If Federov is not reinstated, maybe we should poach him to run our defence procurement ? Or at least the parts of it which supply Ukraine with kit.
Good English speaker but he's been involved in so much shady shit in Ukraine, he'd never (or should never) get a security clearance. In all of the post-Soviet countries, but especially Ukraine, the demarcation between the state, big business and organised crime isn't quite as vivid as those we enjoy na zapade.
Better than the disorganised crime which seems to go on in some of our own military procurement...
"Aberdeen University worker charged over Ann Widdecombe death comments"
(Some suggestion online that the BBC have made an error here, and the charges actually relate to earlier, much more egregious comments by the same individual.)
Just to start an argument and show my age (and yes I did watch the 1966 final and all the England games in that World Cup) I consider the 1970 team to have been the best England team, sadly not as good as the Brazil team and robbed by a ruthless West Germany.
A World Cup that has been quoted as having the 'Goal of the Century' in the final by Brazil and that Bank's save against Brazil earlier in the competition. I can watch that Brazilian goal over and over again for its beauty.
One of my biggest moans about this WC would be the poor quality of the commentators. We really have no-one who can match Kenneth Wolstenholme or (on radio) Bryon Butler, word painters who could do justice to the World Cup's greatest moments. That Brazil goal your refer to is inseparable in my mind with the words, 'sheer, delightful football', which perfectly captured the exuberance of the Brazilian play. And everyone should watch the Maradona second goal of the 1986 QF accompanied by Butler's commentary (which was just so much better than the usual accompaniment from Barry Davies).
You have to say this is a magnificent post. Some dodgy offerings beforehand but there's no doubt about this one.
I take issue with Maradona's second goal (even aside of the clear foul in the build up). England were shell shocked by the awfulness of the handball goal. Still reeling with it. Yes it was a good goal, but no, I don't have to say that's magnificent. He was a cheating little shit.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
"Aberdeen University worker charged over Ann Widdecombe death comments"
(Some suggestion online that the BBC have made an error here, and the charges actually relate to earlier, much more egregious comments by the same individual.)
#pbfreespeech
The earlier alleged comments involved threats to kill. Even in MuhFreeSpeech America, that can be illegal.
As the grim reality of having to watch the "Bronze Final" on Saturday night sinks in and dreams of Bank Holidays and Sir Harry Kane holding the Jules Rimet aloft as the victory parade makes its way slowly down the Mall to the Palace recede into fevered fantasy, we have the usual search for a scapegoat.
Thomas Tuchel is clearly the man picked to carry the weight of our unfulfilled expectations into the wilderness - I mean, we could have had a dodgy VAR decision or a missed penalty or a sending off but this way our "brave lads" can head with reputations unsullied toward the next great disappointment at Euro 28.
That's how it is - always look for someone else to carry the can when we fail rather than ask the searching questions, the difficult questions.
The really hard one being... What if this is as good as we are, roughly as good as we have any right to be? The higher you climb, the harder it gets to find more improvements.
This might be a more generally-applicable principle.
Apart from the Mexico match was there a particularly strong team performance?
One or two moments of brilliance from Bellingham and Kane, perhaps also Pickford, but as a team? I am not convinced.
Fitness is a big issue too. We faded fast while the Argentinians didn't. It isnt fair to blame our EPL schedule either, as most of their team play in the EPL too!
The correct substitution would have been Gordon <-> Alexander-Arnold.
Errr, no.
Saka (if he was no worse off than previously) for Gordon or Rogers.
Didn’t take enough 6’s and 8’s especially as James and Rice brought injury into the tournament.
"Aberdeen University worker charged over Ann Widdecombe death comments"
(Some suggestion online that the BBC have made an error here, and the charges actually relate to earlier, much more egregious comments by the same individual.)
#pbfreespeech
Unless these hurty words are what sent the killer on a 300 mile drive, this does seem like overreach but that ship has sailed.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
Yeah, real easy to get in and out of Gaza I hear.
Hamas murderers seemed to find a way on 7th October.
It'll be three cheers from officials at the Home Office with Mahmood leaving (Seemingly with a promotion) as they will be able to get back to letting everyone in business as usual.
If the boats aren't stopped Labour loses the next election. Simples.
Who else in Labour is going to have a chance at achieving that by 2029?
Problem is I don't think it's possible to stop the boats...
And the boats are just a proxy for the number of people of different colours that people are suddenly noticing - so again the damage has been done.
Surely 'stop the boats' is a terminology wider than the name implies? For example, if all arrivals were put on a plane to Rwanda (or elsewhere) then this would qualify as stopping the boats even though the boats weren't stopped.
It'll be three cheers from officials at the Home Office with Mahmood leaving (Seemingly with a promotion) as they will be able to get back to letting everyone in business as usual.
If the boats aren't stopped Labour loses the next election. Simples.
Who else in Labour is going to have a chance at achieving that by 2029?
Problem is I don't think it's possible to stop the boats...
And the boats are just a proxy for the number of people of different colours that people are suddenly noticing - so again the damage has been done.
Surely 'stop the boats' is a terminology wider than the name implies? For example, if all arrivals were put on a plane to Rwanda (or elsewhere) then this would qualify as stopping the boats even though the boats weren't stopped.
Well, I think the theory is supposed to be that if you send enough people to Rwanda, the boats then do stop.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
"Aberdeen University worker charged over Ann Widdecombe death comments"
(Some suggestion online that the BBC have made an error here, and the charges actually relate to earlier, much more egregious comments by the same individual.)
#pbfreespeech
Social media is not the pub. It also doesn't understand context so sarcasm really doesn't work well online..
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
"Aberdeen University worker charged over Ann Widdecombe death comments"
(Some suggestion online that the BBC have made an error here, and the charges actually relate to earlier, much more egregious comments by the same individual.)
#pbfreespeech
Did this guy and his friends support free speech when running to the Police to complain about people daring to have the wrong opinion on the issue of so called trans-women ?
Including the Linehan arrest.
Free speech does not come without legal consequence.
That is usually what supporters of these people say when they are using the police to harrass gender critical posters.
FPT: It was kind of England to let Argentina win yesterday, And perhaps good diplomacy in the long run, now that Argentina has a reasonably good leader, after so many terrible ones.
It was like giving a cookie to a little boy who has been raising hell, when he finally settles down for a while.
(Of course, whoever in the UK government thought of this ploy deserves some credit, but will never be able to admit it, publicly.)
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
So, if you got married to a German woman who already has a child from another relationship, you don't think you should be allowed to have your German wife and stepchild move to the UK?
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
Yeah, real easy to get in and out of Gaza I hear.
Hamas murderers seemed to find a way on 7th October.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
No, it wouldn’t, yet as a society we just tolerate it and collectively express our disapproval.
So we have ourselves to blame for enabling these people
Lots of people worry about a Reform government. I worry about what happens if this madness continues, and there ISN'T the safety valve of a common sense party getting in....
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
So, if you got married to a German woman who already has a child from another relationship, you don't think you should be allowed to have your German wife and stepchild move to the UK?
You should be able to sponsor your wife, and if you meet the income criteria then yes.
Since the child will be your child too post-marriage, there is no reason why the stepchild could not move either - unless they're an adult, in which case they should apply for their own visa and not be treated as a child.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
Children under 18.
That is it.
Perhaps we should say children under voting age and let Labour decide what number they want for that.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
Yeah, real easy to get in and out of Gaza I hear.
Hamas murderers seemed to find a way on 7th October.
Yeah, but that was a ghettoisation, Hungerplan and g*nocide ago.
It'll be three cheers from officials at the Home Office with Mahmood leaving (Seemingly with a promotion) as they will be able to get back to letting everyone in business as usual.
If the boats aren't stopped Labour loses the next election. Simples.
Who else in Labour is going to have a chance at achieving that by 2029?
Problem is I don't think it's possible to stop the boats...
And the boats are just a proxy for the number of people of different colours that people are suddenly noticing - so again the damage has been done.
Surely 'stop the boats' is a terminology wider than the name implies? For example, if all arrivals were put on a plane to Rwanda (or elsewhere) then this would qualify as stopping the boats even though the boats weren't stopped.
Well, I think the theory is supposed to be that if you send enough people to Rwanda, the boats then do stop.
Worked for Australia's Labor Party.
Within 12 months of the Labor Prime Minister saying everyone who comes in a boat will be sent abroad, no exceptions, and the policy being implemented there were no longer any crossings.
Why bother crossing if you'll just be sent straight abroad, even with a legitimate claim?
FPT: It was kind of England to let Argentina win yesterday, And perhaps good diplomacy in the long run, now that Argentina has a reasonably good leader, after so many terrible ones.
It was like giving a cookie to a little boy who has been raising hell, when he finally settles down for a while.
(Of course, whoever in the UK government thought of this ploy deserves some credit, but will never be able to admit it, publicly.)
Or a German gentleman did it on his own initiative....
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
Which is why we have an independent Judicary so that each individual is treated equally and fairly by the system based on the unique circumtances involved rather than by what ever happens to be currently popular with most people.
When the Nazi's marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Eh, the Korean chip manufacturers have a history of anti-competitive, cartel-like behaviour over NAND and Ram prices. At some point I expect the EU will also get interested - as they did last time.
The memory business has not been one that has -historically- made its cost of capital. Sure, there are years when they make mega profits. But there are also years when they get massacred. That is the nature of a highly capital intensive, commodity, industry with very long lead times between investment and production.
It's a bit different now, though. HBM memory which meets NVidia's specs isn't really commodity, and they are their big tech customers have effectively purchased much of the capacity which otherwise would have produced commodity memory
FPT: It was kind of England to let Argentina win yesterday, And perhaps good diplomacy in the long run, now that Argentina has a reasonably good leader, after so many terrible ones.
It was like giving a cookie to a little boy who has been raising hell, when he finally settles down for a while.
(Of course, whoever in the UK government thought of this ploy deserves some credit, but will never be able to admit it, publicly.)
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
Children under 18.
That is it.
Perhaps we should say children under voting age and let Labour decide what number they want for that.
The way our system has worked, since time immemorial, is that the executive proposes legislation, that the legislature legislates. Then the courts interpret. The executive or the legislature finds that the results differ from what the want. So they pass further legislation, which the courts add to their interpretation.
Saying that we can’t pass legislation because it will take too long, or make our bums look big, or whatever, is a very serious problem.
Part of Trumpism is that the legislative branches have become mired, in the US, in procedural games. They have abdicated legislation to the courts. Which, in turn, has made the Supreme Court the unelected third, and most powerful, legislative chamber.
Trumpism is the end state of this, with political capture of the Court.
In the U.K., the Supreme Court has held the line - they have specifically refused to legislate and literally invited Parliament to legislate to change their rulings.
We should note that Reform have already talked about appointing thousands of immigration judges - to be picked under their criteria, and dilute the current ones.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
Children under 18.
That is it.
Perhaps we should say children under voting age and let Labour decide what number they want for that.
The way our system has worked, since time immemorial, is that the executive proposes legislation, that the legislature legislates. Then the courts interpret. The executive or the legislature finds that the results differ from what the want. So they pass further legislation, which the courts add to their interpretation.
Saying that we can’t pass legislation because it will take too long, or make our bums look big, or whatever, is a very serious problem.
Part of Trumpism is that the legislative branches have become mired, in the US, in procedural games. They have abdicated legislation to the courts. Which, in turn, has made the Supreme Court the unelected third, and most powerful, legislative chamber.
Trumpism is the end state of this, with political capture of the Court.
In the U.K., the Supreme Court has held the line - they have specifically refused to legislate and literally invited Parliament to legislate to change their rulings.
We should note that Reform have already talked about appointing thousands of immigration judges - to be picked under their criteria, and dilute the current ones.
Trump has gone one further, and simply ignores the law as it applies to him.
FPT: It was kind of England to let Argentina win yesterday, And perhaps good diplomacy in the long run, now that Argentina has a reasonably good leader, after so many terrible ones.
It was like giving a cookie to a little boy who has been raising hell, when he finally settles down for a while.
(Of course, whoever in the UK government thought of this ploy deserves some credit, but will never be able to admit it, publicly.)
The final will be an unequal contest if half the team are suspended - as they should be under FIFA rules.
Spain in the awkward position of not wanting to go against Argentina's claims to the Falklands but wanting to win on Sunday.
I think it's a slamdunk that any player near that banner should be banned for the final. Very funny that the Argies have given FIFA such an enormous headache.
FPT: It was kind of England to let Argentina win yesterday, And perhaps good diplomacy in the long run, now that Argentina has a reasonably good leader, after so many terrible ones.
It was like giving a cookie to a little boy who has been raising hell, when he finally settles down for a while.
(Of course, whoever in the UK government thought of this ploy deserves some credit, but will never be able to admit it, publicly.)
The final will be an unequal contest if half the team are suspended - as they should be under FIFA rules.
"The World Cup might not be ours, but the Falkland Islands definitely are," the prime minister's official spokesperson says. Asked who Starmer would be supporting in the final, she says: "The PM wishes both teams well for the final, especially Spain."
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
Children under 18.
That is it.
Perhaps we should say children under voting age and let Labour decide what number they want for that.
The way our system has worked, since time immemorial, is that the executive proposes legislation, that the legislature legislates. Then the courts interpret. The executive or the legislature finds that the results differ from what the want. So they pass further legislation, which the courts add to their interpretation.
Saying that we can’t pass legislation because it will take too long, or make our bums look big, or whatever, is a very serious problem.
Part of Trumpism is that the legislative branches have become mired, in the US, in procedural games. They have abdicated legislation to the courts. Which, in turn, has made the Supreme Court the unelected third, and most powerful, legislative chamber.
Trumpism is the end state of this, with political capture of the Court.
In the U.K., the Supreme Court has held the line - they have specifically refused to legislate and literally invited Parliament to legislate to change their rulings.
We should note that Reform have already talked about appointing thousands of immigration judges - to be picked under their criteria, and dilute the current ones.
Trump has gone one further, and simply ignores the law as it applies to him.
FPT: It was kind of England to let Argentina win yesterday, And perhaps good diplomacy in the long run, now that Argentina has a reasonably good leader, after so many terrible ones.
It was like giving a cookie to a little boy who has been raising hell, when he finally settles down for a while.
(Of course, whoever in the UK government thought of this ploy deserves some credit, but will never be able to admit it, publicly.)
The final will be an unequal contest if half the team are suspended - as they should be under FIFA rules.
"The World Cup might not be ours, but the Falkland Islands definitely are," the prime minister's official spokesperson says. Asked who Starmer would be supporting in the final, she says: "The PM wishes both teams well for the final, especially Spain."
LOL, very good.
Too much personality in that to have come from StarmerGPT though.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
Children under 18.
That is it.
Perhaps we should say children under voting age and let Labour decide what number they want for that.
The way our system has worked, since time immemorial, is that the executive proposes legislation, that the legislature legislates. Then the courts interpret. The executive or the legislature finds that the results differ from what the want. So they pass further legislation, which the courts add to their interpretation.
Saying that we can’t pass legislation because it will take too long, or make our bums look big, or whatever, is a very serious problem.
Part of Trumpism is that the legislative branches have become mired, in the US, in procedural games. They have abdicated legislation to the courts. Which, in turn, has made the Supreme Court the unelected third, and most powerful, legislative chamber.
Trumpism is the end state of this, with political capture of the Court.
In the U.K., the Supreme Court has held the line - they have specifically refused to legislate and literally invited Parliament to legislate to change their rulings.
We should note that Reform have already talked about appointing thousands of immigration judges - to be picked under their criteria, and dilute the current ones.
Trump has gone one further, and simply ignores the law as it applies to him.
Enabled by his tame Supreme Court that ruled he could.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
Children under 18.
That is it.
Perhaps we should say children under voting age and let Labour decide what number they want for that.
The way our system has worked, since time immemorial, is that the executive proposes legislation, that the legislature legislates. Then the courts interpret. The executive or the legislature finds that the results differ from what the want. So they pass further legislation, which the courts add to their interpretation.
Saying that we can’t pass legislation because it will take too long, or make our bums look big, or whatever, is a very serious problem.
Part of Trumpism is that the legislative branches have become mired, in the US, in procedural games. They have abdicated legislation to the courts. Which, in turn, has made the Supreme Court the unelected third, and most powerful, legislative chamber.
Trumpism is the end state of this, with political capture of the Court.
In the U.K., the Supreme Court has held the line - they have specifically refused to legislate and literally invited Parliament to legislate to change their rulings.
We should note that Reform have already talked about appointing thousands of immigration judges - to be picked under their criteria, and dilute the current ones.
Trump has gone one further, and simply ignores the law as it applies to him.
But only because of his capture of the Supreme Court. Even when they rule against him, they ignore it.
FPT: It was kind of England to let Argentina win yesterday, And perhaps good diplomacy in the long run, now that Argentina has a reasonably good leader, after so many terrible ones.
It was like giving a cookie to a little boy who has been raising hell, when he finally settles down for a while.
(Of course, whoever in the UK government thought of this ploy deserves some credit, but will never be able to admit it, publicly.)
The final will be an unequal contest if half the team are suspended - as they should be under FIFA rules.
"The World Cup might not be ours, but the Falkland Islands definitely are," the prime minister's official spokesperson says. Asked who Starmer would be supporting in the final, she says: "The PM wishes both teams well for the final, especially Spain."
LOL, very good.
Too much personality in that to have come from StarmerGPT though.
Starmer is in Kiev meeting Z. today, there are protests against Z. in Kiev today. That one didn't pass me by.
The rapid expansion of high-speed internet has intensified concerns about how digital technologies affect early childhood. Using the staggered rollout of fibre optic to the home in Uruguay as a natural experiment, this column finds that greater lifetime exposure to high-speed internet reduces children’s scores in communication, problem solving, personal-social and socio-emotional skills. The effects are partly explained by indirect channels, through the displacement of valuable activities for child development and alterations in caregivers’ behaviour.
I.e., it's partly the parents spending their time online that's the problem!
The really depressing thing is that it's pretty easy to imagine something just like this in a UK context, too.
https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/2077468422380687659 ..who in the Ministry of Defense of the 21st century, in the age of the drone revolution, combat robots, and military AI, really needs a 35-year-old IT top executive who led the digital transformation of an entire nation and can pick up the phone to ask Elon Musk to shut off Starlink for Russians.
No, what we need is a former high-ranking cop who boasts about making recruits tuck in their beds with perfect hospital corners and who happens to suit the generals and the major defense contractors just fine...
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
Could hardly be a more definitive statement that the judge isn't concerned about the public interest. The impact on the Gazan woman would be a lot worse if (say) Restore came to power.
My reply would be perhaps you should have invested $00bn in those factories a few years ago like we did.
“That was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
What, what, hold on that's not how capitalism or business works.
My reply would be perhaps you should have invested $00bn in those factories a few years ago like we did.
“That was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
What, what, hold on that's not how capitalism or business works.
The response should be that Trump can't have it both ways.
And we can use his logic to insist Google and Meta pay tax on the full profits of their UK sales.
The reason why most Government's don't start down this path is that it's a quid pro quo, you lose tax on some bits but gain it elsewhere.
Erling Haaland says he might have played for England if his dad had stayed in the UK longer. A fascinating butterfly effect whereby Roy Keane potentially cost England the World Cup by denying them another star striker via prematurely destroying Erling’s dad’s career. Very Irish of him.
My reply would be perhaps you should have invested $00bn in those factories a few years ago like we did.
Why invest when you can just ‘tax’ it with no investment
“Lovely business you’ve got there, shame if anything happened to it”
See my point below - we could easily do the same to Google and Facebook with way more justification...
I'm avoiding Amazon as I don't know how profitable the UK really is while the profits for Google and Facebook is a simple case of UK sales minus a bit to cover costs.
The rapid expansion of high-speed internet has intensified concerns about how digital technologies affect early childhood. Using the staggered rollout of fibre optic to the home in Uruguay as a natural experiment, this column finds that greater lifetime exposure to high-speed internet reduces children’s scores in communication, problem solving, personal-social and socio-emotional skills. The effects are partly explained by indirect channels, through the displacement of valuable activities for child development and alterations in caregivers’ behaviour.
I.e., it's partly the parents spending their time online that's the problem!
Someone will be along to say that this is just guessing an unknowable future, rather than measured science. Shirley?
My reply would be perhaps you should have invested $00bn in those factories a few years ago like we did.
“That was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
What, what, hold on that's not how capitalism or business works.
The response should be that Trump can't have it both ways.
And we can use his logic to insist Google and Meta pay tax on the full profits of their UK sales.
The reason why most Government's don't start down this path is that it's a quid pro quo, you lose tax on some bits but gain it elsewhere.
The problem is that Trump views it as his divine right to have it both ways, and does not give a damn about logic or consistency.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
Which is why we have an independent Judicary so that each individual is treated equally and fairly by the system based on the unique circumtances involved rather than by what ever happens to be currently popular with most people.
When the Nazi's marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Peter.
The morality of the judiciary needs to reflect the morality of the general population or they’re just another pseudo-religious group demanding the right to determine how the rest of us live.
My reply would be perhaps you should have invested $00bn in those factories a few years ago like we did.
“That was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
What, what, hold on that's not how capitalism or business works.
The response should be that Trump can't have it both ways.
And we can use his logic to insist Google and Meta pay tax on the full profits of their UK sales.
The reason why most Government's don't start down this path is that it's a quid pro quo, you lose tax on some bits but gain it elsewhere.
When Tesla got going, the car dealerships argued thus. That they had a right (often enshrined in law) to make a profit off selling cars. And that manufacturers needed to be blocked from selling directly.
Equally, some in politics have stated that vertically integrated companies that reduce costs are bad. Since they don’t create a pyramid of contractors. Who can all wet their beaks.
My reply would be perhaps you should have invested $00bn in those factories a few years ago like we did.
“That was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
What, what, hold on that's not how capitalism or business works.
The response should be that Trump can't have it both ways.
And we can use his logic to insist Google and Meta pay tax on the full profits of their UK sales.
The reason why most Government's don't start down this path is that it's a quid pro quo, you lose tax on some bits but gain it elsewhere.
The U.K. has imposed windfall taxes a number of times. As have many other countries.
Erling Haaland says he might have played for England if his dad had stayed in the UK longer. A fascinating butterfly effect whereby Roy Keane potentially cost England the World Cup by denying them another star striker via prematurely destroying Erling’s dad’s career. Very Irish of him.
Keane was demanding Bellingham is punished for slapping an Argentinian head with undue enthusiasm.
It's not really on a scale of shattering an opponent's leg as a historic retribution.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
Which is why we have an independent Judicary so that each individual is treated equally and fairly by the system based on the unique circumtances involved rather than by what ever happens to be currently popular with most people.
When the Nazis marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Peter.
No they didn't, you're thinking of the Sudetenland (German-inhabited in those days), NOT Prague.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
Which is why we have an independent Judicary so that each individual is treated equally and fairly by the system based on the unique circumtances involved rather than by what ever happens to be currently popular with most people.
When the Nazi's marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Peter.
I think we should have elected judges like they do in the United States.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
Could hardly be a more definitive statement that the judge isn't concerned about the public interest. The impact on the Gazan woman would be a lot worse if (say) Restore came to power.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
This is the thing. The remedy to this is relatively simple and modest. Put clarifications of the ECHR into statute law when deemed necessary. The recent declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR, agreed with the other signatory nations, could easily be passed into statute law, so that the courts could more easily take it into account.
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
Which is why we have an independent Judicary so that each individual is treated equally and fairly by the system based on the unique circumtances involved rather than by what ever happens to be currently popular with most people.
When the Nazi's marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Peter.
I think we should have elected judges like they do in the United States.
Yes, because that's clearly working really well... /s
The rapid expansion of high-speed internet has intensified concerns about how digital technologies affect early childhood. Using the staggered rollout of fibre optic to the home in Uruguay as a natural experiment, this column finds that greater lifetime exposure to high-speed internet reduces children’s scores in communication, problem solving, personal-social and socio-emotional skills. The effects are partly explained by indirect channels, through the displacement of valuable activities for child development and alterations in caregivers’ behaviour.
I.e., it's partly the parents spending their time online that's the problem!
Argh.
How do we keep the benefits from the internet and cut out the negatives?
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
This is the thing. The remedy to this is relatively simple and modest. Put clarifications of the ECHR into statute law when deemed necessary. The recent declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR, agreed with the other signatory nations, could easily be passed into statute law, so that the courts could more easily take it into account.
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
It’s a side effect of legislation getting longer and longer and less readable. So less and less gets done in Parliament. Means that prioritisation stops more and more.
The proven fact that longer legislation doesn’t yield better results is ignored. Because if we just add 500 more pages, we will get perfection - the last ambiguities will be removed.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
This is the thing. The remedy to this is relatively simple and modest. Put clarifications of the ECHR into statute law when deemed necessary. The recent declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR, agreed with the other signatory nations, could easily be passed into statute law, so that the courts could more easily take it into account.
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
But if you extend that logic, you would quickly demolish most of the windmills that the anti-immigrant movement tilt against.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
Could hardly be a more definitive statement that the judge isn't concerned about the public interest. The impact on the Gazan woman would be a lot worse if (say) Restore came to power.
The rapid expansion of high-speed internet has intensified concerns about how digital technologies affect early childhood. Using the staggered rollout of fibre optic to the home in Uruguay as a natural experiment, this column finds that greater lifetime exposure to high-speed internet reduces children’s scores in communication, problem solving, personal-social and socio-emotional skills. The effects are partly explained by indirect channels, through the displacement of valuable activities for child development and alterations in caregivers’ behaviour.
I.e., it's partly the parents spending their time online that's the problem!
Argh.
How do we keep the benefits from the internet and cut out the negatives?
If you want to use algorithms, you should be legally liable for what you publish.
The argument against that is “that would be jolly inconvenient”
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
Which is why we have an independent Judicary so that each individual is treated equally and fairly by the system based on the unique circumtances involved rather than by what ever happens to be currently popular with most people.
When the Nazi's marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Peter.
I think we should have elected judges like they do in the United States.
Yes, because that's clearly working really well... /s
Well it’s hardly perfect here.
Not saying that’s the answer but the current situation is not perfect.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
This is the thing. The remedy to this is relatively simple and modest. Put clarifications of the ECHR into statute law when deemed necessary. The recent declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR, agreed with the other signatory nations, could easily be passed into statute law, so that the courts could more easily take it into account.
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
Which is why we have an independent Judicary so that each individual is treated equally and fairly by the system based on the unique circumtances involved rather than by what ever happens to be currently popular with most people.
When the Nazi's marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Peter.
I think we should have elected judges like they do in the United States.
Yes, because that's clearly working really well... /s
Well it’s hardly perfect here.
Not saying that’s the answer but the current situation is not perfect.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
Which is why we have an independent Judicary so that each individual is treated equally and fairly by the system based on the unique circumtances involved rather than by what ever happens to be currently popular with most people.
When the Nazi's marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Peter.
I think we should have elected judges like they do in the United States.
Yes, because that's clearly working really well... /s
The biggest problem is that judicial appointments have been captured, at a number of levels, by the MAGA right.
Which means that decades after Trump, his helpers will be in place. And removable.
My reply would be perhaps you should have invested $00bn in those factories a few years ago like we did.
“That was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
What, what, hold on that's not how capitalism or business works.
In any event, both Samsung and SK are investing quite large amounts of money building plants in the US.
I note the judge was appointed by the king. But it is not his fault because well he always acts on the advice of his ministers !
So who was the learned minister who appointed yet another Garden Court Chambers silk to an upper tribunal post with all that is likely to inevitably follow.
Ah yes, a certain Alex Chalk ! So not something that can be laid at Labour's door really.
My reply would be perhaps you should have invested $00bn in those factories a few years ago like we did.
“That was based on a rationale that American companies purchased large volumes of Korean semiconductors and thus contributed to the Korean firms' earnings,” the source said. “So, if the Korean chipmakers’ partner firms in Korea are entitled to parts of the profits, the American ones are, too.”
What, what, hold on that's not how capitalism or business works.
The response should be that Trump can't have it both ways.
And we can use his logic to insist Google and Meta pay tax on the full profits of their UK sales.
The reason why most Government's don't start down this path is that it's a quid pro quo, you lose tax on some bits but gain it elsewhere.
The U.K. has imposed windfall taxes a number of times. As have many other countries.
On companies domiciled and manufacturing in other countries ? I don't think so.
They could windfall tax Micron. I bet that would go down well.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
No, the judiciary are nuts. That would never pass a public vote.
Which is why we have an independent Judicary so that each individual is treated equally and fairly by the system based on the unique circumtances involved rather than by what ever happens to be currently popular with most people.
When the Nazi's marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Peter.
I think we should have elected judges like they do in the United States.
Yes, because that's clearly working really well... /s
Well it’s hardly perfect here.
Not saying that’s the answer but the current situation is not perfect.
The current situation is not perfect, no, but let's not get into a something has to be done/this is something situation.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
This is the thing. The remedy to this is relatively simple and modest. Put clarifications of the ECHR into statute law when deemed necessary. The recent declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR, agreed with the other signatory nations, could easily be passed into statute law, so that the courts could more easily take it into account.
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
But if you extend that logic, you would quickly demolish most of the windmills that the anti-immigrant movement tilt against.
Is that really fair?
Some people have argued this is why the Tories didn't address immigration concerns when they were in government. It was in their electoral interest for immigration to be a problem, because it was an issue where they held a strong advantage over Labour. So you have performative nonsense like the Rwanda scheme, designed to be opposed by Labour, but not intended to be implemented and work and stop immigration being an issue.
But for Labour, if they can deal with this, moderately, the benefits are huge.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
This is the thing. The remedy to this is relatively simple and modest. Put clarifications of the ECHR into statute law when deemed necessary. The recent declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR, agreed with the other signatory nations, could easily be passed into statute law, so that the courts could more easily take it into account.
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
I do.
The system is working as intended
There is no political will to do it.
There's a lack of political will to do anything.
I don't believe that anyone is happy about the status quo.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
This is the thing. The remedy to this is relatively simple and modest. Put clarifications of the ECHR into statute law when deemed necessary. The recent declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR, agreed with the other signatory nations, could easily be passed into statute law, so that the courts could more easily take it into account.
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
I do.
The system is working as intended
There is no political will to do it.
There's a lack of political will to do anything.
I don't believe that anyone is happy about the status quo.
Those two sentences don't compute with each other. If people aren't happy, why aren't they doing something about it?
Unless they all secretly want Farage to win the next election.
The rapid expansion of high-speed internet has intensified concerns about how digital technologies affect early childhood. Using the staggered rollout of fibre optic to the home in Uruguay as a natural experiment, this column finds that greater lifetime exposure to high-speed internet reduces children’s scores in communication, problem solving, personal-social and socio-emotional skills. The effects are partly explained by indirect channels, through the displacement of valuable activities for child development and alterations in caregivers’ behaviour.
I.e., it's partly the parents spending their time online that's the problem!
This isn't surprising imo. There wouldn't be a problem if people used it to engage in real education, but of course there are too many distractions.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
This is the thing. The remedy to this is relatively simple and modest. Put clarifications of the ECHR into statute law when deemed necessary. The recent declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR, agreed with the other signatory nations, could easily be passed into statute law, so that the courts could more easily take it into account.
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
I do.
The system is working as intended
There is no political will to do it.
There's a lack of political will to do anything.
I don't believe that anyone is happy about the status quo.
There is a lack of will to *change* the many, many things that are happening.
Because each attempt at change will meet resistance. Which is how large orgs work. Pushing changes through in the face of systemic resistance is one of the skills senior management requires.
Starmer’s bleat about not being able to get things done amounted to “I can’t do the job.”
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
It's also easy of transport - it's not like the 1950s when travelling to Israel say took a week, you can get there in an afternoon.
This exceedingly broad definition of family was created by a ruling a little while ago.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
This is the thing. The remedy to this is relatively simple and modest. Put clarifications of the ECHR into statute law when deemed necessary. The recent declaration on the interpretation of the ECHR, agreed with the other signatory nations, could easily be passed into statute law, so that the courts could more easily take it into account.
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
I do.
The system is working as intended
There is no political will to do it.
There's a lack of political will to do anything.
I don't believe that anyone is happy about the status quo.
Those two sentences don't compute with each other. If people aren't happy, why aren't they doing something about it?
Unless they all secretly want Farage to win the next election.
Well, partly, people are unhappy about the status quo in different ways, so doing something involves upsetting people. Stasis is easier.
Secondly, the political class have a large dose of learned helplessness. We get a lot of emoting, sympathy, and, "I'm very angry about this," sort of statements in an attempt to convince the public that the politician is on their side, but very little follow-through to do anything.
In the short-term the saying something is all that matters. And politicians are hyper-focused on the short term. Nothing else exists.
As the grim reality of having to watch the "Bronze Final" on Saturday night sinks in and dreams of Bank Holidays and Sir Harry Kane holding the Jules Rimet aloft as the victory parade makes its way slowly down the Mall to the Palace recede into fevered fantasy, we have the usual search for a scapegoat.
Thomas Tuchel is clearly the man picked to carry the weight of our unfulfilled expectations into the wilderness - I mean, we could have had a dodgy VAR decision or a missed penalty or a sending off but this way our "brave lads" can head with reputations unsullied toward the next great disappointment at Euro 28.
That's how it is - always look for someone else to carry the can when we fail rather than ask the searching questions, the difficult questions.
The really hard one being... What if this is as good as we are, roughly as good as we have any right to be? The higher you climb, the harder it gets to find more improvements.
This might be a more generally-applicable principle.
I think everyone in their life faces those uncomfortable moments when the extent of limitations becomes evident. I've never run a marathon or climbed a mountain or cycled 200 miles like some of the Adonii (or Adonises, there will inevitably be some classically educated halfwit on in a second to correct me) on here claim.
I do have the body of a Greek God - just not one of the better known ones.
As a society, too, we should ask - is this as good as we can be? That then reflects down to different levels - some see it in terms of prosperity, material and personal self-advancement, others at a more communal level - what can we do to make the lives of others better? Some look even further and talk about setting a global example for decency, morality, sustainability etc, etc.
I suppose it depends on where your boundaries sit - is it just you and your family that matter or does the rest of the country and the world count as well?
Its really, really hard to win the football world cup. Only seven nations have EVER done it. We have reached the exact point in our world rankings. The disappointment many feel today is that for 55 minutes we played the right game against the reigning world champions. We got our noses in front. And then it looks like we decided we ought to just defend for the next 45 minutes (there was always going to be 9 or 10 mins of 'injury' time).
And we can never know what would have happened if we had kept trying to have pace up front, leaving two quick players up the field to run into the channels, rather than the stupid sight of Harry Kane defending on the 18 yard line. But it would have been nice to have tried.
And you know it still might have failed.
As a football nation we are very, very good and in the last 8 years we have done well at qualifying (I remember when England failed to qualify - its never a given) and going deep in tournaments (as recently as 2014 we went out in the group stage). But hand on heart we are not the best team in the world.
When the England Mens rugby team won in 2003 they were the best in the world. They had probably peaked a year early and were on the way down, but they were still the best. South Africa are now the best in the world and have won the last two world cups to prove it.
So a disappointing day for sure, but there is hope for the future. Bellingham looks to be a generational talent with so much more to come. We need to replace Kane and surely could do with some defensive solidity. And ultimately a better mindset when going 1-0 in semi finals and finals.
The England rugby team in 2003 were a sight to behold.
They could cope with anything, and they kept levelling up with Australia in the final and I just knew they'd pip them.
You didn't get that sense from this England football team.
As the grim reality of having to watch the "Bronze Final" on Saturday night sinks in and dreams of Bank Holidays and Sir Harry Kane holding the Jules Rimet aloft as the victory parade makes its way slowly down the Mall to the Palace recede into fevered fantasy, we have the usual search for a scapegoat.
Thomas Tuchel is clearly the man picked to carry the weight of our unfulfilled expectations into the wilderness - I mean, we could have had a dodgy VAR decision or a missed penalty or a sending off but this way our "brave lads" can head with reputations unsullied toward the next great disappointment at Euro 28.
That's how it is - always look for someone else to carry the can when we fail rather than ask the searching questions, the difficult questions.
The really hard one being... What if this is as good as we are, roughly as good as we have any right to be? The higher you climb, the harder it gets to find more improvements.
This might be a more generally-applicable principle.
I think everyone in their life faces those uncomfortable moments when the extent of limitations becomes evident. I've never run a marathon or climbed a mountain or cycled 200 miles like some of the Adonii (or Adonises, there will inevitably be some classically educated halfwit on in a second to correct me) on here claim.
I do have the body of a Greek God - just not one of the better known ones.
As a society, too, we should ask - is this as good as we can be? That then reflects down to different levels - some see it in terms of prosperity, material and personal self-advancement, others at a more communal level - what can we do to make the lives of others better? Some look even further and talk about setting a global example for decency, morality, sustainability etc, etc.
I suppose it depends on where your boundaries sit - is it just you and your family that matter or does the rest of the country and the world count as well?
Its really, really hard to win the football world cup. Only seven nations have EVER done it. We have reached the exact point in our world rankings. The disappointment many feel today is that for 55 minutes we played the right game against the reigning world champions. We got our noses in front. And then it looks like we decided we ought to just defend for the next 45 minutes (there was always going to be 9 or 10 mins of 'injury' time).
And we can never know what would have happened if we had kept trying to have pace up front, leaving two quick players up the field to run into the channels, rather than the stupid sight of Harry Kane defending on the 18 yard line. But it would have been nice to have tried.
And you know it still might have failed.
As a football nation we are very, very good and in the last 8 years we have done well at qualifying (I remember when England failed to qualify - its never a given) and going deep in tournaments (as recently as 2014 we went out in the group stage). But hand on heart we are not the best team in the world.
When the England Mens rugby team won in 2003 they were the best in the world. They had probably peaked a year early and were on the way down, but they were still the best. South Africa are now the best in the world and have won the last two world cups to prove it.
So a disappointing day for sure, but there is hope for the future. Bellingham looks to be a generational talent with so much more to come. We need to replace Kane and surely could do with some defensive solidity. And ultimately a better mindset when going 1-0 in semi finals and finals.
The England rugby team in 2003 were a sight to behold.
They could cope with anything, and they kept levelling up with Australia in the final and I just knew they'd pip them.
You didn't get that sense from this England football team.
The rugby and cricket (when they won world cups) had demonstrated previous to the tournament consistency being the best team by beating everybody else on a regular basis.
France are the team that should really be kicking themselves, they have the strongest team on paper, the strongest second XI on paper (who could probably best England XI) and up to the semi-final were walking it. They absolutely shit the bed against a very good, but not exceptional Spain team.
"On primary vote, One Nation leads with 30% (+2), followed by Labor on 29% (+3). The Greens remain unchanged at 13%, while the Coalition has fallen to 17% (-4), its lowest primary vote ever recorded by YouGov."
As the grim reality of having to watch the "Bronze Final" on Saturday night sinks in and dreams of Bank Holidays and Sir Harry Kane holding the Jules Rimet aloft as the victory parade makes its way slowly down the Mall to the Palace recede into fevered fantasy, we have the usual search for a scapegoat.
Thomas Tuchel is clearly the man picked to carry the weight of our unfulfilled expectations into the wilderness - I mean, we could have had a dodgy VAR decision or a missed penalty or a sending off but this way our "brave lads" can head with reputations unsullied toward the next great disappointment at Euro 28.
That's how it is - always look for someone else to carry the can when we fail rather than ask the searching questions, the difficult questions.
The really hard one being... What if this is as good as we are, roughly as good as we have any right to be? The higher you climb, the harder it gets to find more improvements.
This might be a more generally-applicable principle.
I think everyone in their life faces those uncomfortable moments when the extent of limitations becomes evident. I've never run a marathon or climbed a mountain or cycled 200 miles like some of the Adonii (or Adonises, there will inevitably be some classically educated halfwit on in a second to correct me) on here claim.
I do have the body of a Greek God - just not one of the better known ones.
As a society, too, we should ask - is this as good as we can be? That then reflects down to different levels - some see it in terms of prosperity, material and personal self-advancement, others at a more communal level - what can we do to make the lives of others better? Some look even further and talk about setting a global example for decency, morality, sustainability etc, etc.
I suppose it depends on where your boundaries sit - is it just you and your family that matter or does the rest of the country and the world count as well?
Its really, really hard to win the football world cup. Only seven nations have EVER done it. We have reached the exact point in our world rankings. The disappointment many feel today is that for 55 minutes we played the right game against the reigning world champions. We got our noses in front. And then it looks like we decided we ought to just defend for the next 45 minutes (there was always going to be 9 or 10 mins of 'injury' time).
And we can never know what would have happened if we had kept trying to have pace up front, leaving two quick players up the field to run into the channels, rather than the stupid sight of Harry Kane defending on the 18 yard line. But it would have been nice to have tried.
And you know it still might have failed.
As a football nation we are very, very good and in the last 8 years we have done well at qualifying (I remember when England failed to qualify - its never a given) and going deep in tournaments (as recently as 2014 we went out in the group stage). But hand on heart we are not the best team in the world.
When the England Mens rugby team won in 2003 they were the best in the world. They had probably peaked a year early and were on the way down, but they were still the best. South Africa are now the best in the world and have won the last two world cups to prove it.
So a disappointing day for sure, but there is hope for the future. Bellingham looks to be a generational talent with so much more to come. We need to replace Kane and surely could do with some defensive solidity. And ultimately a better mindset when going 1-0 in semi finals and finals.
The England rugby team in 2003 were a sight to behold.
They could cope with anything, and they kept levelling up with Australia in the final and I just knew they'd pip them.
You didn't get that sense from this England football team.
The rugby and cricket (when they won world cups) had demonstrated previous to the tournament consistency being the best team.
France are the team that should really be kicking themselves, they have the strongest team on paper, the strongest second XI on paper (who could probably best England first XI) and up to the semi-final were walking it.
France's midfield is average. And playing 4-2-4 won't cut it at the business end of a tournament.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
As the grim reality of having to watch the "Bronze Final" on Saturday night sinks in and dreams of Bank Holidays and Sir Harry Kane holding the Jules Rimet aloft as the victory parade makes its way slowly down the Mall to the Palace recede into fevered fantasy, we have the usual search for a scapegoat.
Thomas Tuchel is clearly the man picked to carry the weight of our unfulfilled expectations into the wilderness - I mean, we could have had a dodgy VAR decision or a missed penalty or a sending off but this way our "brave lads" can head with reputations unsullied toward the next great disappointment at Euro 28.
That's how it is - always look for someone else to carry the can when we fail rather than ask the searching questions, the difficult questions.
The really hard one being... What if this is as good as we are, roughly as good as we have any right to be? The higher you climb, the harder it gets to find more improvements.
This might be a more generally-applicable principle.
I think everyone in their life faces those uncomfortable moments when the extent of limitations becomes evident. I've never run a marathon or climbed a mountain or cycled 200 miles like some of the Adonii (or Adonises, there will inevitably be some classically educated halfwit on in a second to correct me) on here claim.
I do have the body of a Greek God - just not one of the better known ones.
As a society, too, we should ask - is this as good as we can be? That then reflects down to different levels - some see it in terms of prosperity, material and personal self-advancement, others at a more communal level - what can we do to make the lives of others better? Some look even further and talk about setting a global example for decency, morality, sustainability etc, etc.
I suppose it depends on where your boundaries sit - is it just you and your family that matter or does the rest of the country and the world count as well?
Its really, really hard to win the football world cup. Only seven nations have EVER done it. We have reached the exact point in our world rankings. The disappointment many feel today is that for 55 minutes we played the right game against the reigning world champions. We got our noses in front. And then it looks like we decided we ought to just defend for the next 45 minutes (there was always going to be 9 or 10 mins of 'injury' time).
And we can never know what would have happened if we had kept trying to have pace up front, leaving two quick players up the field to run into the channels, rather than the stupid sight of Harry Kane defending on the 18 yard line. But it would have been nice to have tried.
And you know it still might have failed.
As a football nation we are very, very good and in the last 8 years we have done well at qualifying (I remember when England failed to qualify - its never a given) and going deep in tournaments (as recently as 2014 we went out in the group stage). But hand on heart we are not the best team in the world.
When the England Mens rugby team won in 2003 they were the best in the world. They had probably peaked a year early and were on the way down, but they were still the best. South Africa are now the best in the world and have won the last two world cups to prove it.
So a disappointing day for sure, but there is hope for the future. Bellingham looks to be a generational talent with so much more to come. We need to replace Kane and surely could do with some defensive solidity. And ultimately a better mindset when going 1-0 in semi finals and finals.
The England rugby team in 2003 were a sight to behold.
They could cope with anything, and they kept levelling up with Australia in the final and I just knew they'd pip them.
You didn't get that sense from this England football team.
The rugby and cricket (when they won world cups) had demonstrated previous to the tournament consistency being the best team.
France are the team that should really be kicking themselves, they have the strongest team on paper, the strongest second XI on paper (who could probably best England first XI) and up to the semi-final were walking it.
France's midfield is average. And playing 4-2-4 won't cut it at the business end of a tournament.
Dani Olmo for Spain has been extremely good and was very important to Spain beating France, but France still didn't turn up. I reckon they had a big bust up as the manager seemed in a sulk from the get go and the players didn't look to be really trying, even at the end, no urgency, no intensity, training match levels.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
Could hardly be a more definitive statement that the judge isn't concerned about the public interest. The impact on the Gazan woman would be a lot worse if (say) Restore came to power.
Why was she not just hoofed out after appeal 2 or 3 failed ?
Even the judge disputed her honesty but still let her stay.
Utterly nuts.
It's insane.
I think it's a mix of politicians with neither the legal knowledge, resilience, desire or energy to change it so they prefer to perform a pissing contest on Twitter instead.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
Could hardly be a more definitive statement that the judge isn't concerned about the public interest. The impact on the Gazan woman would be a lot worse if (say) Restore came to power.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Good luck if you’re just a British guy who moved abroad to get a job, and found a wife while he was out there…
Also, who paid for the legal costs of cases like this? I’d bet that government paid both sides.
As the grim reality of having to watch the "Bronze Final" on Saturday night sinks in and dreams of Bank Holidays and Sir Harry Kane holding the Jules Rimet aloft as the victory parade makes its way slowly down the Mall to the Palace recede into fevered fantasy, we have the usual search for a scapegoat.
Thomas Tuchel is clearly the man picked to carry the weight of our unfulfilled expectations into the wilderness - I mean, we could have had a dodgy VAR decision or a missed penalty or a sending off but this way our "brave lads" can head with reputations unsullied toward the next great disappointment at Euro 28.
That's how it is - always look for someone else to carry the can when we fail rather than ask the searching questions, the difficult questions.
The really hard one being... What if this is as good as we are, roughly as good as we have any right to be? The higher you climb, the harder it gets to find more improvements.
This might be a more generally-applicable principle.
I think everyone in their life faces those uncomfortable moments when the extent of limitations becomes evident. I've never run a marathon or climbed a mountain or cycled 200 miles like some of the Adonii (or Adonises, there will inevitably be some classically educated halfwit on in a second to correct me) on here claim.
I do have the body of a Greek God - just not one of the better known ones.
As a society, too, we should ask - is this as good as we can be? That then reflects down to different levels - some see it in terms of prosperity, material and personal self-advancement, others at a more communal level - what can we do to make the lives of others better? Some look even further and talk about setting a global example for decency, morality, sustainability etc, etc.
I suppose it depends on where your boundaries sit - is it just you and your family that matter or does the rest of the country and the world count as well?
Its really, really hard to win the football world cup. Only seven nations have EVER done it. We have reached the exact point in our world rankings. The disappointment many feel today is that for 55 minutes we played the right game against the reigning world champions. We got our noses in front. And then it looks like we decided we ought to just defend for the next 45 minutes (there was always going to be 9 or 10 mins of 'injury' time).
And we can never know what would have happened if we had kept trying to have pace up front, leaving two quick players up the field to run into the channels, rather than the stupid sight of Harry Kane defending on the 18 yard line. But it would have been nice to have tried.
And you know it still might have failed.
As a football nation we are very, very good and in the last 8 years we have done well at qualifying (I remember when England failed to qualify - its never a given) and going deep in tournaments (as recently as 2014 we went out in the group stage). But hand on heart we are not the best team in the world.
When the England Mens rugby team won in 2003 they were the best in the world. They had probably peaked a year early and were on the way down, but they were still the best. South Africa are now the best in the world and have won the last two world cups to prove it.
So a disappointing day for sure, but there is hope for the future. Bellingham looks to be a generational talent with so much more to come. We need to replace Kane and surely could do with some defensive solidity. And ultimately a better mindset when going 1-0 in semi finals and finals.
The England rugby team in 2003 were a sight to behold.
They could cope with anything, and they kept levelling up with Australia in the final and I just knew they'd pip them.
You didn't get that sense from this England football team.
The rugby and cricket (when they won world cups) had demonstrated previous to the tournament consistency being the best team.
France are the team that should really be kicking themselves, they have the strongest team on paper, the strongest second XI on paper (who could probably best England first XI) and up to the semi-final were walking it.
France's midfield is average. And playing 4-2-4 won't cut it at the business end of a tournament.
Dani Olmo for Spain has been extremely good and was very important to Spain beating France, but France still didn't turn up. I reckon they had a big bust up as the manager seemed in a sulk from the get go and the players didn't look to be really trying, even at the end, no urgency, no intensity, training match levels.
Did you see the walking stats before the game last night? Mbappe as "bad" as Messi for it. It's what he does. Dembele, Doue, Barcola are all decent players, but it's the Portuguese/Spanish that make PSG what they are. Olise looked as much a Bayern player as Kane did last night.
It feels like as soon as the former and current government tries to close one abused route, another one opens, thanks to loopholes and judges taking a very generous interpretation of the laws on the books.
We are seeing this with the "skilled migrant" sponsoring e.g. A Dominos franchise with a couple of outlets claiming they need 20 odd skilled "chefs".
FPT: It was kind of England to let Argentina win yesterday, And perhaps good diplomacy in the long run, now that Argentina has a reasonably good leader, after so many terrible ones.
It was like giving a cookie to a little boy who has been raising hell, when he finally settles down for a while.
(Of course, whoever in the UK government thought of this ploy deserves some credit, but will never be able to admit it, publicly.)
The final will be an unequal contest if half the team are suspended - as they should be under FIFA rules.
"The World Cup might not be ours, but the Falkland Islands definitely are," the prime minister's official spokesperson says. Asked who Starmer would be supporting in the final, she says: "The PM wishes both teams well for the final, especially Spain."
I'm looking forward to the insolent United Provinces of the Río de la Plata getting whipped by their rightful colonial masters.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
Could hardly be a more definitive statement that the judge isn't concerned about the public interest. The impact on the Gazan woman would be a lot worse if (say) Restore came to power.
Why was she not just hoofed out after appeal 2 or 3 failed ?
Even the judge disputed her honesty but still let her stay.
Utterly nuts.
It's insane.
I think it's a mix of politicians with neither the legal knowledge, resilience, desire or energy to change it so they prefer to perform a pissing contest on Twitter instead.
Part of the reason things look unlikely to improve in the medium term is that Britain is currently selecting politicians on the basis of their ability to win pissing contests on twitter. It's why Polanski became leader of the Greens - and initially enjoyed a surge in support. It's part of Badenoch's appeal. Farage was a politician created for twitter before it existed.
"A family of 18 from Gaza has won the right to come to Britain after launching a human rights challenge in the British courts.
The landmark case was brought after a Gazan-born mother-of-three - who came to the UK as a refugee and is now a British citizen – was refused permission to bring her extended family into this country.
Her relatives – both parents; a brother, his wife and four children; a sister and four children; and another sister, her husband and three children – won a legal challenge on human rights grounds."
But if you're a citizen and want to marry a foreigner, get ready to prove your income!
Absolutely insane
Do they want Reform to win ?
More economically inactive burdens on the hard pressed taxpayer kicking people on the waiting list for houses down a rung or two
She can only accomodate 2.
What ever law allows adults to move because a relative has got here needs to be replaced as priority one...
Equally I don't see why even children should be allowed if you've left them abroad that's on you..
We looked out of curiosity at the rules for moving to Canada after my wife's parents got Canadian citizenship.
The rules are a citizen can sponsor children under 18. Adult children and other relatives can not be sponsored.
Seems reasonable to me.
If a sibling or other adults wants to come here, they should apply for a visa, same as everyone else.
How is there a "human right" to bring your grown-up brother and sister and their spouses and children to the country?
There is a "right" that your siblings have to live within a hundred miles of you or something?
Especially in the modern world, with mass communications. We're not saving up for stamps for postcards once a month and a telephone call once a year, like in 1950 when the ECHR was conceived.
From the judgement
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
Could hardly be a more definitive statement that the judge isn't concerned about the public interest. The impact on the Gazan woman would be a lot worse if (say) Restore came to power.
Why was she not just hoofed out after appeal 2 or 3 failed ?
Even the judge disputed her honesty but still let her stay.
Utterly nuts.
It's insane.
I think it's a mix of politicians with neither the legal knowledge, resilience, desire or energy to change it so they prefer to perform a pissing contest on Twitter instead.
Part of the reason things look unlikely to improve in the medium term is that Britain is currently selecting politicians on the basis of their ability to win pissing contests on twitter. It's why Polanski became leader of the Greens - and initially enjoyed a surge in support. It's part of Badenoch's appeal. Farage was a politician created for twitter before it existed.
Comments
This country is nuts.
“ The judge accepts that it's not in the public interest because the family (a) does not meet the immigration rules, (b) cannot speak English, and (c) would require public funds, but decides that the mental health impact on the Gazan woman in the UK outweighs the public interest.”
“ None of these people speak English but yes they'll all likely get jobs and all the children will easily integrate because they have the "capacity to learn"”
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/2077718953929941204?s=61
Social media is not the pub. It also doesn't understand context so sarcasm really doesn't work well online..
Including the Linehan arrest.
Free speech does not come without legal consequence.
That is usually what supporters of these people say when they are using the police to harrass gender critical posters.
Different now the boot is on the other foot.
It was like giving a cookie to a little boy who has been raising hell, when he finally settles down for a while.
(Of course, whoever in the UK government thought of this ploy deserves some credit, but will never be able to admit it, publicly.)
So we have ourselves to blame for enabling these people
They are unscheduled mortality facilitators.
The ECHR has been applied for many decades without this being the functional result of it.
I suggested, when this first came up, that a short bill on the definition of family for immigration purposes should be put through parliament.
Since the child will be your child too post-marriage, there is no reason why the stepchild could not move either - unless they're an adult, in which case they should apply for their own visa and not be treated as a child.
That is it.
Perhaps we should say children under voting age and let Labour decide what number they want for that.
https://x.com/brentfordfc/status/2077522353160896890?s=61
Within 12 months of the Labor Prime Minister saying everyone who comes in a boat will be sent abroad, no exceptions, and the policy being implemented there were no longer any crossings.
Why bother crossing if you'll just be sent straight abroad, even with a legitimate claim?
Lab 33% (+1 compared to Dec '25)
Con 18% (-2)
LD 9% (-2)
Grn 17% (+4)
Ref 18% (-1)
Others 6% (+1)
When the Nazi's marched into Czechoslovakia the good citizens of Prague took to the streets to cheer as jews were thrown from their houses!
Peter.
HBM memory which meets NVidia's specs isn't really commodity, and they are their big tech customers have effectively purchased much of the capacity which otherwise would have produced commodity memory
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/live/cm20r1g92zmt
The final will be an unequal contest if half the team are suspended - as they should be under FIFA rules.
Saying that we can’t pass legislation because it will take too long, or make our bums look big, or whatever, is a very serious problem.
Part of Trumpism is that the legislative branches have become mired, in the US, in procedural games. They have abdicated legislation to the courts. Which, in turn, has made the Supreme Court the unelected third, and most powerful, legislative chamber.
Trumpism is the end state of this, with political capture of the Court.
In the U.K., the Supreme Court has held the line - they have specifically refused to legislate and literally invited Parliament to legislate to change their rulings.
We should note that Reform have already talked about appointing thousands of immigration judges - to be picked under their criteria, and dilute the current ones.
https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2026/07/16/council-greenlights-eu-deal-with-andorra-and-san-marino/
I think it's a slamdunk that any player near that banner should be banned for the final. Very funny that the Argies have given FIFA such an enormous headache.
Asked who Starmer would be supporting in the final, she says: "The PM wishes both teams well for the final, especially Spain."
Too much personality in that to have come from StarmerGPT though.
The rapid expansion of high-speed internet has intensified concerns about how digital technologies affect early childhood. Using the staggered rollout of fibre optic to the home in Uruguay as a natural experiment, this column finds that greater lifetime exposure to high-speed internet reduces children’s scores in communication, problem solving, personal-social and socio-emotional skills. The effects are partly explained by indirect channels, through the displacement of valuable activities for child development and alterations in caregivers’ behaviour.
I.e., it's partly the parents spending their time online that's the problem!
https://x.com/IAPonomarenko/status/2077468422380687659
..who in the Ministry of Defense of the 21st century, in the age of the drone revolution, combat robots, and military AI, really needs a 35-year-old IT top executive who led the digital transformation of an entire nation and can pick up the phone to ask Elon Musk to shut off Starlink for Russians.
No, what we need is a former high-ranking cop who boasts about making recruits tuck in their beds with perfect hospital corners and who happens to suit the generals and the major defense contractors just fine...
What, what, hold on that's not how capitalism or business works.
“Lovely business you’ve got there, shame if anything happened to it”
And we can use his logic to insist Google and Meta pay tax on the full profits of their UK sales.
The reason why most Government's don't start down this path is that it's a quid pro quo, you lose tax on some bits but gain it elsewhere.
What might have been
Erling Haaland says he might have played for England if his dad had stayed in the UK longer. A fascinating butterfly effect whereby Roy Keane potentially cost England the World Cup by denying them another star striker via prematurely destroying Erling’s dad’s career. Very Irish of him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_River_Plate
I'm avoiding Amazon as I don't know how profitable the UK really is while the profits for Google and Facebook is a simple case of UK sales minus a bit to cover costs.
Equally, some in politics have stated that vertically integrated companies that reduce costs are bad. Since they don’t create a pyramid of contractors. Who can all wet their beaks.
It's not really on a scale of shattering an opponent's leg as a historic retribution.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/12/asylum-seeker-joined-terror-group-so-she-could-stay-in-uk/
We don't have to leave the ECHR. I don't understand why this hasn't been done.
How do we keep the benefits from the internet and cut out the negatives?
The proven fact that longer legislation doesn’t yield better results is ignored. Because if we just add 500 more pages, we will get perfection - the last ambiguities will be removed.
Is that really fair?
Why was she not just hoofed out after appeal 2 or 3 failed ?
Even the judge disputed her honesty but still let her stay.
Utterly nuts.
The argument against that is “that would be jolly inconvenient”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c36dnz1zez5o
Doubtless seven or eight appeals to follow over the next decade, this being Italy.
Not saying that’s the answer but the current situation is not perfect.
The system is working as intended
There is no political will to do it.
(No, I don't want this. But it's at least sane.)
Which means that decades after Trump, his helpers will be in place. And removable.
Or in this case - Who appointed the judge ?
I note the judge was appointed by the king. But it is not his fault because well he always acts on the advice of his ministers !
So who was the learned minister who appointed yet another Garden Court Chambers silk to an upper tribunal post with all that is likely to inevitably follow.
Ah yes, a certain Alex Chalk ! So not something that can be laid at Labour's door really.
I don't think so.
They could windfall tax Micron.
I bet that would go down well.
But for Labour, if they can deal with this, moderately, the benefits are huge.
I don't believe that anyone is happy about the status quo.
Unless they all secretly want Farage to win the next election.
Because each attempt at change will meet resistance. Which is how large orgs work. Pushing changes through in the face of systemic resistance is one of the skills senior management requires.
Starmer’s bleat about not being able to get things done amounted to “I can’t do the job.”
Secondly, the political class have a large dose of learned helplessness. We get a lot of emoting, sympathy, and, "I'm very angry about this," sort of statements in an attempt to convince the public that the politician is on their side, but very little follow-through to do anything.
In the short-term the saying something is all that matters. And politicians are hyper-focused on the short term. Nothing else exists.
They could cope with anything, and they kept levelling up with Australia in the final and I just knew they'd pip them.
You didn't get that sense from this England football team.
France are the team that should really be kicking themselves, they have the strongest team on paper, the strongest second XI on paper (who could probably best England XI) and up to the semi-final were walking it. They absolutely shit the bed against a very good, but not exceptional Spain team.
https://yougov.com/articles/55081-labor-on-track-for-decisive-election-victory-as-coalition-support-hits-record-low
Whole group of 20 people should go back now.
I think it's a mix of politicians with neither the legal knowledge, resilience, desire or energy to change it so they prefer to perform a pissing contest on Twitter instead.
Also, who paid for the legal costs of cases like this? I’d bet that government paid both sides.
We are seeing this with the "skilled migrant" sponsoring e.g. A Dominos franchise with a couple of outlets claiming they need 20 odd skilled "chefs".
Argentina es española!