Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Turkish said:

one thing she said which we can all agree on is Britain is failing and big changes are needed. Im sure even you can agree with that.

Whilst there are many decisions this current government has made that I don’t agree with, a lot of the morass is down to short-term economic experiments like hers which cost tens of billions in a few weeks pushing interest rates further, as well as taking a hard Brexit in 2019 which has cut 6% off the whole economy.

So yes, I agree, going back into the Single Market is absolutely essential. We simply don’t have enough money to fund the services the overwhelming majority of voters of all parties expect. Truss knew it as well, which is why she wouldn’t balance the books to make the level of tax cuts (even then they weren’t remotely affordable).

Edited by Gloucester Saint
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Turkish said:

A woman in her 50s investigated for criticising a labour MP on Facebook?

Let’s not worry about knife crime this needs to be stamped out 🤦‍♂️

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2018310/police-accused-infringing-free-speech

I heard on the radio (not read articles or watched video as not that interested!) that she wasn't investigated, a complaint was made and registered (as it would have to be) and she was informed and told police did not seem it needed investigation/ action.

No idea if this is right and fits with other info

Posted
13 minutes ago, West end Saints said:

I heard on the radio (not read articles or watched video as not that interested!) that she wasn't investigated, a complaint was made and registered (as it would have to be) and she was informed and told police did not seem it needed investigation/ action.

No idea if this is right and fits with other info

Either ways it's absolutely ridiculous. Sending two coppers round to an old ladies house to talk to her about comments on facebook, when you've got kids getting stabbed every week with police moaning about budget cuts and lack of resource. 

  • Like 4
Posted
3 hours ago, Turkish said:

Either ways it's absolutely ridiculous. Sending two coppers round to an old ladies house to talk to her about comments on facebook, when you've got kids getting stabbed every week with police moaning about budget cuts and lack of resource. 

If a formal complaint was made it's standard procedure for the police to inform her. Why it wasn't a solitary PC is another question.

She wasn't questioned, just informed about the complaint.

i'd be more concerned about the Councilor abusing the complaints process to try and silence criticism.

  • Like 1
Posted
Just now, ecuk268 said:

If a formal complaint was made it's standard procedure for the police to inform her. Why it wasn't a solitary PC is another question.

She wasn't questioned, just informed about the complaint.

i'd be more concerned about the Councilor abusing the complaints process to try and silence criticism.

It will (rightly in my opinion) be viewed as intimidation. There is no legal requirement for the police to inform her of the complaint and certainly not for them to do it in pairs in person. This follows numerous other occasions where the police have turned up to intimidate individuals for something posted on social media even when no crime has been committed. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Posted

Who is looking forward to the new production of Jesus Christ superstar? 
 

I think Robert Powell is going to face a run for his money when it comes to the iconic portrayal of The Lords Son….

 

 

IMG_3426.jpeg

  • Haha 1
Posted
13 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Who is looking forward to the new production of Jesus Christ superstar? 
 

I think Robert Powell is going to face a run for his money when it comes to the iconic portrayal of The Lords Son….

 

 

IMG_3426.jpeg

Nobody gets close to matching Ian Gillan's Jesus on the original concept album.

Posted
24 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Who is looking forward to the new production of Jesus Christ superstar? 
 

I think Robert Powell is going to face a run for his money when it comes to the iconic portrayal of The Lords Son….

 

 

IMG_3426.jpeg

That paves the way for Tom Hardy playing Winnie Mandela in a future biopic. Anything is possible these days LD. Embrace the opportunism for us all. 

  • Haha 2
Posted
48 minutes ago, egg said:

That paves the way for Tom Hardy playing Winnie Mandela in a future biopic. Anything is possible these days LD. Embrace the opportunism for us all. 

Bet he'd mumble his way through that role as well.

  • Haha 1
Posted
5 hours ago, egg said:

That paves the way for Tom Hardy playing Winnie Mandela in a future biopic. Anything is possible these days LD. Embrace the opportunism for us all. 

I’m hoping Eddie Izzard is considered for the role of Mo in the upcoming adaptation of The Satanic Verses. What could go wrong? 

  • Haha 2
Posted

It’s not the haircut that you need to worry about, it is what the person underneath it thinks, says and does.

If you are worried about haircuts, then those sported by Trump and Boris Johnson should have you scurrying over the the tranquilliser cabinet.

  • Haha 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17q9lrl57ro

So basically nobody will ever report this kind of thing again. They'll just tell the bloke to run off, so that they don't get fined.

That’s absolutely absurd, got to be over-turned/very reduced and there’s a precedent they can draw on legally below so it should be. If they’d known about it before departure they wouldn’t be informing the authorities.

I have to deal with the Home Office for work sometimes and they are dreadful. 

Not a one-off either, at least Rayner was their MP and had it massively reduced. There should be an inspection by cross-border forces and the ferry companies before sailings commence https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1j0dxek3kro

Posted

The Home Office said penalties were "designed to target negligence rather than criminality". I assume they expect people to do the polices and border services job then? I mean WTF. This is just crazy.

Seems the UK does not want to prosecute any kind of criminality these days.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
15 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

The Home Office said penalties were "designed to target negligence rather than criminality". I assume they expect people to do the polices and border services job then? I mean WTF. This is just crazy.

 

Hold the frontpage - I agree with Nic.

  • Like 1
Posted
18 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

The Home Office said penalties were "designed to target negligence rather than criminality". I assume they expect people to do the polices and border services job then? I mean WTF. This is just crazy.

Seems the UK does not want to prosecute any kind of criminality these days.

Negligence shouldn’t be pensioners having to search every single square cm of their trailers and vehicles for stowaways. The ferry companies I’m happy to be fined and prosecuted for running reasonable quick checks before sailing but it ought to be the border forces really.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)

Absolute Radio are holding a competition to win £450 thousand, and to register interest in taking part listeners are told to text "Win" to a given number. "For clarification, that is spelt 'w' 'i' 'n'". Apparently many entries are mis-spelt.

Edited by badgerx16
  • Haha 2
Posted (edited)

As much as I agree that Border Force need to run checks, if they checked everything it would take even longer to get through the borders. How much time does it take to check that there are no stowaways hidden in your bike rack? It isn’t as if we haven’t had many years of migrants hiding in the back of trucks coming across the border. Isn’t it reasonable to expect that people crossing the border have taken basic care to ensure that they aren’t carrying  stowaways?

Think about it. A truck driver could bring 100 migrants over and if they were found by the Border Force and he claimed not to know anything about them, he could walk away scott free. By putting the onus on those with the transport to check in the first instance it makes it more difficult for the people traffickers.

Edited by sadoldgit
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
44 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

As much as I agree that Border Force need to run checks, if they checked everything it would take even longer to get through the borders. How much time does it take to check that there are no stowaways hidden in your bike rack? It isn’t as if we haven’t had many years of migrants hiding in the back of trucks coming across the border. Isn’t it reasonable to expect that people crossing the border have taken basic care to ensure that they aren’t carrying  stowaways?

Think about it. A truck driver could bring 100 migrants over and if they were found by the Border Force and he claimed not to know anything about them, he could walk away scott free. By putting the onus on those with the transport to check in the first instance it makes it more difficult for the people traffickers.

How much time would it take BF to look inside a bike rack cover on the outside of a camper van ? 10 seconds ? If they can't be bothered to check it, why should you be fined for not doing so ?

Edited by badgerx16
Posted
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

How much time would it take BF to look inside a bike rack cover on the outside of a camper van ? 10 seconds ? If they can't be bothered to check it, why should you be fined for not doing so ?

How many vehicles cross the channel every day? How many Border Force staff are there? Can you imagine the queues if they checked every single vehicle?

You can make the same argument about the people whose camper van it was. How long would it taken them to check the bike rack? If you go through customs and they find drugs in your bag that is down to you, even if you didn’t put them there. If you are responsible for your luggage surely you are also responsible for your camper van? 

I expect the appeal will be successful given the publicity, but at least this will raise awareness and make people realise that they are responsible for their vehicles.

Posted
1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What a load of old pony. 

Says the man who froths at the mouth over people arriving in small boats. The law is very clear. You are responsible for your vehicles when you cross the channel.

  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

How many vehicles cross the channel every day? How many Border Force staff are there? Can you imagine the queues if they checked every single vehicle?

 

Isn't that their job ?

As for the people driving the van, if that was you would you have thought to check the cover on the bikes ?

Don't lie.

Edited by badgerx16
Posted
1 hour ago, badgerx16 said:

How much time would it take BF to look inside a bike rack cover on the outside of a camper van ? 10 seconds ? If they can't be bothered to check it, why should you be fined for not doing so ?

They’ve always checked our caravan both on leaving France and entering Britain. Vans too.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...