey.
I wouldn't mind being washed up on a desert island with Professor Alice
EDIT: Shit! Did I just press send???
I was at Beamish open air museum recently, they have a working replica of Puffing Billy in service, although only pulling passengers on a short waggonway route
On PB's desert island, you'll be able to see a Puffing Sunil in service, although also not pulling for very long.
So had my mind spangled this afternoon from a conversation. Who knew there is a “kink” called Pay-pigs and Fin-Doms.
Apparently there are loads of men, the Pay Pigs, who get off just giving money to women, the Fin Doms, with no requirement for the women to do anything in return. Clearly a form of masochism but it’s an actual thing.
Good luck to the Fin Doms and all that but it’s very weird.
In other news I did the Hampton And Kempton Waterworks Railway (2ft gauge) on the Surrey/London borders earlier today. Not too much track captured to be frank, but they have big expansion plans! They decorated one of their engines to look like Stephenson's Rocket, perhaps a bit tacky, but it's all part of Railway 200 this weekend.
Bloody fools. Why didn't they go for the Locomotion No. 1?
Honestly, nearly as ignorant of history as Alice Roberts or Catherine Nixey.
I wouldn't mind being washed up on a desert island with Professor Alice
EDIT: Shit! Did I just press send???
I was at Beamish open air museum recently, they have a working replica of Puffing Billy in service, although only pulling passengers on a short waggonway route
On PB's desert island, you'll be able to see a Puffing Sunil in service, although also not pulling for very long.
Unless the track is circular, obvs.
On PB's desert island, only the arguments are circular. Everything else is a dead end.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
They always start with the young.
I assume this is an AI's idea of what a roundabout looks like? Check what's going on with the bars in the middle.
And the paintbrushes: mostly red, but white on the ends where they are currently painting the red stripes.
And the dog's tongue: also changes colour halfway along.
Timmy's ears markedly asymmetrical, and I worry about his nether regions and rear right leg.
Jeesh. Tough crowd here today.
I'll try and do a better one tomorrow - if the new Moderator will allow.
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
I don't know that 'if you can't save them all then you shouldn't save any' is the only sane answer. Britain couldn't save all of the Jews persecuted by the Nazis but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have agreed to the Kinder transport. To be clear I'm not comparing current asylum seekers to the Jews or judging you for advocating for nor asylum cases. I just don't quite agree with your moral premise.
The fact is people who are currently in France don't need asylum, they are already in a safe place. Any granting of asylum should be for those who genuinely need it, i.e. from refugee camps in war zones. Not to those strong enough to make the journey on foot, or who can afford to pay the people smugglers.
They would have passed through a safe country before the got to France, so from a French POV, letting some go to the UK removes some of the pressure from them. So you could stop paying them and deal with the eventual increase in numbers as there would be no incentive for them at all.
So it comes down to whether these are economic migrants of people fleeing war zones. If the consensus is economic migration then you have to deal with the shadow economy. No one is here for the pittance that asylum seekers are paid. Its the casual work they can pick up. And again with many aspects of life in this country, enforcement whether it be for planning or for black markets is not funded.
But if they are granted asylum then they can work here like you or me. So it's not entirely the shadow economy that is the draw - indeed, my instinct is it's a fairly small reason.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't target it anyway. Politically it's an obvious thing to do because Facebook is convinced that anyone doing deliveroo on an e-bike/motorycle has come across on a small boat.
Aside from personal knowledge, consider this -
Deliveroo and their ilk use a strange employment structure. Instead of hiring people to carry the food, they hire “contractors” who are almost encouraged to further contract out the work. The sub contractors require no clearance or checks from Deliveroo (and chums)
So they are employing people via a “gang master” who is taking a percentage and employing people they don’t even know the names of. Why?
This kind of “layering” is a red flashing light to people who’ve worked in finance - it’s about creating deniability as to who is actually doing the work. If I did a financial “layering” like that, I would be committing a crime, just for the obfuscation.
What is it, apart from employment status, that Deliveroo is so intent on not knowing?
So had my mind spangled this afternoon from a conversation. Who knew there is a “kink” called Pay-pigs and Fin-Doms.
Apparently there are loads of men, the Pay Pigs, who get off just giving money to women, the Fin Doms, with no requirement for the women to do anything in return. Clearly a form of masochism but it’s an actual thing.
Good luck to the Fin Doms and all that but it’s very weird.
The $100k H1B fee is good news for tech centres outside the US: it's not like tech giants aren't going to seek out the cheapest skilled labour they can find, especially in a world where everyone is connected by fiber. This way, it's just that those developers are going to sit in London and Krakow and Bangalore, rather than in Silicon Valley.
We get to keep more taxes, and more talent.
Suddenly the incentive for companies is to build development centres in places where it is easier to get visas for skilled labour.
Starmer's best week just got better! Tech giants starting to really like what they see in UK and now Trump is making it difficult to do the work in California.
This is a reputable BBC presenter. She thinks the gravest threat to the nation is.... Christians. With their coffee mornings
Thw particularly American kind of Puritan raducalism we're beginning to import isn't coffee mornings and bring-and-buy sales, though.
It's Jimmy Swaggart, Pat Buchanan, tele-evangelists, and manifest destiny, in the general style seen at Tommy's rally.
Just on Alice Roberts: she seems to have a particular atheist axe to grind. Her Domination book reportedly is more about personal opinion and pushing that agenda than historical facts.
Christian nationalism is not a major movement in this country.
Mind you those nationalists last Saturday seem very keen on the cross of St George, a decent Christian + nationalism combo. I agree it’s largely empty cosplay and these people are likely to think Christian doctrine involves having a wee prayer before seeing your gp, but that doesn’t mean various scumbags aren’t willing to co-opt the symbols for their poundshop putsches.
They always start with the young.
I assume this is an AI's idea of what a roundabout looks like? Check what's going on with the bars in the middle.
And the paintbrushes: mostly red, but white on the ends where they are currently painting the red stripes.
And the dog's tongue: also changes colour halfway along.
Timmy's ears markedly asymmetrical, and I worry about his nether regions and rear right leg.
Jeesh. Tough crowd here today.
I'll try and do a better one tomorrow - if the new Moderator will allow.
Make sure you specify "physically realistic" in the prompt
The latest Home Office figures showed 1,072 migrants made the journey in 13 boats on Friday.
82 people per boat. Is there is something weird going on with how these stats are recorded? That's a big boat, and something the French could very easily put a stop to.
Remember though, no more than 84, otherwise the UK government will wag their finger at you.
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
I had a debate about this yesterday, with a lefty friend
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
Neither 'side' has a morally OK answer. It is impossible to let everyone in, and impossible not to heed the the need of the fleeing Ukrainian mother and small children whose father has been captured and tortured and killed by Russians. (And I notice that the fleeing Ukrainians remain not on the hit list for Reform and Mr Robinson.)
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
There is no morally perfect answer. But the only sane answer is to abandon the asylum principle. This will hurt people who want to come in, but there we go, life is grim. And that is the point of nation states. To defend those within the borders, not those without
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
I don't know that 'if you can't save them all then you shouldn't save any' is the only sane answer. Britain couldn't save all of the Jews persecuted by the Nazis but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have agreed to the Kinder transport. To be clear I'm not comparing current asylum seekers to the Jews or judging you for advocating for nor asylum cases. I just don't quite agree with your moral premise.
The fact is people who are currently in France don't need asylum, they are already in a safe place. Any granting of asylum should be for those who genuinely need it, i.e. from refugee camps in war zones. Not to those strong enough to make the journey on foot, or who can afford to pay the people smugglers.
They would have passed through a safe country before the got to France, so from a French POV, letting some go to the UK removes some of the pressure from them. So you could stop paying them and deal with the eventual increase in numbers as there would be no incentive for them at all.
So it comes down to whether these are economic migrants of people fleeing war zones. If the consensus is economic migration then you have to deal with the shadow economy. No one is here for the pittance that asylum seekers are paid. Its the casual work they can pick up. And again with many aspects of life in this country, enforcement whether it be for planning or for black markets is not funded.
There is some movement in the direction needed, but there could be more. Asylum grants should be for a fixed term, say 5 years with no routine entitlement to permenant settlement. There should be a renewed application before extension with evidence needed that the risk persists, no permission to bring family members, automatic revocation and deportation if convicted of a criminal offence etc.
… and the Right to Family life would be an issue for every single person after 5 years.
So had my mind spangled this afternoon from a conversation. Who knew there is a “kink” called Pay-pigs and Fin-Doms.
Apparently there are loads of men, the Pay Pigs, who get off just giving money to women, the Fin Doms, with no requirement for the women to do anything in return. Clearly a form of masochism but it’s an actual thing.
Good luck to the Fin Doms and all that but it’s very weird.
You are touchingly innocent
Oh I’m suitably au fait with a lot of things but it is the side of it where there is no exchange of sexual favours, pictures, company - purely the men get their kicks from just giving women money - I found surprising.
The Welsh government wants Wales to become "a zero waste nation" by 2050, and recently advised councils against collecting general waste more frequently than once every three or four weeks.
One of the ways I know the Starmer Government is infinitely worse than the 2019 to 2024 administration is that Urquhart can now spam the site with 200 posts a day explaining how useless this Government is, and yet prior to July 2024 he couldn't find any negative stories about the economy, small boats, immigration, housing or the NHS to post.
Comments
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqxze81qng9o
Where as in Birmingham its more like once every 3-4 months....
I think the reports say the tactics have changed slightly. The smugglers have these bigger boats which they don't land to pick up people, they ask people to wade out to meet them.
Formerly the site of Barking Reach power station, these 17 hectares (42 acres) of industrial land at Dagenham Dock in east London were due to be redeveloped into a new, purpose-built wholesale food market for the capital.
However, that changed late last year when the site’s owners, the City of London Corporation, announced it had cancelled the development, which would have relocated Smithfield meat market and Billingsgate fish market.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/sep/20/dagenham-london-limbo-rehousing-markets-axed
Reform UK has suspended one of its councillors while the party investigates him over alleged online comments about wanting to kill Keir Starmer.
The suspension came after the party was presented with details indicating that John Allen, a Reform UK Northumberland county councillor, had posted comments online about wanting to shoot the prime minister.
Nigel Farage, the party’s leader, last week challenged police to arrest social media users who he said had been using TikTok to call for him to be shot.
Reform was presented with details of the alleged comments after an investigation by the antifascist group Hope Not Hate.
A Reform UK spokesperson said on Friday: “Cllr Allen has been suspended pending investigation.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/19/reform-uk-suspends-councillor-linked-to-account-calling-for-starmers-death
He was nobly saying that Eritreans have an awful time, and anyone who gets to the UK should be let in, as they are certainly and rightfully seeking asylum. I pointed out to him that this logic means we should let in every Eritrean that gets here (likewise Somalians, Sudanese, Afghans) which is potentially millions of people which we cannot do. It is impossible and would destroy the country culturally and bankrupt us, to boot
He literally had no answer. It was weird. He could not square his principles with the facts of the matter. So he sort of sat there, mute, then eventually blamed Brexit for us being broke and unable to afford the housing of 17 million Somalians
Like I said, the Left is going mad. It is like the world no longer fits their worldview, so they are retreating into a bubble of consoling nonsense
Of course this also happens to rightwingers. Neil Oliver, cited here today, is an example
https://x.com/luke_metro/status/1969280261822235062
Pentagon informs European diplomats the US will partially halt military assistance to Baltic nations and NATO states bordering Russia - Reuters
https://x.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/1969389280976904623
Something to reconcile.
We can butter up the Atlanticist Republicans but if they are totally cowed by the Emperor what does it matter.
SUMMARY OF H-1B EXECUTIVE ORDER
- ENTRY BAN: No H-1B visa holder may enter the United States beginning Sunday September 21st, including current visa holders, unles they pay $100K to enter.
- VISA FEE: New H-1B and H-1B extensions must pay 100K to be processed and 100K per year every year thereafter to maintain them.
This will effectively end the H-1B program completely. No one, even the highest paid at 500K will be paying an extra 100K a year to the government.
It will destroy the health care, higher education, and technology sectors as we know them if this isn't struck down in court.
https://x.com/DanielDiMartino/status/1969203081968549980
Also, as noted, it offers another opportunity for massive corruption.
Honestly, nearly as ignorant of history as Alice Roberts or Catherine Nixey.
My relative, who works in the building trade, actually talked to senior civil servants about the issue. He was told (pretty much) that “Yes, we could shut down the building sites which are operating illegally, and almost certainly employing illegal labour. But this would cause massive disruption for the economy.”
And that was in the early 2000s
One parent replied that he would prefer to continue paying through the nose.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/24/east-end-fishmongers-billingsgate-smithfield-ancient-markets
Edit: but suich a shame for Dagenham as you say.
I am sure the leftist is silenced. I am not a leftist, I am a culturally conservative, liberal Christian centre rightist withouit a party to represent me and I am silenced too. Isn't every thinking person silenced by the issue of hundreds of millions immiserated by terrible governance worldwide? Thinking that only the other 'side' has a moral problem is pure displacement activity.
This firm stance would also save lives. No more drownings in the Channel
But to be reach this answer you have to be honest with yourself and about the world, and admit that you will appear hard hearted. This is the problem for the left, they are so obsessed with seeming virtuous they cannot offer sane answers which make them look nasty
Shows what is going on. The smugglers deliberately load the boat until it is insanely dangerous.
They then rely on the RNLI / Coatsguard to rescue their passengers/victims, just outside French waters.
The International Labour Organization has data on % of the workforce employed "informally", i.e. without tax, contracts, checks, etc. It is not *just* people without work permits in that group, of course. There will also be people who are paid below minimum wage who are British citizens, and where there are no records kept.
However, thety show the UK informal labor market to be almost 3x the size of the French one:
https://rplumber.ilo.org/dataexplorer/?lang=en&segment=indicator&id=SDG_0831_SEX_ECO_RT_A
The top story in today's Times is a smuggler saying that deportations need to be 2000 a week to stop the boats. That's clearly silly, because that's more than 100k a year, and that's way over the number of boat people arriving even in the worst year. But somewhere between 2 in a week and 2000 in a week is a figure that will make a difference. Question is- what is that number?
(And if one wanted a cheap debating point, one could note that 2 unwilling deportations is already infinity percent better than the Rwanda scheme ever managed.)
(I cropped only so the image could be read on Vanilla)
As for Labour recovering, I don't really see why that will benefit the Tories. Conversely, Labour falling below the Tories (as I think they will soon) would be a boost.
And so forth
Of course, it's entirely possible for both to be right, if they're measuring slightly different things. EY may well be measuring total economic activity, while the ILO is measuring percentage of the workforce.
It's politically popular for the French to encourage the self-deportation of asylum seekers.
EDIT: Shit! Did I just press send???
The trouble with the existing law is that it's a liberal ideology, and thus generates far more resistance.
Relying on future US arms supplies is absolute folly.
We can still do business with Trump, but only if we recognise that he has zero interest in us beyond what directly benefits him.
Instead, they use it as an opportunity to signal their values.
So it comes down to whether these are economic migrants of people fleeing war zones. If the consensus is economic migration then you have to deal with the shadow economy. No one is here for the pittance that asylum seekers are paid. Its the casual work they can pick up. And again with many aspects of life in this country, enforcement whether it be for planning or for black markets is not funded.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't target it anyway. Politically it's an obvious thing to do because Facebook is convinced that anyone doing deliveroo on an e-bike/motorycle has come across on a small boat.
Not sure the Spanish would wear it though.
And the dog's tongue: also changes colour halfway along.
Apropos of which, as it happens I had seen over the last few months quite a few extracts of that man who was assasinated recently in the USA debating at American universities.
While it seemed to me commendable that he did so, and very obviously an abomination that he was murdered doing so, it never seemed to me that he was among those who had any intention of altering his world view by virtue of what he heard from his interlocutors.
The ability to swiftly sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of whether people are legitimately here and paying tax etc could potentially, to my mind, uncover really quite a lot of illegal activity. All of a sudden there would be quite a few of the gazillion or so (conservative estimate) overseas tradespeople and delivery drivers in London who suddenly think it's better to comply with some rules.
The Orwellian fear of ID cards and the like is justified but actually the benefits may really be much larger than the downsides. It's better to manage progress (AI tracking people etc) than to try to suppress it.
We get to keep more taxes, and more talent.
Suddenly the incentive for companies is to build development centres in places where it is easier to get visas for skilled labour.
And the problem with many 'debates' on YouTube is that they are actually gotcha's; if one side of the 'debate' sets the question, chooses the opponent, and manages the edit, it isn't really a meaningful 'debate'. It's an attempt to show yourself as having beaten the other side.
It'd be great if, instead of loads of so-called 'interview' or 'debate' channels, we could actually get decent channels with real, fair debates; with a good independent moderator who gets the best out of the different respondents. A bit like In Our Time, but on more modern topics.
Apparently there are loads of men, the Pay Pigs, who get off just giving money to women, the Fin Doms, with no requirement for the women to do anything in return. Clearly a form of masochism but it’s an actual thing.
Good luck to the Fin Doms and all that but it’s very weird.
I'll try and do a better one tomorrow - if the new Moderator will allow.
Deliveroo and their ilk use a strange employment structure. Instead of hiring people to carry the food, they hire “contractors” who are almost encouraged to further contract out the work. The sub contractors require no clearance or checks from Deliveroo (and chums)
So they are employing people via a “gang master” who is taking a percentage and employing people they don’t even know the names of. Why?
This kind of “layering” is a red flashing light to people who’ve worked in finance - it’s about creating deniability as to who is actually doing the work. If I did a financial “layering” like that, I would be committing a crime, just for the obfuscation.
What is it, apart from employment status, that Deliveroo is so intent on not knowing?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c511344v959o
One of the ways I know the Starmer Government is infinitely worse than the 2019 to 2024 administration is that Urquhart can now spam the site with 200 posts a day explaining how useless this Government is, and yet prior to July 2024 he couldn't find any negative stories about the economy, small boats, immigration, housing or the NHS to post.
Quite telling really.