How many shops on your high street are linked to organised crime? How many shops linked to crime gangs are sponsoring visas?
We don't know.
So I've written to the Home Office and asked for the full facts on how high street shops are enabling gang crime and immigration fraud.
Surely if the Home Office knew about it, they would be fixing it.
Round here Trading standards are complaining that they are doing much of the work but don't have and aren't getting the money to pay for the work they do.
Referee has been awful, Paraguay are lucky Germany don't have a Keane type fouler or his leg would have been snapped in half there. Germany absolutely fucked off and rightly so
How many shops on your high street are linked to organised crime? How many shops linked to crime gangs are sponsoring visas?
We don't know.
So I've written to the Home Office and asked for the full facts on how high street shops are enabling gang crime and immigration fraud.
Surely if the Home Office knew about it, they would be fixing it.
Round here Trading standards are complaining that they are doing much of the work but don't have and aren't getting the money to pay for the work they do.
Assuming the Home Office want to take action and haven't been content to turn a blind eye so long as firms were paying Rates etc until the media rose a stink.
How many shops on your high street are linked to organised crime? How many shops linked to crime gangs are sponsoring visas?
We don't know.
So I've written to the Home Office and asked for the full facts on how high street shops are enabling gang crime and immigration fraud.
Surely if the Home Office knew about it, they would be fixing it.
Round here Trading standards are complaining that they are doing much of the work but don't have and aren't getting the money to pay for the work they do.
Assuming the Home Office want to take action and haven't been content to turn a blind eye so long as firms were paying Rates etc until the media rose a stink.
There ought to be a cross-department quick-response system for burgeoning scams/grifts.
Though perhaps too many loopholes need legislation to close, and legislation grinds slow.
Early reports indicate that Ukrainian businessman Vadim Ermolaev, who was sanctioned earlier in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War for his ties to Russia through his business in occupied-Crimea, may have been the target of the bombing in Monaco earlier.
Ermolaev was an oligarch who fell out with Z, lost Ukrainian citizenship and became Cypriot.
At least it was in Monaco so not an act of terrorism by Ukraine on NATO territory!
Every single major broadcast news bulletin, BBC, ITV, Sky GBN, I could go on, has led with Andy Burnham's key messages - the decision not to take questions totally vindicated as millions have seen his message and not the usual Punch and Judy show about "who will be Chancellor..." Really important learnings.
Exactly as I said earlier when many on here were saying why is he not taking questions. Make them report on the bloody speech itself.
Not sure I'm keen on the precedent being set here. Doesn't it give another would-be Prime Minister cover to continue avoiding a big question... a question worth five million pounds, one might say.
Italy won the World Cup in 2006, Spain in 2010 and Germany in 2014. Since winning the tournament, between them they’ve won zero knockout games at the World Cup
Italy won the World Cup in 2006, Spain in 2010 and Germany in 2014. Since winning the tournament, between them they’ve won zero knockout games at the World Cup
Suspect Spain are going to sort that out this time
A serious question for you: do you really believe a non-negligible number of non-citizens vote in US elections? If so, how are they able to avoid detection? And if not, what's the rationale for imposing draconian measures?
I think the answer is that we don’t know, but also that many states are utterly ambivalent to the issue, for example by having identical drivers’ licences for citizens and non-citizens but allowing the DL to be used for voter registration.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
Really? Sounds more like he will do a weekly commute to London, stopping over for 3-4 nights, as thousands do.
Which could be a nightmare for those thousands, if the PM is regularly taking up a whole 1st class carriage on a train, with attendant security operation at either end of the route. If it becomes predictable, then the security will have to be even tighter.
There will be a serious conflict between the desire to be a man of the people, and the wishes of those who are paid to ensure his safety.
Legendary pharma industry commentator Derek Lowe says "the Trump administration is trying to destroy federally-funded research in the US as we know it and replace it with cronyism and worse."
And who's not speaking up about it? The CEOs of major biopharma companies.
Lowe calls this "odd," apparently using the word the same way I do. (It translates to "batshit crazy.")
He points out: "(1) the great majority of the employees at these companies came through that exact funding system at some point in their careers, and (2) since the industry depends on the basic science research funded this way to make its own advances in applied and clinical applications."
He’s right. But it is no individual company’s interest to stand up to a corrupt president
Big Pharma are really pissed (American usage) that Trump and Kennedy have no interest in their intense lobbying and special pleading, which has worked for decades until now.
Obviously, in today's modern world, there's no requirement for the Prime Minister to live above their workplace.
If Andy Burnham wants to live in Manchester or Penzance or Stornaway, that shouldn't be any kind of impediment to being able to do the job.
I mean, the King and Queen aren't going to live in Buckingham Palace but use Clarence House and no one seems that bothered. We need to get out of the 20th century mindset of associating places with roles - the world has changed.
Clarence House is a few minutes walk from Buckingham Palace, Manchester is the other side of the country from Downing St
if you lot had not balls up HS2 it would have been a heap closer, your comments about distance being a barrier to effective working highlights just how awful a decision that was
HS2 was never about speed.
It was always about speed, that’s why it’s costing so much money.
Nope its costing so much money because no Tory PM was brave enough to tell Cheryl Gillan No - so most of the money has been spent on tunnels through the Chilterns that require air vents that are more visible than the tracks would have been.
Surely if it hadn't been tunneled underground Natural England would have insisted on 30 miles of bat canopy anyway?
At this point it would probably have been cheaper to dig a tunnel all the way from London to Birmingham.
Technically the PM sometimes lives at Number 11, whose flat is larger. But do they mean Burnham will not even work at Number 10 and will remain in its northern outpost?
He will work at his new Northern Number 10 at least one day a week apparently and will spend every night in Manchester not No 10
Really? Sounds more like he will do a weekly commute to London, stopping over for 3-4 nights, as thousands do.
Which could be a nightmare for those thousands, if the PM is regularly taking up a whole 1st class carriage on a train, with attendant security operation at either end of the route. If it becomes predictable, then the security will have to be even tighter.
There will be a serious conflict between the desire to be a man of the people, and the wishes of those who are paid to ensure his safety.
Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.
FFS.
Focus on something important for a change.
quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.
But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government
The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
Only because you are defining it based on the capital and not based on their primary city.
Washington DC is a tertiary city compared to New York, Los Angeles etc Canberra is a tertiary city compared to Sydney and Melbourne. Ottowa is a tertiary city compared to Toronto, Vancouver etc
Actually separating the capital/seat of government from the primary cities which can concentrate on finance and other issues without government being there is quite common across the first world. Move government wholesale out of London.
No, government is a curse not a benefit, in this area as in so much else.
The last thing the already state-dominated north needs is more freeloaders and parasites.
In some parts of the north 70-80% of the GDP is state spending, compared to around a third in London, last time I looked.
London can just about absorb the crowding out that you get with a large central government machine. But the extra resources which a far too big government uses would cripple a smaller city, crowding out productive industries.
The north's feeble and stunted private sector needs to be allowed to flourish, or at least show signs of life. It needs much less state spending, not more.
Pay for public sector workers and public sector benefits should be scaled regionally, much more than is currently the case. Hopeless towns where most are on welfare should be allowed to wither away, and their residents should move to where the work is, or "get on their bikes" as a very wise man once put it. Planning should be deregulated nationally, but much more in poorer regions. Regional aid should be ended, as should all rewards for failure rather than success.
The poorer parts of the country will only flourish by enabling whatever spirit of enterprise has survived a century of the welfare state to thrive - not by dumping yet more public sector spending on it to soak up the most productive and enterprising people and other resources.
She was High Sheriff and a Deputy Lord Lieutenant of Surrey in the early 2000s.
There are a *lot* of Deputy Lord Lieutenants. Had to look up who was our local Lord Lieutenant as he is visiting our charity today with his Deputy. When I looked up Deputy Lord Lieutenant couldn't believe how many they are for the county. Even our small town (>6,000) has one. There must be some sort of racket in giving out medals and titles left, right and centre.
Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.
FFS.
Focus on something important for a change.
quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.
But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government
The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
Meaningless.
Ottowa, Cambera, Washington and many other (English speaking) political centres are not in the largest city.
Massive change, you call it chaos, is required to fix a country that is broken unless you are fortunate enough to benefit from the benefits of zone 1 in London.
I didn't say the largest city, I said the Capital. If you want to move the capital be honest about it. Demote London and see what that does for Labour's support.
Move all the embassies - they need to be near the seat of power. Move all the massive infrastructure and the tens of thousands of people who work directly for the Government. Destroy the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands whose jobs rely on proximity to Government. Then spend decades trying to rebuild it all elsewhere.
It really is one of the dumbest moves I have heard of in years. And yes it will cause utter chaos and immobilise the work of Government for years, if not decades.
I'm not too worried about it because, unlike some of our slightly more excitable regulars, it will simply be a few more cabinet meetings in Manchester and an office. Nothing more. Because nothing more could work for the reasons you say.
Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.
FFS.
Focus on something important for a change.
quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.
But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government
The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
Only because you are defining it based on the capital and not based on their primary city.
Washington DC is a tertiary city compared to New York, Los Angeles etc Canberra is a tertiary city compared to Sydney and Melbourne. Ottowa is a tertiary city compared to Toronto, Vancouver etc
Actually separating the capital/seat of government from the primary cities which can concentrate on finance and other issues without government being there is quite common across the first world. Move government wholesale out of London.
Like I said an idiotic idea that will set back both governance and the economy in this country for decades. Don't get me wrong, I detest London and do everything I can to avoid going anywhere near it. But tghis is a truly stupid and self harming idea.
Tell me what infrastructure we have had approved by London up here in the past couple of decades?
London keeps getting new train lines. Crossrail, HS2 etc
Have we had any new train lines? Any new motorways? Anything?
The Civil Servants who make the decisions don't give a shit beyond London. Kick them out of the city and see how soon they wake up.
You call that setting things back? I can live with that.
Developed countries with successful cities and separate capitals tend to work very well, not badly.
This isn't true. HS2 was for the North, and there's the Transpennine Upgrade Programme and before that the West Coast Mainline Upgrade.
Northern Rail does get the shitty stick, and that needs to change, but let's not pretend that no-one cares.
Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.
FFS.
Focus on something important for a change.
quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.
But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government
The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
Meaningless.
Ottowa, Cambera, Washington and many other (English speaking) political centres are not in the largest city.
Massive change, you call it chaos, is required to fix a country that is broken unless you are fortunate enough to benefit from the benefits of zone 1 in London.
I didn't say the largest city, I said the Capital. If you want to move the capital be honest about it. Demote London and see what that does for Labour's support.
Move all the embassies - they need to be near the seat of power. Move all the massive infrastructure and the tens of thousands of people who work directly for the Government. Destroy the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands whose jobs rely on proximity to Government. Then spend decades trying to rebuild it all elsewhere.
It really is one of the dumbest moves I have heard of in years. And yes it will cause utter chaos and immobilise the work of Government for years, if not decades.
no one is suggesting the capital should more
people are suggesting the decision makers move
suggest you look at the rest of the world and see just how easy the rest of theplanet manages not to be totally controlled in every way by the largest city in their countries
no chaos required, just sensible governance in an adult way that trusts people to make decisions locally and not be dictated to from Whitehall
I am.
I have long suggested that.
We overburden everything into London.
It would be good for London to be able to be less overheated and concentrate on what it does well without government, and good for the rest of the nation to not have everything drawn into London.
Get government completely out of London. Build a new capital in the North as a new city, Canberra-style, and turn Westminster into a museum.
London is economically underheated. It could be much more productive if we got rid of social housing in prime areas.
Wouldn't worry about that. London Councils are shipping their homeless to other cheaper parts of the UK. You've got your wish due to the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017
Jeez. Already the media hyena pack are now off on one wondering out loud how many nights Burnham will sleep at No 10 and how many at home in the North and so on.
FFS.
Focus on something important for a change.
quite astute from burnham, get the meeja interested in frivolous stuff and not policy
It's one thing wanting this to happen, but realistically is there long enough left of this term to put it into practice? It's surely quite a big project, duplicating No 10? Suitable property to buy or build, for one thing.
House of Commons is falling apart anyway and needs a big refurb. Other countries manage having power spread out across different locations. Plus it will be a hugely visible change. It really is quite amusing watching all London elite getting vapours at the idea we might try something different
Closing Westminstrr for 5-10 years and moving Parliament to Manchester for the duration is an excellent idea.
Closing Westminster and moving Parliament elsewhere is a brilliant idea fullstop.
But unless you move Westminster to the NEC it's got to be a permanent move..
A permanent move is a truly stupid idea. It will cost vast billions and achieve nothing
Unless you really wanted to break the Westminster stranglehold on all things in this country.
Still a stupid idea. All you do is cause chaos in Government
The only first world country that has their seat of Government elsewhere than their capital is the Netherlands. And the distance from The Hague to Amsterdam? 37 miles. Almost exactly the same distance as from one side of Greater London to the other.
Only because you are defining it based on the capital and not based on their primary city.
Washington DC is a tertiary city compared to New York, Los Angeles etc Canberra is a tertiary city compared to Sydney and Melbourne. Ottowa is a tertiary city compared to Toronto, Vancouver etc
Actually separating the capital/seat of government from the primary cities which can concentrate on finance and other issues without government being there is quite common across the first world. Move government wholesale out of London.
Like I said an idiotic idea that will set back both governance and the economy in this country for decades. Don't get me wrong, I detest London and do everything I can to avoid going anywhere near it. But tghis is a truly stupid and self harming idea.
Tell me what infrastructure we have had approved by London up here in the past couple of decades?
London keeps getting new train lines. Crossrail, HS2 etc
Have we had any new train lines? Any new motorways? Anything?
The Civil Servants who make the decisions don't give a shit beyond London. Kick them out of the city and see how soon they wake up.
You call that setting things back? I can live with that.
Developed countries with successful cities and separate capitals tend to work very well, not badly.
This isn't true. HS2 was for the North, and there's the Transpennine Upgrade Programme and before that the West Coast Mainline Upgrade.
Northern Rail does get the shitty stick, and that needs to change, but let's not pretend that no-one cares.
Comments
This is the coastal town
That they forgot to close down
Come, Armageddon, come
Round here Trading standards are complaining that they are doing much of the work but don't have and aren't getting the money to pay for the work they do.
Though perhaps too many loopholes need legislation to close, and legislation grinds slow.
At least it was in Monaco so not an act of terrorism by Ukraine on NATO territory!
Paraguay!
France
What a day it was to be alive.
I was told she was in the running for GM mayoral candidate
This is up there with our 5-1 win over them in 2001.
Enjoy
There will be a serious conflict between the desire to be a man of the people, and the wishes of those who are paid to ensure his safety.
NEW THREAD
The last thing the already state-dominated north needs is more freeloaders and parasites.
In some parts of the north 70-80% of the GDP is state spending, compared to around a third in London, last time I looked.
London can just about absorb the crowding out that you get with a large central government machine. But the extra resources which a far too big government uses would cripple a smaller city, crowding out productive industries.
The north's feeble and stunted private sector needs to be allowed to flourish, or at least show signs of life. It needs much less state spending, not more.
Pay for public sector workers and public sector benefits should be scaled regionally, much more than is currently the case. Hopeless towns where most are on welfare should be allowed to wither away, and their residents should move to where the work is, or "get on their bikes" as a very wise man once put it. Planning should be deregulated nationally, but much more in poorer regions. Regional aid should be ended, as should all rewards for failure rather than success.
The poorer parts of the country will only flourish by enabling whatever spirit of enterprise has survived a century of the welfare state to thrive - not by dumping yet more public sector spending on it to soak up the most productive and enterprising people and other resources.
This is style over substance.
Northern Rail does get the shitty stick, and that needs to change, but let's not pretend that no-one cares.