Jimothy

BBC News - Heathrow shutdown caused by problem found seven years ago https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cly22eelnxjo If there was ever a news story that could sum up this country over past decade or so, this is probably it.

He should have beaten a lot of players at Wimbledon but has failed to, rarely makes his seeding. Yeah obviously he should be winning today, but in terms of some of those who are already out, I'm not that shocked by this one.

Zverev losing isn't a big shock. He's seeded third but doesn't have a great Wimbledon record. Never gone past R4. Bit like Wawrinka, awful record at Wimbledon compared to his ranking. Grass is such a unique surface and the grass season is so short, its why it brings up these kind of results.

He's gonna be seeded in the top 4, so unfortunately I don't see the media leaving him alone.

Looks like a Santa beard

BBC News - Zia Yusuf resigns as Reform UK chairman https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq54p9epdg6o

Is it worth carrying on then? I've never had the desire to after watching the 1st one

Rocky is a terrible film. The pacing is awful. Starts with a 3 minute fight, followed by 45 minutes of Rocky walking the streets mumbling at people. Supposedly to set up the character. A couple of training montages and then the big fight that start barely 15 minutes before the film ends. The dialogue feels like its been written by someone who's never held a conversation in their life before. The romance with Adrian felt forced and extremely creepy. But also her change of character once entering the relationship wasn't believable. She lost the specs and became a whole new person. The sound editing is pants. Especially the scene where Paulie loses it with the baseball bat. The fight itself at the end it shocking. The punches don't even look close to real, it's hard to tell if the punch was meant to have landed or not, unless it's the ones that knocked someone down, but the were still obviously fake. The acting is awful too. Stallone has never been great, can barely hear what he say half the time, and Burt Young as Paulie is terrible. Astonishing that they both get Oscar nominations. Maybe it was seen as ground breaking in 1976, but I've seen films from that era that are miles better and it really not aged well.

Is it?

But the very first thing they do is present to authorities to start the application. So even if you want to be pedantic and say until they do that, the crossing and short time before the application starts are technically a period in which the law is broken, what's the actually issue? The refugee law overrides any law previously stated about how you enter the country, so its not worth getting upset over. So everyone who arrives in boats and claims asylum is an asylum seeker, no laws broken whilst that is in process. The very small percentage who don't apply, about 350 out 37000 in 2024 would of course be classed as illegal immigrants, as would those who go on the run after starting the application before its complete and also anyone going on the run after failing their application. Anyone waiting to be deport isn't illegal, because they are waiting on the failed process to be completed. And obviously anyone whos application is granted asylum becomes refugee.

Yeah so they arrive, apply for Asylum, wait for the decision. If granted they can stay, if not they should be sent back. If they don't apply at all they are breaking the law, if the apply and go on the run they are breaking the law and if they arent granted asylum but go on the run they are breaking the law. If they fail and are sat around waiting to be sent back, it's not really on them is it if we haven't deported them. And if they are granted asylum, the haven't broken any law at the end of it all. But at the end of the whole process, whatever the outcome, any crime these people are charged with will never be the manner in which they travelled to the UK.

No, they should be sent back to they country of origin. That's the whole point of the application. If you pass you are granted asylum, if you don't then you deported. But we can deport anyone if we don't process anyone's application.

Illegality ends at the start of the application not the conclusion. Which is why I don't understand the hang up on the means of arriving. I don't want them coming here that way because it's dangerous, but others like yourself seem to be hung up it being illegal initially. But seeing as that illegality ceases the moment they present themselves to the authorities, I'm not sure why it's such a big issue. Personally I find everything else about this migrant situation much more worrying, the danger of the crossing, the slow processing, the needless cost of the hotels due to that, the poor conditions they live in, the discourse around these people and the terms used, which then grows into violence and intimidation, and as you mention before the relatively small number who go on the run (and then do actually become illegal immigrants) and potentially commit crimes an issue increased by the slow processing. The fact the initial act would be classed as illegal until the moment they present themselves to authorities shortly after arriving doesn't seem worth getting bothered about. Anyway this has gone on too long now, I know Mark hates drawn out debates so will probably leave it there.

Well I mean you're wrong. The entry can only be judged as illegal of they don't present themselves to the authorities. And if you can't accept (not except) that the get off you're arse and do something about it

So your relative broke the law by going on the run, not by coming here and seeking asylum. If you don't like people just rocking up in boats, maybe start to suggest some solutions rather than just bitching about the situation like that's going to fix it. Calling them illegal and saying you don't like it won't stop them coming. Listening to Farage and his mates clearly won't work either as they've made the situation worse. As you stated the asylum process saved lives so we need to find a way to continue this whilst minimising the instance like your drug lord relative. But bunging them in hotels, threatening Rwanda and brexit haven't worked or have made the situation worse. Calling them illegal and demonising them all hasn't worked. For example if the government, both Labour and Tory actually stepped up the processing speed, maybe your relative would never had had the chance to go on the run. So you can call them "illegal" if you want but the facts remain they aren't to blame for the situation, we are as a country. We've allowed it to get like this and now we just go round in circles complaining about the method of arrival rather than addressing any of the reasons they come here and addressing any of the failings in the process that exacerbate the situation.

I'm pretty sure I'm not missing the point that they can apply for asylum I've said this multiple times. I feel like your missing many points and have no solutions to the issue. So what's your solution to all this? You call these people illegal, you don't want to give them any other way of getting here, you don't want to offer other ways of claiming asylum here or before they arrive. Crossing the channel in a small boat is extremely dangerous, yet it doesn't put them off, so clearly heavy handed approaches are just going to make them find a work around.

So under your logic they have zero way of getting here. We take no asylum seekers and leave it to the rest of the world? What makes us special we don't have to do our part? This attitude, the closing of legal routes to these people is exactly why we've ended up in the situation. Add to that the lack of action from the previous government in processing claims and brexit taking us out the Dublin convention has created this perfect storm of boat crossing, hotel dwelling chaos. If a person was to claim travel here under different pretences and then claim asylum, that would be illegal. So what do want these people to do. We've put them between a rock and hard place. Also you do realise, you could travel to France in a boat, and providing you show documentation on arrival then you've travelled there legally. Claiming asylum replaces providing a passport and other documentation. Do you consider your crossing in your own boat illegal because you haven't caught a plane and gone through passport control at the airport? Of course you don't. So why can't these people make there own way here and then provide documentation or start the asylum process on arrival?

The refugee convention overrides the one you highlight as soon as the asylum process starts. I hope this clarifies things. Also not sure why the post is confusing, I referenced Debs bringing it up, you continued the comparison. The rest wasnt confusing, it made many points and ideas on how to deal with the current crisis, none of which you engaged with. We both want people to stop making dangerous trips across the channel, probably for different reasons. We can deal with it humanely, sensibly and with a long term view to continue to manage the situation, as I previously mentioned, or we can keep messing about with these gimmicky tactics the last government, this government and Reform are all fixated on.

You're comparing tourists to asylum seekers though, which appreciate Debs brought it up, but they just aren't comparable. When you travel to another country through official means, with a passport etc then you obviously have to show documentation on entry to prove why you are going. But you have been afforded a means of travel, a passport and an application for whatever the thing is you need to enter and stay in that country. I don't know if you realise but all travel routes for the countries these people on boats have come from have been closed off. Also people who facing political persecution are not likely have a passport or be allowed to cross a border with ease. They have to be snuck out they respective county. Granted there's are arguments about them claiming asylum elsewhere, but they don't have to. You or me travelling to another country in a boat and just wandering off too look at the site would be illegal. Someone with no other way of getting to a country can get there by any means, and they aren't illegal unless they skip asylum process. You want to sort this boat crisis/migrants in hotels situation out? Process the backlog so we can either send back or grant asylum to those already here waiting for a decision. That will clear the hotels and bring down thar cost. Then either offer people a safe way to get here and claim asylum or allow them to start the process in another country, which them completely shut the smugglers business model down. No more hotels housing people waiting, no more boats making dangerous crossings. More control over who comes and when. People are making this dangerous crossing for shits and giggles, give them a better way and I'm sure they'll take it. People should have empathy with these people and also be careful what they wish for. They way this country is heading and the types currently leading the polls might mean we're all grateful of an asylum process where we can flee to another country for safety.

They asylum process starts immediately, of which 99% of them do. Unless you have an issue with someone standing in a queue

So are they being put up hotels and given free money, or are they being given free houses and starting their own businesses? I'm never sure which complaint is the trend each week

They claim asylum immediately on arrival. If they don't then yes they would become illegal, but as I say the asylum process starts immediately. 99% of those that arrived in small boats claimed asylum in 2024. 36816 people arrived in boats in 2024, only 368 skipped asylum.

Not illegal if they claim asylum. They are called asylum seekers.

You'll notice that the regeneration didn't actually complete, usually the Doctor would check out the new face. Also in the credits it didn't say introducing Billie Piper as the Doctor. As SpacedX says its probably just a stop gap to create intrigue whilst they sort out the commissioning of the new series and the whos gonna play the role.