Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
I know bugger all about w3w, but I presumed it was clever in some ways that there was error code correction built in as in if you mispell a word by one wrong character. That would be quite sensible then, you have distilled a location to 3 words and also you can slightly bugger up a word and the system still predicts the correct location (which when in a panic, is what you want).
Is it literally they mapped the world and stuck 3 random words for each square. Surely there has to be more to it?
Because the world is an oblate spheroid they will have had to do something to bodge a change in the number of squares in as you move towards the poles. I haven't looked closely enough to work out what they did about that.
It does seem as though they weren't very careful about their choice of words, which means small typos, or mistakes of communication, are not well-handled.
This the key point: if you get a postcode slightly wrong, you're probably still in roughly the right place.
If you get w3w slightly wrong, you could be out by thousands of miles.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
Let’s be honest - even if we controlled for all the necessary factors like age, poverty, lack of close family, I think you’re still going to find a higher incidence.
We have all grown up in a (relatively) tolerant, respectful, rich country. We shouldn’t forget that most of the rest of the world isn’t so lucky, particularly for those young men making the journey across the channel. Even if it’s a small minority, that’s going to be a larger proportion than those here already.
I think a full ban and permanent disqualification for illegal entry is necessary, even for children. But a carrot too - if you’re the young parents of children escaping a war, you’ve got a great chance of approval if you present at a refugee camp or UK embassy.
Why would a young man from a different society coming through a refugee camp be any less, or more, likely to commit rape than one who has entered the country some other way and then claimed asylum?
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
Let’s be honest - even if we controlled for all the necessary factors like age, poverty, lack of close family, I think you’re still going to find a higher incidence.
We have all grown up in a (relatively) tolerant, respectful, rich country. We shouldn’t forget that most of the rest of the world isn’t so lucky, particularly for those young men making the journey across the channel. Even if it’s a small minority, that’s going to be a larger proportion than those here already.
I think a full ban and permanent disqualification for illegal entry is necessary, even for children. But a carrot too - if you’re the young parents of children escaping a war, you’ve got a great chance of approval if you present at a refugee camp or UK embassy.
Why would a young man from a different society coming through a refugee camp be any less, or more, likely to commit rape than one who has entered the country some other way and then claimed asylum?
It demonstrates a willingness to play by the rules.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
Unlikely. Only a small proportion of crimes are prosecuted let alone convicted and 1 in 3 adult men have a criminal record.
I know bugger all about w3w, but I presumed it was clever in some ways that there was error code correction built in as in if you mispell a word by one wrong character. That would be quite sensible then, you have distilled a location to 3 words and also you can slightly bugger up a word and the system still predicts the correct location (which when in a panic, is what you want).
Is it literally they mapped the world and stuck 3 random words for each square. Surely there has to be more to it?
Because the world is an oblate spheroid they will have had to do something to bodge a change in the number of squares in as you move towards the poles. I haven't looked closely enough to work out what they did about that.
It does seem as though they weren't very careful about their choice of words, which means small typos, or mistakes of communication, are not well-handled.
This the key point: if you get a postcode slightly wrong, you're probably still in roughly the right place.
If you get w3w slightly wrong, you could be out by thousands of miles.
Super important for mountain rescue. Having a rough understanding of where you are is everything, particularly as we have about 1,000 Geal Charns and Ben Mores. W3W is even worse.
FYI the OS Locate app is now part of the main OS app. Even if you mess up the numbers MR/Police will work it out.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
Let’s be honest - even if we controlled for all the necessary factors like age, poverty, lack of close family, I think you’re still going to find a higher incidence.
We have all grown up in a (relatively) tolerant, respectful, rich country. We shouldn’t forget that most of the rest of the world isn’t so lucky, particularly for those young men making the journey across the channel. Even if it’s a small minority, that’s going to be a larger proportion than those here already.
I think a full ban and permanent disqualification for illegal entry is necessary, even for children. But a carrot too - if you’re the young parents of children escaping a war, you’ve got a great chance of approval if you present at a refugee camp or UK embassy.
Why would a young man from a different society coming through a refugee camp be any less, or more, likely to commit rape than one who has entered the country some other way and then claimed asylum?
It demonstrates a willingness to play by the rules.
Plus, a visa overstayer got a visa. So, you'd hope, didn't already have a violent criminal record.
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
A theory not strongly contradicted by the evidence, at least.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
About 1 in 3 men acquire a criminal record at some point in their lives. Most minor crimes are never caught. So possibly a majority of men have committed a crime.
I know bugger all about w3w, but I presumed it was clever in some ways that there was error code correction built in as in if you mispell a word by one wrong character. That would be quite sensible then, you have distilled a location to 3 words and also you can slightly bugger up a word and the system still predicts the correct location (which when in a panic, is what you want).
Is it literally they mapped the world and stuck 3 random words for each square. Surely there has to be more to it?
Because the world is an oblate spheroid they will have had to do something to bodge a change in the number of squares in as you move towards the poles. I haven't looked closely enough to work out what they did about that.
It does seem as though they weren't very careful about their choice of words, which means small typos, or mistakes of communication, are not well-handled.
This the key point: if you get a postcode slightly wrong, you're probably still in roughly the right place.
If you get w3w slightly wrong, you could be out by thousands of miles.
That's actually one of the only good bits of error handling that they put in.
Suppose you are mountain rescue for North Wales. A call comes in with a w3w location, but there's an error in it, and so it gives you a location in Swindon. You immediately know there's an error, so you go back and a correction is obtained.
If the error only puts you out by a few hundred metres then you won't know it is wrong, but if the visibility is bad you will struggle to find the person you are looking for.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
It would be a start if anyone committing a crime is considered to have withdrawn their application for entry.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
If you want a marker about whether someone is likely or not to commit a violent crime, then you don't get much better than XY chromosones.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
Let’s be honest - even if we controlled for all the necessary factors like age, poverty, lack of close family, I think you’re still going to find a higher incidence.
We have all grown up in a (relatively) tolerant, respectful, rich country. We shouldn’t forget that most of the rest of the world isn’t so lucky, particularly for those young men making the journey across the channel. Even if it’s a small minority, that’s going to be a larger proportion than those here already.
I think a full ban and permanent disqualification for illegal entry is necessary, even for children. But a carrot too - if you’re the young parents of children escaping a war, you’ve got a great chance of approval if you present at a refugee camp or UK embassy.
Why would a young man from a different society coming through a refugee camp be any less, or more, likely to commit rape than one who has entered the country some other way and then claimed asylum?
It demonstrates a willingness to play by the rules.
The rules say you are allowed to enter the country and then claim asylum. A majority of asylum seekers enter the country on a visa and then claim asylum. This is allowed by the rules. A minority enter the country irregularly and then claim asylum. This is also allowed by the rules.
Entering the country irregularly and *not* claiming asylum is against the rules, but I didn’t describe someone in that situation. Entering the country on a visa and then remaining when the visa is no longer valid is against the rules, but I didn’t describe that scenario either.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
A much larger majority of women don’t commit any crimes.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
If you want a marker about whether someone is likely or not to commit a violent crime, then you don't get much better than XY chromosones.
Anyone about to enter the driving seat of a BMW or Audi?
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
Unfortunately, the many institutions that have had to recognise the sexual abuse that happened within their walls are strong evidence the other way.
Not all men are bastards who only want one thing no matter what, but enough are for it to be a problem.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
Unlikely. Only a small proportion of crimes are prosecuted let alone convicted and 1 in 3 adult men have a criminal record.
What percentage of those involve offences against a person ? (As opposed to eg motoring offences or drug possession.)
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
It would be a start if anyone committing a crime is considered to have withdrawn their application for entry.
Punishments should be proportional. Let’s say someone drives at 23mph in a 20mph zone. That’s a crime. Would you kick someone out of the country for that? Lots of people here throw their hands up in horror that we even give people tickets for that.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
Unlikely. Only a small proportion of crimes are prosecuted let alone convicted and 1 in 3 adult men have a criminal record.
What percentage of those involve offences against a person ? (As opposed to eg motoring offences or drug possession.)
I could not find clear stats on that. Maybe a tenth of that figure???
TL;DR the leak was inevitable, and the alibaba claims are just news-fluff.
It shows how leaky these databases are, even ones that are supposedly anonymised.
In the USA Palantir has the specific job of joining up health, tax, driving and other databases for the purpose of finding people to deport. There has been discussion of doing the same here. It is what Palantir wants (and I do have concerns that they will use those databases also to influence elections etc) and why Palantir is so against our data protection laws.
Maybe that is what people want, to live in a panopticon controlled by a wannabe Bond villain, but we should at least debate the pros and cons.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
Why do you think the UK couldn't stand a tax take of say 43-44% GDP like France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark? That would amount to an additional 5% GDP which would wipe out the deficit at a stroke.
I appreciate it would be painful medicine but it's a perfectly achievable solution.
You can get to 43–44% of GDP in tax. Plenty of countries sit there. The small detail is they didn’t do it by whacking on an extra ~£130bn in one go.
That’s the scale being waved around here. You’re into big hikes across income tax, NICs, VAT, property, probably all of the above, on top of a tax burden that’s already at modern highs.
Those European models were built over decades with a different political settlement and a lot more buy-in for what the state does. Trying to jump there quickly in the UK runs into the obvious problems: people change behaviour, revenues don’t come in cleanly, and MPs start eyeing the exits.
And the gilt market isn’t just doing the maths. It’s asking whether any of this is credible and survives first contact with voters.
Nice neat answer on paper. In practice it’s a very fast way to discover how elastic both the economy and your majority really are.
'In practice' you have no idea what would happen because it's not been tried. Too much tired thinking on here that equates to "more tax - bad". If you want to cut the deficit forget 'efficiency' savings, forget cutting health, public services or benefits, the only way is more taxes.
Here's the thing:
Increasing the total tax take means taking money out of people's pockets.
If you take money out of people's pockets, they have less to spend. They will therefore spend less. And that, in turn, means that the coffee shop in the village lets go of one of their employees. Who now isn't paying income tax, and is now claiming benefits
Which means that the deficit hasn't shrunk as much as you thought.
It's the multiplier in action.
The best way to shrink the deficit is to get the economy moving.
Fundamental flaw in your first point. It is possible to increase the tax take by taking money from people like me, and you probably, who frankly have more of it than they are ever likely to spend in their lifetime. It wouldn't be coming out of their pockets but their ISAs and other savings.
What's the alternative? Reduce benefits or spending? Well that definitely hits GDP. Borrow more? So end up paying more than the current 3.6% GDP in interest? Doesn't sound great.
The alternative is to get the economy moving! Those times in the past when the UK was running a surplus, it was because the economy was thriving.
Go back to my example. If people are feeling richer, then that coffee shop hires a new barista - that's one person off the welfare rolls, and now they're paying income tax. The government's deficit has just shrunk.
If you want to shrink the deficit, then how about we start freeing up the building and planning system? That will simultaneously cause an increase in employment, and will also make housing more affordable (which means that people can afford to spend more money at that coffee shop again.)
It's the question the Pet Shop Boys posed-
Ask yourself this question Do you want to be rich?
If Britain as a whole were serious about being sustainably richer for years to come, we'd do things differently. Planning and building is a hefty chunk of it, but there are others. Given how unpopular those things are, especially if they involve Change, I can't shake the suspicion that a fair bit of the electorate don't feel any pressure to get the economy moving. Protecting the view from their kitchen window is more important.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
Unlikely. Only a small proportion of crimes are prosecuted let alone convicted and 1 in 3 adult men have a criminal record.
What percentage of those involve offences against a person ? (As opposed to eg motoring offences or drug possession.)
I could not find clear stats on that. Maybe a tenth of that figure???
TL;DR the leak was inevitable, and the alibaba claims are just news-fluff.
It shows how leaky these databases are, even ones that are supposedly anonymised.
In the USA Palantir has the specific job of joining up health, tax, driving and other databases for the purpose of finding people to deport. There has been discussion of doing the same here. It is what Palantir wants (and I do have concerns that they will use those databases also to influence elections etc) and why Palantir is so against our data protection laws.
Maybe that is what people want, to live in a panopticon controlled by a wannabe Bond villain, but we should at least debate the pros and cons.
It wasn't a leak. It was a deliberate data harvesting by the Chinese from the get go. The UK authorities were absolute morons about who they gave access to.
They didn't steal, they asked nicely, promised not to share it among other people in China, and we gave it to them. And now somebody is cashing in on, but it will have already been much more widely shared than the 250 odd organisations who were given the data officially.
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
Unlikely. Only a small proportion of crimes are prosecuted let alone convicted and 1 in 3 adult men have a criminal record.
What percentage of those involve offences against a person ? (As opposed to eg motoring offences or drug possession.)
It is not very clear. This report has 38% of Scottish men (9% women) from the 73 cohort to have at least one criminal conviction, and says it excludes motoring and other minor offences.
Other reports say the way the data is collated means it can include cautions and non convictions.
Regardless, given the low chance of getting caught, it suggests that most men commit crime at some point in their lifetime even if they end up mostly on the straight and narrow.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
Unlikely. Only a small proportion of crimes are prosecuted let alone convicted and 1 in 3 adult men have a criminal record.
What percentage of those involve offences against a person ? (As opposed to eg motoring offences or drug possession.)
I could not find clear stats on that. Maybe a tenth of that figure???
Quite a bit higher I think.
Based on…? There’s an oft-repeated claim that 1% of the total population accounted for 63% of all convictions for violence. That suggests to me that the figure for 100% of convictions for violence isn’t going to be too much larger than 1% perhaps…?
Evidenced rebuttal of Robbins, red faces all round for those who declared him the best of the Civil Service?
Most of the media have ignored her evidence today as it didn’t fit the narrative of Saint Olly being a total victim .
Yes, they don't have the attention span and she's a woman. Based on her evidenced testimony, it's no surprise Robbins got shitcanned
Really? It seemed decidedly mixed to me.
UK parliament feed is available. In summary Little has an audit trail, Robbins has no audit trail, the audit trail contradicts key parts of Robbins's testimony.
Also noted that Thornberry was very forensic and Whittingdale a bit of a buffoon (though an adonis, you can see why attractive younger women want to date him, up there with George Clooney and David Mellor).
Thornberry questions 15 minutes in, Little says she has no record of any verbal discussion but she has email trail that FO asked whether they could skip DV for Mandelson, they are told it's FO decision but DV is advised. - contradicts Robbins unsubstantiated testimony 20 minutes in, FO can request all UKSV info, audit trail UKSV sent ~10 page summary of conclusions to FO - in making his decision Robbins had access to this, even if he chose not to read it. 22 minutes post Mandy firing, 15/9 FO request docs related to the UKSV vetting, these are supplied same day 23 minutes Thornberry returns to Robbins testimony in which he says he requested but was denied access to the vetting files - no record of that 30 minutes Robbins refused to give Little vetting summary or any audit trail around the decision-making. 32 minutes Little has minutes and 3 PS as witnesses of the refusal. Little obtained the summary from UKSV
Whittingdale quesitons 41 minutes Whittingdale tries to get her to agree that vetting should have been done before appointment, Little avoids, evidence previously given to the committee. 42 minutes Little confirms 10 page summary provided to FO would have included the "traffic lights" 43 minutes Whittingdale unwittingly f**ks Robbins. "Summary contains traffic lights but Sir Ollie Robbins gave testimony that he was told it was 'leaning'. Those two things don;t equate" Little "I can only confirm what I have seen" "What is fundamental and relevant to my exercises is whether I've been able to see and gather all the relevant material" No record of Robbins discussion about vetting recommendation being borderline. 46 minutes Whittingdale making stuff up to try and get Robbins off the hook. 47 minutes Little only knew UKSV conclusion on 25th March, looking uncomfortable about delay in informing Starmer.
Thornberry again 50 minutes ET tricks LIttle into confirming both red boxes were ticked on UKSV summary
55 minutes Put to Little that it is normal for UKSV recommendations to only be shared verbally. Little flatly contradicts that, recommendations are shared by a secure portal (in writing). 58 minutes LIttle asked if she would expect there to be a note of Robbins meeting. Basically yes, civil service code requires us to take accurate notes.
Trump: That's where Martin Luther King gave his great speech, and he had a million people and I had the same exact crowd, maybe a little bit more. I have pictures of Martin Luther King’s crowd, the exact same, everything, but it was 70 years difference. The exact same crowd, but I actually had more people
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
It would be a start if anyone committing a crime is considered to have withdrawn their application for entry.
Punishments should be proportional. Let’s say someone drives at 23mph in a 20mph zone. That’s a crime. Would you kick someone out of the country for that? Lots of people here throw their hands up in horror that we even give people tickets for that.
Instead of reductio ad absurdum, you may want to consider a threshold. Thresholds are useful things to help make good decisions. How about a crime incurring a custodial sentence over time T, where T can be set by the home secretary each year? That way immigrant Bob who drops a piece of litter stays in, and immigrant Ben who commits murder can be deported.
Cabinet knows that Keir Starmer is done for There’s little loyalty owed to a PM who shows so little interest in MPs — which is why a planned exit now looks likely
TL;DR the leak was inevitable, and the alibaba claims are just news-fluff.
It shows how leaky these databases are, even ones that are supposedly anonymised.
In the USA Palantir has the specific job of joining up health, tax, driving and other databases for the purpose of finding people to deport. There has been discussion of doing the same here. It is what Palantir wants (and I do have concerns that they will use those databases also to influence elections etc) and why Palantir is so against our data protection laws.
Maybe that is what people want, to live in a panopticon controlled by a wannabe Bond villain, but we should at least debate the pros and cons.
It wasn't a leak. It was a deliberate data harvesting by the Chinese from the get go. The UK authorities were absolute morons about who they gave access to.
They didn't steal, they asked nicely, promised not to share it among other people in China, and we gave it to them. And now somebody is cashing in on, but it will have already been much more widely sahred than the 250 odd organisations who were given the data officially.
How do you make the data available to researchers without the risk of it being obtained? You could not make it available to researchers in China, but someone not in China could still break the rules and make it available.
You can greatly restrict who can access the data, but then less research is done with the data, which was the whole point of collecting it.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
It would be a start if anyone committing a crime is considered to have withdrawn their application for entry.
Punishments should be proportional. Let’s say someone drives at 23mph in a 20mph zone. That’s a crime. Would you kick someone out of the country for that? Lots of people here throw their hands up in horror that we even give people tickets for that.
Instead of reductio ad absurdum, you may want to consider a threshold. Thresholds are useful things to help make good decisions. How about a crime incurring a custodial sentence over time T, where T can be set by the home secretary each year? That way immigrant Bob who drops a piece of litter stays in, and immigrant Ben who commits murder can be deported.
TL;DR the leak was inevitable, and the alibaba claims are just news-fluff.
It shows how leaky these databases are, even ones that are supposedly anonymised.
In the USA Palantir has the specific job of joining up health, tax, driving and other databases for the purpose of finding people to deport. There has been discussion of doing the same here. It is what Palantir wants (and I do have concerns that they will use those databases also to influence elections etc) and why Palantir is so against our data protection laws.
Maybe that is what people want, to live in a panopticon controlled by a wannabe Bond villain, but we should at least debate the pros and cons.
It wasn't a leak. It was a deliberate data harvesting by the Chinese from the get go. The UK authorities were absolute morons about who they gave access to.
They didn't steal, they asked nicely, promised not to share it among other people in China, and we gave it to them. And now somebody is cashing in on, but it will have already been much more widely sahred than the 250 odd organisations who were given the data officially.
How do you make the data available to researchers without the risk of it being obtained? You could not make it available to researchers in China, but someone not in China could still break the rules and make it available.
You can greatly restrict who can access the data, but then less research is done with the data, which was the whole point of collecting it.
While that is true, being much more careful about what parts of the dataset and whom you give the data to would be a decent start and of course that is what the authorities did after the horse had already bolted.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
UK 10 year old gilt at 5.197 already. Add anything more to that for Rayner and borrowing at all will be ruinously expensive requiring savage cuts in the deficit, either by huge tax increases or big spending cuts or both.
In some ways this might be a good thing. We cannot keep adding to our debt mountain like this. But I can't help feeling that a Rayner government might fall apart facing such choices.
I very much doubt huge tax increases will cut the deficit and I'd guess more importantly so does the gilt market. If any chancellor tried it the result would be a Chernobyl to make Kwasi's efforts look like a bin fire.
Why do you think the UK couldn't stand a tax take of say 43-44% GDP like France, Austria, Belgium, Denmark? That would amount to an additional 5% GDP which would wipe out the deficit at a stroke.
I appreciate it would be painful medicine but it's a perfectly achievable solution.
You can get to 43–44% of GDP in tax. Plenty of countries sit there. The small detail is they didn’t do it by whacking on an extra ~£130bn in one go.
That’s the scale being waved around here. You’re into big hikes across income tax, NICs, VAT, property, probably all of the above, on top of a tax burden that’s already at modern highs.
Those European models were built over decades with a different political settlement and a lot more buy-in for what the state does. Trying to jump there quickly in the UK runs into the obvious problems: people change behaviour, revenues don’t come in cleanly, and MPs start eyeing the exits.
And the gilt market isn’t just doing the maths. It’s asking whether any of this is credible and survives first contact with voters.
Nice neat answer on paper. In practice it’s a very fast way to discover how elastic both the economy and your majority really are.
'In practice' you have no idea what would happen because it's not been tried. Too much tired thinking on here that equates to "more tax - bad". If you want to cut the deficit forget 'efficiency' savings, forget cutting health, public services or benefits, the only way is more taxes.
Here's the thing:
Increasing the total tax take means taking money out of people's pockets.
If you take money out of people's pockets, they have less to spend. They will therefore spend less. And that, in turn, means that the coffee shop in the village lets go of one of their employees. Who now isn't paying income tax, and is now claiming benefits
Which means that the deficit hasn't shrunk as much as you thought.
It's the multiplier in action.
The best way to shrink the deficit is to get the economy moving.
Fundamental flaw in your first point. It is possible to increase the tax take by taking money from people like me, and you probably, who frankly have more of it than they are ever likely to spend in their lifetime. It wouldn't be coming out of their pockets but their ISAs and other savings.
What's the alternative? Reduce benefits or spending? Well that definitely hits GDP. Borrow more? So end up paying more than the current 3.6% GDP in interest? Doesn't sound great.
The alternative is to get the economy moving! Those times in the past when the UK was running a surplus, it was because the economy was thriving.
Go back to my example. If people are feeling richer, then that coffee shop hires a new barista - that's one person off the welfare rolls, and now they're paying income tax. The government's deficit has just shrunk.
If you want to shrink the deficit, then how about we start freeing up the building and planning system? That will simultaneously cause an increase in employment, and will also make housing more affordable (which means that people can afford to spend more money at that coffee shop again.)
It's the question the Pet Shop Boys posed-
Ask yourself this question Do you want to be rich?
If Britain as a whole were serious about being sustainably richer for years to come, we'd do things differently. Planning and building is a hefty chunk of it, but there are others. Given how unpopular those things are, especially if they involve Change, I can't shake the suspicion that a fair bit of the electorate don't feel any pressure to get the economy moving. Protecting the view from their kitchen window is more important.
They don't think of it as the country getting rich. They think of it as someone else getting rich at their expense.
George Osborne promised the country that with austerity we were all in it together and that didn't turn out to be true. We need that sense of the country being a common endeavour in order to be prepared to sacrifice the view out of the kitchen window for our collective prosperity.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Any large group of men is very likely to contain a significant proportion of rapists. Perhaps it would be safer to ban the immigration of any men at all, but I think that would be a step too far. It's still a big deal though.
I disagree strongly with your first sentence.
On what basis?
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
"men [must] accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women" No. Where you are going wrong is this attitude that classes MEN as a unit - who would or could all commit sexual crime.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
It would be a start if anyone committing a crime is considered to have withdrawn their application for entry.
Punishments should be proportional. Let’s say someone drives at 23mph in a 20mph zone. That’s a crime. Would you kick someone out of the country for that? Lots of people here throw their hands up in horror that we even give people tickets for that.
Instead of reductio ad absurdum, you may want to consider a threshold. Thresholds are useful things to help make good decisions. How about a crime incurring a custodial sentence over time T, where T can be set by the home secretary each year? That way immigrant Bob who drops a piece of litter stays in, and immigrant Ben who commits murder can be deported.
I’m all for thresholds. It was Anne who was proposing no threshold.
I would also point out that we already have this rule. It’s not absolute, but a sentence of more than 1 year usually, I believe, leads to an asylum visa being revoked, as would multiple smaller offences.
This is like when someone said people should only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard… when the current rule is that people can only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard.
TL;DR the leak was inevitable, and the alibaba claims are just news-fluff.
It shows how leaky these databases are, even ones that are supposedly anonymised.
In the USA Palantir has the specific job of joining up health, tax, driving and other databases for the purpose of finding people to deport. There has been discussion of doing the same here. It is what Palantir wants (and I do have concerns that they will use those databases also to influence elections etc) and why Palantir is so against our data protection laws.
Maybe that is what people want, to live in a panopticon controlled by a wannabe Bond villain, but we should at least debate the pros and cons.
It wasn't a leak. It was a deliberate data harvesting by the Chinese from the get go. The UK authorities were absolute morons about who they gave access to.
They didn't steal, they asked nicely, promised not to share it among other people in China, and we gave it to them. And now somebody is cashing in on, but it will have already been much more widely shared than the 250 odd organisations who were given the data officially.
If 1375 organisations have it, it's essentially public.
Perhaps if they'd have admitted it were to be public they would have had a harder time recruiting 500000 participants, but I think it could have been done.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
Unlikely. Only a small proportion of crimes are prosecuted let alone convicted and 1 in 3 adult men have a criminal record.
What percentage of those involve offences against a person ? (As opposed to eg motoring offences or drug possession.)
I could not find clear stats on that. Maybe a tenth of that figure???
Quite a bit higher I think.
Based on…? There’s an oft-repeated claim that 1% of the total population accounted for 63% of all convictions for violence. That suggests to me that the figure for 100% of convictions for violence isn’t going to be too much larger than 1% perhaps…?
While @Cyclefree is probably over egging it that all women have been sexually assaulted (Mrs Foxy hasn't) it is pretty common. My first serious girlfriend had been raped as her first sexual experience, and it was never reported, for example, and several other women that I know have been also, and I mean far more than an unwelcome pass.
There is a real problem of rape culture amongst men, and also a culture of denial about it because it is so normalised.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
TL;DR the leak was inevitable, and the alibaba claims are just news-fluff.
It shows how leaky these databases are, even ones that are supposedly anonymised.
In the USA Palantir has the specific job of joining up health, tax, driving and other databases for the purpose of finding people to deport. There has been discussion of doing the same here. It is what Palantir wants (and I do have concerns that they will use those databases also to influence elections etc) and why Palantir is so against our data protection laws.
Maybe that is what people want, to live in a panopticon controlled by a wannabe Bond villain, but we should at least debate the pros and cons.
It wasn't a leak. It was a deliberate data harvesting by the Chinese from the get go. The UK authorities were absolute morons about who they gave access to.
They didn't steal, they asked nicely, promised not to share it among other people in China, and we gave it to them. And now somebody is cashing in on, but it will have already been much more widely sahred than the 250 odd organisations who were given the data officially.
How do you make the data available to researchers without the risk of it being obtained? You could not make it available to researchers in China, but someone not in China could still break the rules and make it available.
You can greatly restrict who can access the data, but then less research is done with the data, which was the whole point of collecting it.
While that is true, being much more careful about what parts of the dataset and whom you give the data to would be a decent start and of course that is what the authorities did after the horse had already bolted.
Being more careful sounds great, but someone has to actually operationalise this stuff and it’s really tricky. I know students and researchers who are left in limbo for months, even years, while waiting for datasets. It absolutely definitely slows the rate of useful research.
But I also know of cases of researchers playing fast and loose with the rules on data.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
If we are giving migrants trouser presses then I'm out. I'm done. Enough. Turn the boats back. Send for Nelson.
Obviously, well I think it must be the case, the asylum seekers don’t get the same treatment (3*) as paying guests, but it looks like a decent part of the world to stroll around, and no doubt the residents of the village aren’t too pleased to have a charming little hotel replaced by an asylum seekers pen. What’s the upside for a local family?
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Part of Starmer's problem is that, as usual, he is being attacked from the left and from the right for different reasons. To take another example, the right hate his wobbly climbdown on welfare reform and the left hate that he proposed it in the first place. Some of that is because he is a political klutz, but some of it is the times we live in. (Much the same could be said of Sunak.)
So the lefty critique of Starmer on Mandygate is simple. Mandelson was so obviously a wrongun that he should never have got anywhere near the job. End of story. If SKS cravenly bowed to McSweeney, so much the worse.
Most people on the right aren't quite brazen enough to join in- the vibe at the time was "edgy, but this is worth a try". To criticise Starmer from the right, you need something messier. I think you have to believe that the government knew that Mandelson was much worse than we all knew, and that Starmer knew that and had the gory details supressed and hence lied to Parliament. That has the advantage that it means some vengence on behalf of St Boris the Martyr, which some find emotionally satisfying even if it exaggerates Starmer's role in Johnson's downfall.
We don't entirely want to believe that the Civil Service and the vetting process can be so dismally rubbish, but given everything else we know, it seems pretty likely.
None of this actually matters, though; once enough of the relevant people have had enough of a Prime Minister, they go, whether that's fair or not.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
The pitchforks were picked up erroneously in Epsom
An investigation into a rape outside a church in Epsom has been closed after police concluded "no sexual offence had occurred". Surrey Police said following its "thorough investigation" into the incident, which sparked protests and public disorder in the town, they now believe the woman concerned "sustained an accidental head injury" following a night out and made "a confused report".
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
Unlikely. Only a small proportion of crimes are prosecuted let alone convicted and 1 in 3 adult men have a criminal record.
What percentage of those involve offences against a person ? (As opposed to eg motoring offences or drug possession.)
I could not find clear stats on that. Maybe a tenth of that figure???
Quite a bit higher I think.
Based on…? There’s an oft-repeated claim that 1% of the total population accounted for 63% of all convictions for violence. That suggests to me that the figure for 100% of convictions for violence isn’t going to be too much larger than 1% perhaps…?
While @Cyclefree is probably over egging it that all women have been sexually assaulted (Mrs Foxy hasn't) it is pretty common. My first serious girlfriend had been raped as her first sexual experience, and it was never reported, for example, and several other women that I know have been also, and I mean far more than an unwelcome pass.
There is a real problem of rape culture amongst men, and also a culture of denial about it because it is so normalised.
I absolutely agree with you and Cyclefree about the horrific scale of sexual violence. It’s something that warrants repeating. What’s harder to determine is how those actions are spread among the male population. I don’t know how the numbers break down there.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
It would be a start if anyone committing a crime is considered to have withdrawn their application for entry.
Punishments should be proportional. Let’s say someone drives at 23mph in a 20mph zone. That’s a crime. Would you kick someone out of the country for that? Lots of people here throw their hands up in horror that we even give people tickets for that.
Instead of reductio ad absurdum, you may want to consider a threshold. Thresholds are useful things to help make good decisions. How about a crime incurring a custodial sentence over time T, where T can be set by the home secretary each year? That way immigrant Bob who drops a piece of litter stays in, and immigrant Ben who commits murder can be deported.
I’m all for thresholds. It was Anne who was proposing no threshold.
I would also point out that we already have this rule. It’s not absolute, but a sentence of more than 1 year usually, I believe, leads to an asylum visa being revoked, as would multiple smaller offences.
This is like when someone said people should only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard… when the current rule is that people can only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard.
The problem is that the deportations seem like they're very hard to enforce.
People have their human rights infringed all the time when they are sentenced to prison time and you don't hear of many appeals against a prison sentence being successful because they infringed on someone's human rights. Yet when it comes to deportation it seems much harder for society to enforce the punishment that has been codified in law.
The pitchforks were picked up erroneously in Epsom
An investigation into a rape outside a church in Epsom has been closed after police concluded "no sexual offence had occurred". Surrey Police said following its "thorough investigation" into the incident, which sparked protests and public disorder in the town, they now believe the woman concerned "sustained an accidental head injury" following a night out and made "a confused report".
I thought after Sturgeon got in a mess about that infamous case of the guy who decided after his arrest he was infact would like to identify as a woman that they stopped putting transgender women in female prisons in Scotland. Obviously not.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
It would be a start if anyone committing a crime is considered to have withdrawn their application for entry.
Punishments should be proportional. Let’s say someone drives at 23mph in a 20mph zone. That’s a crime. Would you kick someone out of the country for that? Lots of people here throw their hands up in horror that we even give people tickets for that.
Instead of reductio ad absurdum, you may want to consider a threshold. Thresholds are useful things to help make good decisions. How about a crime incurring a custodial sentence over time T, where T can be set by the home secretary each year? That way immigrant Bob who drops a piece of litter stays in, and immigrant Ben who commits murder can be deported.
I’m all for thresholds. It was Anne who was proposing no threshold.
I would also point out that we already have this rule. It’s not absolute, but a sentence of more than 1 year usually, I believe, leads to an asylum visa being revoked, as would multiple smaller offences.
This is like when someone said people should only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard… when the current rule is that people can only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard.
The problem is that the deportations seem like they're very hard to enforce.
People have their human rights infringed all the time when they are sentenced to prison time and you don't hear of many appeals against a prison sentence being successful because they infringed on someone's human rights. Yet when it comes to deportation it seems much harder for society to enforce the punishment that has been codified in law.
I'm not sure why that is different.
Yes, there has been a big issue with people we’ve decided should be deported then not being deported. This arose under the Conservative government, some mix of austerity and maybe some weird belief that if they fucked the system up, they could use the failings to scare people into voting for them? The number of deportations is rising under Labour.
Attorney General Hermer has been part of a group of ideologically-motivated, government-embedded, Human Rights lawyers that have acted in a vexatious and biased way to persecute British soldiers, not because they broke the law, but to serve some twisted anti-military, anti-British agenda.
They, their greed (the made a lot of money doing it), and their crippling ideology, have deliberately misapplied the 1988 UK Human Rights Act to British military operations in ways that not only create a never-ending conveyor belt of Veteran persecutions but also fundamentally undermine Britain’s ability to wage war and thereby defend itself.
What3words running a secondary sale in an 80% down round is absolutely criminal This company has burned through hundreds of millions of dollars and in the last year generated £2m of revenue. It's doing a crowdfund and a secondary sale valuing the company at £50m way down from its heights. £50m on £2m of revenue for a company that is 11 years old is still massively over valued.
Who could have predicted What.Three.Words was a load of shite?
It’s not shite. It’s a good app. Just no way to monetise it
If its use became widespread, you could charge people to change the words of their location, like a personalised numberplate.
That was very much the business model: get corporates to get vanity codes for their headquarters. So, Amazon would be at the.everything.store, etc.
Unfortunately, that required lots of people to use the three word codes. Which simply hasn't happened.
It should have taken the place of postcodes, as they are so much more specific.
w3w addresses are far too specific to replace postcodes. There are 390 separate w3w squares on our plot alone and I would guess a 1000 times as many in our, not particularly large postcode.
There are approximately 1.8 million post codes. They're are slightly more than 27 billion what three words squares in the UK. So there's an average of about 15,000 what three words squares per post code.
Thinking about it, ours is a rural postcode so actually covers a large area for just 12 actual addresses.
What3words running a secondary sale in an 80% down round is absolutely criminal This company has burned through hundreds of millions of dollars and in the last year generated £2m of revenue. It's doing a crowdfund and a secondary sale valuing the company at £50m way down from its heights. £50m on £2m of revenue for a company that is 11 years old is still massively over valued.
Who could have predicted What.Three.Words was a load of shite?
It’s not shite. It’s a good app. Just no way to monetise it
If its use became widespread, you could charge people to change the words of their location, like a personalised numberplate.
That was very much the business model: get corporates to get vanity codes for their headquarters. So, Amazon would be at the.everything.store, etc.
Unfortunately, that required lots of people to use the three word codes. Which simply hasn't happened.
It should have taken the place of postcodes, as they are so much more specific.
w3w addresses are far too specific to replace postcodes. There are 390 separate w3w squares on our plot alone and I would guess a 1000 times as many in our, not particularly large postcode.
Do w3w locations cover height? As in blocks of flats?
No. That would be what4words
Or use what5words if you also need to specify the time
Pinnnig down the time would be a challenge for just one extra word.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
Situated around a 25-minute walk from Mannings Heath Golf Club, the 3-star Cisswood House Hotel Horsham features Wi-Fi throughout the property and parking on site. The hotel, situated a short way from South Downs National Park, offers a Jacuzzi and a sauna.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
Yes, but there is no room service. So it's not a four star hotel (copyright PB 2026).
It closed in Jan 2022 and started taking asylum seekers in March 2023, it doesn't look as well-kept in some of the other Mail photos and it's described as being gutted in 2022.
I’ve heard from a pretty good source that Starmer will resign after the local elections at the latest. He has concluded “he cannot continue”.
I’ve bet accordingly but DYOR.
That depends on the results surely? If Labour is beaten on seats and NEV by Reform, the Tories and Greens he will surely go. If Labour come second to Reform and beat the Conservatives and Greens Starmer likely stays for now
I think is is way beyond that and to be fair @BatteryCorrectHorse has contacts within the party so I would think he may well be accurate
Who is the only Labour leader in history Labour have forced out against their will? Tony Blair for the crime of not being leftwing enough and only after ten years as PM and by the ruthless Brown machine.
While Tory MPs would probably have removed Starmer already if he led them, Labour MPs couldn't hit the target and remove their leader even if they had a 50 foot by 100 foot target on their back. So unless Labour fall to third or below in May Starmer likely survives
Even if you were correct about Blair - which given he had annoucned his departure already is at best arguable - George Lansbury was forced out by a vote, and Ramsay Macdonald expelled from the party altogether. I appreciate both were some time ago, but you did say 'in history.'
Not sure if you would count Henderson losing his seat as well.
Technically Lansbury resigned after losing a vote on opposition to rearmament.
Macdonald was only expelled after forming a National government with the Tories and Liberals, Macdonald remained PM
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
It would be a start if anyone committing a crime is considered to have withdrawn their application for entry.
Punishments should be proportional. Let’s say someone drives at 23mph in a 20mph zone. That’s a crime. Would you kick someone out of the country for that? Lots of people here throw their hands up in horror that we even give people tickets for that.
Instead of reductio ad absurdum, you may want to consider a threshold. Thresholds are useful things to help make good decisions. How about a crime incurring a custodial sentence over time T, where T can be set by the home secretary each year? That way immigrant Bob who drops a piece of litter stays in, and immigrant Ben who commits murder can be deported.
I’m all for thresholds. It was Anne who was proposing no threshold.
I would also point out that we already have this rule. It’s not absolute, but a sentence of more than 1 year usually, I believe, leads to an asylum visa being revoked, as would multiple smaller offences.
This is like when someone said people should only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard… when the current rule is that people can only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard.
The problem is that the deportations seem like they're very hard to enforce.
People have their human rights infringed all the time when they are sentenced to prison time and you don't hear of many appeals against a prison sentence being successful because they infringed on someone's human rights. Yet when it comes to deportation it seems much harder for society to enforce the punishment that has been codified in law.
I'm not sure why that is different.
Yes, there has been a big issue with people we’ve decided should be deported then not being deported. This arose under the Conservative government, some mix of austerity and maybe some weird belief that if they fucked the system up, they could use the failings to scare people into voting for them? The number of deportations is rising under Labour.
I think deportations fell from 19000 per year in 2009 to just 1000 under the last government.
I note too that the men convicted of these raped had already had their asylum claims refused.
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
The reality is that men commit essentially all violent crime, and the majority of non-violent crime too.
It's not clear at all why we allow any men to emigrate to the UK.
The majority of men don't commit any crimes.
Unlikely. Only a small proportion of crimes are prosecuted let alone convicted and 1 in 3 adult men have a criminal record.
What percentage of those involve offences against a person ? (As opposed to eg motoring offences or drug possession.)
I could not find clear stats on that. Maybe a tenth of that figure???
Quite a bit higher I think.
Based on…? There’s an oft-repeated claim that 1% of the total population accounted for 63% of all convictions for violence. That suggests to me that the figure for 100% of convictions for violence isn’t going to be too much larger than 1% perhaps…?
While @Cyclefree is probably over egging it that all women have been sexually assaulted (Mrs Foxy hasn't) it is pretty common. My first serious girlfriend had been raped as her first sexual experience, and it was never reported, for example, and several other women that I know have been also, and I mean far more than an unwelcome pass.
There is a real problem of rape culture amongst men, and also a culture of denial about it because it is so normalised.
I absolutely agree with you and Cyclefree about the horrific scale of sexual violence. It’s something that warrants repeating. What’s harder to determine is how those actions are spread among the male population. I don’t know how the numbers break down there.
It's much easier to prosecute the serial rapist, or the rapist who preys on strangers, and so the statistics that we do have are biased by that effect.
One thing that we know from child sexual abuse is that the perpetrators are often within the family. Since victims of child sexual abuse are unlikely to all have the same dodgy uncle, this suggests that abusers are well-spread across the population.
I would suggest it is likely this is also true for the perpetrators of sexual abuse of adults.
If anyone from FON is around and fancies backing up their prediction I'd be happy to lay you under 18 Labour Mps at Evens, thats twice as many as your prediction!
Polanski has made a move that will significantly alienate potential voters in the same way that Corbyn was invariably on the wrong side of the voters on wars. You don't have to be signed up to Reform to have real concerns about "asylum seeker" rape gangs on the prowl on Sussex beaches.
I don't think people leaning Green right now are ready to listen to anything negative about Saint Polanksi. But stuff like that will come through in time.
I'm not sure people leaning Green are ready to hear anything negative about illegal immigrants. There is blank denial from large numbers of people that any problem exists.
Most rapists aren't asylum seekers and most asylum seekers aren't rapists and rape denial is so strong in Britain that the CPS refuse to take lots of cases of rape to court, on the assumption juries will not convict, so I think that when I see politicians/rabble-rousers embark on a big campaign regarding specifically asylum seekers committing rape then I do wonder whether their problem is more with the rape or more with the asylum seekers.
You yourself do not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal, then?
Some men who have come into this country on student visas have committed rape. Should we ban overseas male students? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
It would be a start if anyone committing a crime is considered to have withdrawn their application for entry.
Punishments should be proportional. Let’s say someone drives at 23mph in a 20mph zone. That’s a crime. Would you kick someone out of the country for that? Lots of people here throw their hands up in horror that we even give people tickets for that.
Instead of reductio ad absurdum, you may want to consider a threshold. Thresholds are useful things to help make good decisions. How about a crime incurring a custodial sentence over time T, where T can be set by the home secretary each year? That way immigrant Bob who drops a piece of litter stays in, and immigrant Ben who commits murder can be deported.
I’m all for thresholds. It was Anne who was proposing no threshold.
I would also point out that we already have this rule. It’s not absolute, but a sentence of more than 1 year usually, I believe, leads to an asylum visa being revoked, as would multiple smaller offences.
This is like when someone said people should only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard… when the current rule is that people can only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard.
The problem is that the deportations seem like they're very hard to enforce.
People have their human rights infringed all the time when they are sentenced to prison time and you don't hear of many appeals against a prison sentence being successful because they infringed on someone's human rights. Yet when it comes to deportation it seems much harder for society to enforce the punishment that has been codified in law.
I'm not sure why that is different.
Yes, there has been a big issue with people we’ve decided should be deported then not being deported. This arose under the Conservative government, some mix of austerity and maybe some weird belief that if they fucked the system up, they could use the failings to scare people into voting for them? The number of deportations is rising under Labour.
I think deportations fell from 19000 per year in 2009 to just 1000 under the last government.
I note too that the men convicted of these raped had already had their asylum claims refused.
I would think the Egyptian pair could be deported. I'm not sure we can deport the Iranian, even if failed.
The pitchforks were picked up erroneously in Epsom
An investigation into a rape outside a church in Epsom has been closed after police concluded "no sexual offence had occurred". Surrey Police said following its "thorough investigation" into the incident, which sparked protests and public disorder in the town, they now believe the woman concerned "sustained an accidental head injury" following a night out and made "a confused report".
If anyone from FON is around and fancies backing up their prediction I'd be happy to lay you under 18 Labour Mps at Evens, thats twice as many as your prediction!
Indeed. What utter nonsense. I suppose one can claim it is only a snapshot of the moment but there is no way on god's earth Labour end up with fewer seats that Plaid and the Greens on over one hundred.
A couple of days old, but shit you just couldn't make up...
London Stock Exchange bomb plotter was allowed to stay in UK A terrorist denied asylum was granted leave to remain in Britain on human rights grounds, a court ruling reveals
Person who won more than $400,000 by betting on Maduro's removal has been identified as a U.S. soldier who participated in the operation. The soldier has now been arrested, according to ABC News.
Person who won more than $400,000 by betting on Maduro's removal has been identified as a U.S. soldier who participated in the operation. The soldier has now been arrested, according to ABC News.
Would Reform give the SNP another referendum on independence in exchange for the SNP only voting on legislation that impacted Scotland? Would give Reform a comfortable majority on all non-Scottish bills...
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Part of Starmer's problem is that, as usual, he is being attacked from the left and from the right for different reasons. To take another example, the right hate his wobbly climbdown on welfare reform and the left hate that he proposed it in the first place. Some of that is because he is a political klutz, but some of it is the times we live in. (Much the same could be said of Sunak.)
So the lefty critique of Starmer on Mandygate is simple. Mandelson was so obviously a wrongun that he should never have got anywhere near the job. End of story. If SKS cravenly bowed to McSweeney, so much the worse.
Most people on the right aren't quite brazen enough to join in- the vibe at the time was "edgy, but this is worth a try". To criticise Starmer from the right, you need something messier. I think you have to believe that the government knew that Mandelson was much worse than we all knew, and that Starmer knew that and had the gory details supressed and hence lied to Parliament. That has the advantage that it means some vengence on behalf of St Boris the Martyr, which some find emotionally satisfying even if it exaggerates Starmer's role in Johnson's downfall.
We don't entirely want to believe that the Civil Service and the vetting process can be so dismally rubbish, but given everything else we know, it seems pretty likely.
None of this actually matters, though; once enough of the relevant people have had enough of a Prime Minister, they go, whether that's fair or not.
I watched Cat Little's testimony, and enjoyed it, but it's clear that even on the security committee most of the MPs aren't up to cross-examining someone. The number of pointless questions asking Little to opine on someone's decision-making or other matters that it was clear she wouldn't be able to answer. The Conservatives tried to lean on Case saying the appointment should have been post-vetting but they'd already had testimony from other CS that appointment, vetting then taking up post is acceptable. Whittingdale, senior MP, former select committee chair and minister, even managed to accidentally stiff Robbins, getting Little to confirm that the UKSV summary report had gone to the FO, that Robbins had not kept a record of his briefing and that keeping accurate records is in the CS code. It wasn't clear that he even realised what he'd done.
Given the current list of la la land Green proposals I expect the Green vote share will implode under the glare of a GE campaign .
It’s a free hit at the moment but seriously Zack big boobs Polanski as next PM !
For more than a generation the Labour vote has been supported by the argument that only Labour can defeat the Tories. It's extremely dangerous for Labour to be behind the Greens - which they aren't yet on the average of all the opinion polls, but it's getting closer.
If they do fall behind the Greens then the Labour vote could collapse, because it will then be only the Greens who can defeat the Tories and Reform.
Labour need to provide the voters with a story that gives people a reason to vote for Labour. They are failing very badly at that at the moment and so voters are looking elsewhere.
Robbins refused to co-operate with the humble address.
How is it that UKSV were happy to pass the documents to Little if as Robbins maintained there were strict rules stopping him from doing this .
And you’re allowed to pass them across for exceptional circumstances. He seemed to ignore the Mandelson drama and sat on his hands whilst the PM was giving interview after interview .
Commentators seem to want to conflate two separate issues and ignore what the evidence so far has supported. Starmer did not lie to the Commons and Robbins was very uncooperative.
No one disputes Starmer made a disastrous mistake in appointing Mandelson but the matter at hand is if he lied to the commons .
My guess is that Robbins cocked up and tried to bury it.
He assumed the vetting was a pointless formality anyway given Mandelson already appointed and was previously a minister and overruled the UKSV assuming no one would ever know.
Then when it all went wrong he tried to argue the report was too confidential for anyone to see.
Based on today's evidence, it's more than a guess that Robbins tried to bury it. It's a fact that he buried the evidence and fought tooth and nail to try and prevent the Cabinet Secretary from digging it up in the wake of a parliamentary vote that required its revelation. That much is established, because the Cabinet Secretary would not be so foolish to invent the existence of a ficticious audit trail when the documentary evidence to back her up will shortly come out in the Humble Address process. The only guess is to his motive, but that's not a difficult one. London Rules, cover your arse.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
Part of Starmer's problem is that, as usual, he is being attacked from the left and from the right for different reasons. To take another example, the right hate his wobbly climbdown on welfare reform and the left hate that he proposed it in the first place. Some of that is because he is a political klutz, but some of it is the times we live in. (Much the same could be said of Sunak.)
So the lefty critique of Starmer on Mandygate is simple. Mandelson was so obviously a wrongun that he should never have got anywhere near the job. End of story. If SKS cravenly bowed to McSweeney, so much the worse.
Most people on the right aren't quite brazen enough to join in- the vibe at the time was "edgy, but this is worth a try". To criticise Starmer from the right, you need something messier. I think you have to believe that the government knew that Mandelson was much worse than we all knew, and that Starmer knew that and had the gory details supressed and hence lied to Parliament. That has the advantage that it means some vengence on behalf of St Boris the Martyr, which some find emotionally satisfying even if it exaggerates Starmer's role in Johnson's downfall.
We don't entirely want to believe that the Civil Service and the vetting process can be so dismally rubbish, but given everything else we know, it seems pretty likely.
None of this actually matters, though; once enough of the relevant people have had enough of a Prime Minister, they go, whether that's fair or not.
I watched Cat Little's testimony, and enjoyed it, but it's clear that even on the security committee most of the MPs aren't up to cross-examining someone. The number of pointless questions asking Little to opine on someone's decision-making or other matters that it was clear she wouldn't be able to answer. The Conservatives tried to lean on Case saying the appointment should have been post-vetting but they'd already had testimony from other CS that appointment, vetting then taking up post is acceptable. Whittingdale, senior MP, former select committee chair and minister, even managed to accidentally stiff Robbins, getting Little to confirm that the UKSV summary report had gone to the FO, that Robbins had not kept a record of his briefing and that keeping accurate records is in the CS code. It wasn't clear that he even realised what he'd done.
A couple of interesting little bits of news from the Ukraine War.
Ukraine has deployed an AN-28 transport aircraft modified to launch interceptor drones. I guess this allows the drones to defend a larger area as they can be flown by the AN-28 to where the Shaheds are approaching from and don't have to use fuel climbing from the ground.
Satellite imagery of the Tuapse oil refinery that has been hit repeatedly by multiple waves of Ukrainian drones, and has been burning for several days with enormous fires shows that there are still lots of storage tanks apparently undamaged on the site. It takes a lot to fully destroy such large sites.
Trump: That's where Martin Luther King gave his great speech, and he had a million people and I had the same exact crowd, maybe a little bit more. I have pictures of Martin Luther King’s crowd, the exact same, everything, but it was 70 years difference. The exact same crowd, but I actually had more people
How fitting that, to mark the 250th anniversary of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, their current head of state is descending into a similar mental state as ours back then.
Goodness knows what state of mania he'll have reached come 4th July.
"The Madness of President Trump".... the sequel to "The Madness of King George".
Given the current list of la la land Green proposals I expect the Green vote share will implode under the glare of a GE campaign .
It’s a free hit at the moment but seriously Zack big boobs Polanski as next PM !
For more than a generation the Labour vote has been supported by the argument that only Labour can defeat the Tories. It's extremely dangerous for Labour to be behind the Greens - which they aren't yet on the average of all the opinion polls, but it's getting closer.
If they do fall behind the Greens then the Labour vote could collapse, because it will then be only the Greens who can defeat the Tories and Reform.
Labour need to provide the voters with a story that gives people a reason to vote for Labour. They are failing very badly at that at the moment and so voters are looking elsewhere.
The choice of next Labour leader will be critical to that story. Rayner or even Miliband will give Labour a fighting chance of clawing back some of that vote lost to the Greens, but Streeting or Mahmood will not. It matters little that Streeting and Mahmood are better regarded by right wing voters who regardless of that would never vote Labour in a month of Sundays.
Would Reform give the SNP another referendum on independence in exchange for the SNP only voting on legislation that impacted Scotland? Would give Reform a comfortable majority on all non-Scottish bills...
No as a Reform caving to the SNP would destroy the party and make Farage look pathetically weak when Tory support would be enough for a Reform majority. Jenrick would almost certainly launch an immediate leadership challenge to Farage if he did that
Would Reform give the SNP another referendum on independence in exchange for the SNP only voting on legislation that impacted Scotland? Would give Reform a comfortable majority on all non-Scottish bills...
No as a Reform caving to the SNP would destroy the party and make Farage look pathetically weak when Tory support would be enough for a Reform majority. Jenrick would almost certainly launch an immediate leadership challenge to Farage if he did that
Reform's constitution allows for a leadership challenge to Farage? Are you sure? And besides, surely any errant questioning the Leader's authority would get suspended long before that happened. cf. Rupert Lowe.
Comments
If you get w3w slightly wrong, you could be out by thousands of miles.
Some men who have come into this country on work visas have committed rape. Should we ban work visas for men? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Some men who have come into this country on diplomatic visas have committed rape. Should we ban male diplomats? Or do you not view the additional rapists in our population as any big deal then?
Where does this argument end? Some men rape. We should as a society try much harder than we currently do to stop that, and to catch, prosecute and punish those who do. But to cast all men as a danger, without any other evidence, is absurd.
Chucking every asylum seeker out of the country would not have some huge effect on the number of rapes. Reducing the very long delays before cases come to court would be one of many better ways to do something useful about the sexual violence women face too often.
Every time this subject comes up one of the statements trotted out is that it is only a small minority of men who rape.
Really? This is frankly bollocks. Every single woman I know - every single one - has been sexually assaulted in some way, up to and including rape, usually more than once. The vast majority are not reported. Because nothing will be done. If women reported every single assault by men, the queues to do so would stretch to the moon and back and the courts would be dealing with nothing else for years. It is not a few very busy men doing all this. It is a hell of a lot of men, in all classes, trades, professions, some very respectable, of all ages, and many of them with lots of friends and colleagues with no idea how their friend behaves sometimes.
Until men accept that they as a class are an absolute menace to women and do something about reining in this male propensity, nothing will improve. Yes I know it is not all men and that there are lots of decent men around. Well it wasn't all bankers either or all policemen and there are lots of decent bankers, policemen etc around but the culture and behaviour still had to bloody change. Men's demands need to be controlled not indulged. Comforting tales about not all men stops the necessary self-examination and self-control and enforcement of the necessary restraints and boundaries.
Or we can have a society where women are treated like pieces of meat.
See also the case of one Alan Baker charged today with sexual assault of a woman. He is a convicted murderer who stabbed his victim 13 times. I will leave you to find out the circumstances enabling him to do what is alleged.
Chesterton's Fence applies: don't remove the fences until you understand why they were erected. We have been so busy gleefully demolishing fences we've ignored those protected by them and now wonder why those same vulnerable people, almost invariably women and children, are being hurt.
FYI the OS Locate app is now part of the main OS app. Even if you mess up the numbers MR/Police will work it out.
Suppose you are mountain rescue for North Wales. A call comes in with a w3w location, but there's an error in it, and so it gives you a location in Swindon. You immediately know there's an error, so you go back and a correction is obtained.
If the error only puts you out by a few hundred metres then you won't know it is wrong, but if the visibility is bad you will struggle to find the person you are looking for.
Entering the country irregularly and *not* claiming asylum is against the rules, but I didn’t describe someone in that situation. Entering the country on a visa and then remaining when the visa is no longer valid is against the rules, but I didn’t describe that scenario either.
Not all men are bastards who only want one thing no matter what, but enough are for it to be a problem.
(As opposed to eg motoring offences or drug possession.)
In the USA Palantir has the specific job of joining up health, tax, driving and other databases for the purpose of finding people to deport. There has been discussion of doing the same here. It is what Palantir wants (and I do have concerns that they will use those databases also to influence elections etc) and why Palantir is so against our data protection laws.
Maybe that is what people want, to live in a panopticon controlled by a wannabe Bond villain, but we should at least debate the pros and cons.
Ask yourself this question
Do you want to be rich?
If Britain as a whole were serious about being sustainably richer for years to come, we'd do things differently. Planning and building is a hefty chunk of it, but there are others. Given how unpopular those things are, especially if they involve Change, I can't shake the suspicion that a fair bit of the electorate don't feel any pressure to get the economy moving. Protecting the view from their kitchen window is more important.
Of the 1,375 successful applications for access to UK Biobank data, 265 came from China, or almost 20%,
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/apr/15/revealed-chinese-researchers-access-half-a-million-uk-gp-records
They didn't steal, they asked nicely, promised not to share it among other people in China, and we gave it to them. And now somebody is cashing in on, but it will have already been much more widely shared than the 250 odd organisations who were given the data officially.
And based on that, and the way Little contradicted his other key claims, I wouldn't now be inclined to believe a single word of what else Sir Humphrey Robbins claimed happened in a process he said was conveniently all off the record.
I actually have some sympathy for Starmer on this. He made what turned out to be a disasterous decision to appoint Mandelson, expediting the process to get him in place in time for the inaugeration. But that much we knew months ago. A bad decision, but when Badenoch calls for his resignation now, it's worth remembering that she didn't criticise the decision at the time. The only point of real substance that we've learned since is that the outcome of an independent vetting process, which might have caused Starmer to reconsider the appointment, was withheld from Starmer exactly as he said it had been.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-44207104
Other reports say the way the data is collated means it can include cautions and non convictions.
Regardless, given the low chance of getting caught, it suggests that most men commit crime at some point in their lifetime even if they end up mostly on the straight and narrow.
https://x.com/patrickchristys/status/2047401724831261168?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
In summary Little has an audit trail, Robbins has no audit trail, the audit trail contradicts key parts of Robbins's testimony.
Also noted that Thornberry was very forensic and Whittingdale a bit of a buffoon (though an adonis, you can see why attractive younger women want to date him, up there with George Clooney and David Mellor).
Thornberry questions
15 minutes in, Little says she has no record of any verbal discussion but she has email trail that FO asked whether they could skip DV for Mandelson, they are told it's FO decision but DV is advised. - contradicts Robbins unsubstantiated testimony
20 minutes in, FO can request all UKSV info, audit trail UKSV sent ~10 page summary of conclusions to FO - in making his decision Robbins had access to this, even if he chose not to read it.
22 minutes post Mandy firing, 15/9 FO request docs related to the UKSV vetting, these are supplied same day
23 minutes Thornberry returns to Robbins testimony in which he says he requested but was denied access to the vetting files - no record of that 30 minutes Robbins refused to give Little vetting summary or any audit trail around the decision-making.
32 minutes Little has minutes and 3 PS as witnesses of the refusal. Little obtained the summary from UKSV
Whittingdale quesitons
41 minutes Whittingdale tries to get her to agree that vetting should have been done before appointment, Little avoids, evidence previously given to the committee.
42 minutes Little confirms 10 page summary provided to FO would have included the "traffic lights"
43 minutes Whittingdale unwittingly f**ks Robbins. "Summary contains traffic lights but Sir Ollie Robbins gave testimony that he was told it was 'leaning'. Those two things don;t equate" Little "I can only confirm what I have seen" "What is fundamental and relevant to my exercises is whether I've been able to see and gather all the relevant material" No record of Robbins discussion about vetting recommendation being borderline.
46 minutes Whittingdale making stuff up to try and get Robbins off the hook.
47 minutes Little only knew UKSV conclusion on 25th March, looking uncomfortable about delay in informing Starmer.
Thornberry again
50 minutes ET tricks LIttle into confirming both red boxes were ticked on UKSV summary
55 minutes Put to Little that it is normal for UKSV recommendations to only be shared verbally. Little flatly contradicts that, recommendations are shared by a secure portal (in writing).
58 minutes LIttle asked if she would expect there to be a note of Robbins meeting. Basically yes, civil service code requires us to take accurate notes.
Bill Kristol reposted
Acyn
@Acyn
Trump: That's where Martin Luther King gave his great speech, and he had a million people and I had the same exact crowd, maybe a little bit more. I have pictures of Martin Luther King’s crowd, the exact same, everything, but it was 70 years difference. The exact same crowd, but I actually had more people
https://x.com/Acyn/status/2047403753960329311
There’s little loyalty owed to a PM who shows so little interest in MPs — which is why a planned exit now looks likely
https://www.thetimes.com/article/8d388f0a-08b1-4855-b62b-f3a07118a5e1
You can greatly restrict who can access the data, but then less research is done with the data, which was the whole point of collecting it.
This romantic hotel is about 20 km from London Gatwick airport and 6 km from such cultural venues as the Horsham Museum and Art Gallery. The Cisswood House is also in proximity to Leonardslee Lakes and Gardens in Horsham. The Huxley's Experience visitor attraction is nearly 10 minutes away by car. The nearest bus stop is Prongers Corner approximately 100 metres away.
This accommodation has 51 rooms appointed with a television, as well as self-catering options such as tea/coffee making equipment. A trouser press are featured for guests' comfort.
https://cisswood-house.westsussexhotel.com/en/
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8062/
George Osborne promised the country that with austerity we were all in it together and that didn't turn out to be true. We need that sense of the country being a common endeavour in order to be prepared to sacrifice the view out of the kitchen window for our collective prosperity.
You get the backs up of a huge number of men such as myself - and I would venture a great number of other men on here - who never have and never would commit a sexual crime. Women need to be joined by male voices telling that subset of men who have or could commit sexual crimes that their actions are not in any way acceptable. Let's face it, the subset of misogynistic arseholes aren't by their nature going to listen to women.
I would also point out that we already have this rule. It’s not absolute, but a sentence of more than 1 year usually, I believe, leads to an asylum visa being revoked, as would multiple smaller offences.
This is like when someone said people should only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard… when the current rule is that people can only get citizenship if their English is of an A’level standard.
Perhaps if they'd have admitted it were to be public they would have had a harder time recruiting 500000 participants, but I think it could have been done.
There is a real problem of rape culture amongst men, and also a culture of denial about it because it is so normalised.
But I also know of cases of researchers playing fast and loose with the rules on data.
So the lefty critique of Starmer on Mandygate is simple. Mandelson was so obviously a wrongun that he should never have got anywhere near the job. End of story. If SKS cravenly bowed to McSweeney, so much the worse.
Most people on the right aren't quite brazen enough to join in- the vibe at the time was "edgy, but this is worth a try". To criticise Starmer from the right, you need something messier. I think you have to believe that the government knew that Mandelson was much worse than we all knew, and that Starmer knew that and had the gory details supressed and hence lied to Parliament. That has the advantage that it means some vengence on behalf of St Boris the Martyr, which some find emotionally satisfying even if it exaggerates Starmer's role in Johnson's downfall.
We don't entirely want to believe that the Civil Service and the vetting process can be so dismally rubbish, but given everything else we know, it seems pretty likely.
None of this actually matters, though; once enough of the relevant people have had enough of a Prime Minister, they go, whether that's fair or not.
Seat projection for the Survation poll commissioned by Ballot Box Scotland:
- SNP 57
- Reform 21
- Lab 18
- Tory 13
- Green 11
- LD 9
https://x.com/paulhutcheon/status/2047224054252294455?s=20
An investigation into a rape outside a church in Epsom has been closed after police concluded "no sexual offence had occurred".
Surrey Police said following its "thorough investigation" into the incident, which sparked protests and public disorder in the town, they now believe the woman concerned "sustained an accidental head injury" following a night out and made "a confused report".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86ezy3qvjno
People have their human rights infringed all the time when they are sentenced to prison time and you don't hear of many appeals against a prison sentence being successful because they infringed on someone's human rights. Yet when it comes to deportation it seems much harder for society to enforce the punishment that has been codified in law.
I'm not sure why that is different.
NEW: Police Scotland say a 38 year old prisoner has been arrested and charged after a sexual assault on a woman within HMP Greenock.
@SkyNews understands the alleged offender is a transgender inmate who was born male & now identifies as female.
https://x.com/connorgillies/status/2047391376774496482?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
FFS.
What was long suspected is now proven.
Attorney General Hermer has been part of a group of ideologically-motivated, government-embedded, Human Rights lawyers that have acted in a vexatious and biased way to persecute British soldiers, not because they broke the law, but to serve some twisted anti-military, anti-British agenda.
They, their greed (the made a lot of money doing it), and their crippling ideology, have deliberately misapplied the 1988 UK Human Rights Act to British military operations in ways that not only create a never-ending conveyor belt of Veteran persecutions but also fundamentally undermine Britain’s ability to wage war and thereby defend itself.
https://x.com/williams_rje/status/2047384887078826227?s=20
Poor bastards.
Macdonald was only expelled after forming a National government with the Tories and Liberals, Macdonald remained PM
I note too that the men convicted of these raped had already had their asylum claims refused.
POLL | Reform lead by 4pts
➡️ Ref: 25% (-1)
🟢 Grn: 21% (+1)
🔵 Con: 16% (-1)
🔴 Lab: 15% (-1)
🟠 Lib: 11% (-1)
– Seats –
➡️ Ref: 317
🟢 Grn: 129
🟠 Lib: 77
🟡 SNP: 47
🔵 Con: 35
🏴 Plaid: 10
🔴 Lab: 9
Poll:
@FindOutNowUK
, 22-23 Apr (+/- vs 15 Apr)
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/2047380240658289078?s=20
One thing that we know from child sexual abuse is that the perpetrators are often within the family. Since victims of child sexual abuse are unlikely to all have the same dodgy uncle, this suggests that abusers are well-spread across the population.
I would suggest it is likely this is also true for the perpetrators of sexual abuse of adults.
London Stock Exchange bomb plotter was allowed to stay in UK
A terrorist denied asylum was granted leave to remain in Britain on human rights grounds, a court ruling reveals
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/london-stock-exchange-bomb-plotter-allowed-stay-uk-zh952mps5
Given the current list of la la land Green proposals I expect the Green vote share will implode under the glare of a GE campaign .
It’s a free hit at the moment but seriously Zack big boobs Polanski as next PM !
The number of pointless questions asking Little to opine on someone's decision-making or other matters that it was clear she wouldn't be able to answer. The Conservatives tried to lean on Case saying the appointment should have been post-vetting but they'd already had testimony from other CS that appointment, vetting then taking up post is acceptable.
Whittingdale, senior MP, former select committee chair and minister, even managed to accidentally stiff Robbins, getting Little to confirm that the UKSV summary report had gone to the FO, that Robbins had not kept a record of his briefing and that keeping accurate records is in the CS code. It wasn't clear that he even realised what he'd done.
Tomorrow's front page: Migrant rapist was on run for murder
thesun.co.uk/news/38912433/…
https://x.com/thesun/status/2047421942399926556?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
If they do fall behind the Greens then the Labour vote could collapse, because it will then be only the Greens who can defeat the Tories and Reform.
Labour need to provide the voters with a story that gives people a reason to vote for Labour. They are failing very badly at that at the moment and so voters are looking elsewhere.
Ukraine has deployed an AN-28 transport aircraft modified to launch interceptor drones. I guess this allows the drones to defend a larger area as they can be flown by the AN-28 to where the Shaheds are approaching from and don't have to use fuel climbing from the ground.
Satellite imagery of the Tuapse oil refinery that has been hit repeatedly by multiple waves of Ukrainian drones, and has been burning for several days with enormous fires shows that there are still lots of storage tanks apparently undamaged on the site. It takes a lot to fully destroy such large sites.
Goodness knows what state of mania he'll have reached come 4th July.
"The Madness of President Trump".... the sequel to "The Madness of King George".