Salisbury Fox

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.

The ones the ONS says cost between £250k to £400k over their time here depending on the age they arrive. So not mystical at all

To be fair that figure was inflated by Ukrainians and those from Hong Kong who we rightfully helped. Whilst I agree that there is a need for a reasonable level of migration, it’s unsustainable to take in many who will never contribute, especially if the economy continues to flat line as looks the case. The wrong sort of migration has the potential to exacerbate the growing crisis we have with people being unable or unwilling to work which this government seem unable to address. Perceived injustices such as housing allocations, especially in the rental market as they move asylum seekers out of hotels, is likely to continue to see social unrest build.

I share the desire for the killing to stop, but there has to be a just peace, not one that will lead to greater confrontation in the future. There’s no point in talking about concessions whilst Russia still has maximalist demands that would see Ukraine stripped of its ability to defend itself as this will not be in anyone’s interest apart from Russia. Thankfully Europe is beginning to come to terms that we must face up to the Russian threat. I’m also pretty sure the Ukrainians know what’s fake BS by now.

I read that it was to give the Israeli’s more time to reduce the ballistic missile threat. Not sure if that’s true.

I think that Mossad has compromised the Iranian authorities to such an extent that I find this unlikely to be honest.

I believe that Trump administration is compromised given they shamelessly echo Russian messaging. I therefore believe that Putin will continue to push to assimilate the rest of Ukraine in the future, their economy and society is heavily reliant on continuous conflict. Last I heard Ukraine had effectively signed off on a minerals deal, which gave the US a great deal of control, but yes it does seem to have gone quiet on that front. Whilst the US may want to lift sanctions, I can’t imagine Europe will be keen for very good reasons. I do feel that we are going to regret taking this opportunity to show that aggression does not prevail, but then we have a president who seems determined to smash the rules based order to the detriment of everyone else. Salisbury have been very inconsistent this season, but losing by 3 or 4 may be a stretch, unless we can get Faes on loan in time

No problem and thanks. You are right that they haven’t reneged on their commitments to article 5 at this stage, but they have weakened NATO. It’s clear that they want to pivot to the Pacific making me certainly doubt whether they would come to the aid of smaller countries like the Baltics.

You are making the assumption that Russia would have negotiated in good faith back then and a deal would be better than what could be achieved today. Another assumption you are making is that any US security guarantee would have lasted when Trump became president. Evidence doesn’t support this as the US is no longer a guarantor of security for Europe let alone thinking it would keep an agreement in place for Ukraine. And thanks for the patronising comment on rocket science, appreciated.

Simply saying that they should look to negotiate in 2022 doesn’t mean a palpable deal was on the table. It also assumes that Russia would have accepted a deal on terms that were agreeable to both sides.

Well at this stage I would continue to arm Ukraine with everything the West has for as long as they want to stay in the fight. If only to put them in a better negotiating position as a minimum. Also, increase the economic pressure even further, their economy is far more unhealthy than they would have us believe, despite some over optimistic forecasts in the past. I appreciate that you will disagree and also that it is less likely to happen due to the current incumbent in the White House, but any other plan that I have seen rewards and emboldens Russia, and actually makes the world far less safe. It’s a rarity to find a nation that is willing and/or able to resist an adversary the size of Russia and it should be considered shameful to not utilise this opportunity., not only because it’s the right thing to do for Ukraine, but also for the rest of the civilised world.

Appeasing an aggressor is not a plan, it just kicks the can down the road and encourages others to use force to get what they want.

Not as silly as the Trump administration. End of the dying, for how long? I would suggest that normalising illegal annexations is not a good outcome either. You seem to be taking a very short term view on something that will have ramifications for decades. They wouldn’t have needed to take occupied territories back by force if they were and had been given the tools to attrit Russian forces on a larger scale.

Agreed, it does look like there are already suggestions of some limitations being applied to 5 eyes which is crazy. If you work in that area you surely have to be questioning the integrity of the US, especially with Tulsi Gabbard being appointed. I suspect the whole basis of who is friendly and who isn’t must be questioned.