Salisbury Fox

I suspect that with the growing adoption of AI, this notion will be turned on its head.

Here’s the UK, French and German (the E3) counter proposal apparently: https://en.hvylya.net/news/80-e3-nations-propose-counter-plan-to-trump-s-ukraine-peace-deal-reuters-reports

I would also add that the deal as it stands would likely lead to a greater risk of nuclear proliferation as countries see that nuclear weapons are the only way to stop another country invading. I also feel it would make war in Europe far more likely. Hopefully there will be significant changes

If that’s what you want to call the military I suppose

Even for those whose work is transient in nature?

To be fair, if raising income tax wasn’t being considered then they could have unequivocally ruled it out much earlier.

I’m sure there are people who hide bigotry behind a thin veneer of respectability and it should be rightly called out. I don’t however see how a point about the economics of high immigration can be construed as such. Feel free to browse through my posting history if you doubt my intentions. I have been consistently making the point about the economics of high migration, illegal and legal, that I feel is even more pertinent now given the lack of growth and increasing demand.

Sigh, that’s not what I said.

Effort and gumption is great and I agree we could certainly benefit from more of that in our work force. However, it doesn’t automatically make someone an economic asset, particularly when you balance those with that drive against those that don’t and those that participate in organised criminal enterprises.

I believe that you are underestimating how many would apply. Every embassy would be overwhelmed.

I may be wrong but I’m sure I read that the Nobel committee sits in January and so it was unlikely he would even have a chance this year. If true, he will be hoping to get it next year.

I have seen this posted numerous times on here about the Dublin Convention and not just by you and so not trying having a go at you. The evidence shows that it didn’t really stack up when we were in the EU and I would suggest that it certainly wouldn’t now if we had remained.

Of course racists are still going to be racist if digital ID is introduced, this won’t stop that, but if they have no justification to ask someone for their ID then they can be dealt with by existing legislation. They would also need to have downloaded the employer verification app that the Home Office would have oversight of to check someone’s status and so theoretically this could provide proof that someone is asking for ID when they shouldn’t be.

I think the idea is to make it easier for employers to perform a check without having to try and spot fakes. From what I have read, employers download a verification app which when used would create a record that would be shared with the Home Office giving greater transparency over what businesses are compliant.

Employers are legally obliged to check that potential employees have the right to work in the UK already.

He compromised his security vetting if he failed to disclose information that could be used against him by another party. Should be considered as a very serious offence given the potential implications to national security.

Could add it to their care home fees

Apologies for quoting myself, but it’s worth adding that the advice given may have been correct based on what Raynor told them. These advisors may well push back if she withheld information.

Politics is rightly or wrongly about optics and there is a sufficient lack of trust in our institutions now that whether it was intentional or not will not matter to many. However if she releases evidence that shows she was advised incorrectly then I personally would consider the matter closed. It’s worth noting that HMRC works on the basis that the onus is on the individual to get it right.

Has the advice and qualifications of who gave it been released yet?

Doesn’t the fact that she is SoS for housing have to be considered in this? I get why people are trying to defend her on the basis of the scale in comparison to the transgressions of others, but there is no defined scale of acceptability and so this argument seems moot to me.

Whatever your political persuasion, calling for the death of others should lead to some sort of punishment.

You’re mistaken if you think I was defending Connolly as I thought I made it clear by saying she pleaded guilty and so the two cases cannot be compared. I do however find it strange that on face value Jones’ was found not guilty of encouraging violent disorder when calling for peoples throats to be cut. Clearly I am not privy to the evidence provided, but the optics of this decision just doesn’t feel right.

I suppose the comparisons with Lucy Connolly are not accurate as she pleaded guilty, but she was clearly ill advised to do so given this judgement. It’s seems very strange that you can be found not guilty after being filmed calling for slitting of throats. The ‘I never meant it defence’ seems to work.

Strongest performance over the first half of the year when combining the 1st and 2nd quarters, but not the strongest in the 2nd quarter which is why I assume the BBC headline was what it was.