I seem to think it would have been closer to 4 hours? Given the distance between Cheltenham and Chester as the crow flies it was a very long time.
Nah; I looked it up on the National Rail journey planner. 
Itâs actually quicker than driving, according to Google Maps.
Less polluting and far less stressful, too, Iâd imagine.
2 Likes
Here we are. It can take just over 2.5 hrs if it doesnât matter what time you arrive but if I needed to be at Court or a meeting before 10am itâs more than 4 hours
I dont really want to get bogged down on the benefits or otherwise of freeports more the fact that the government is challenged on the stuff they say. Goveâs exact words were
âFreeports are one of the many advantages the nations of the UK can enjoy as a result of our departure from the EUâ
Thatâs wrong, or at best extremely misleading. And itâs just one small example
I think you could easily lose 4 hrs at the M5 / M6 junction if you landed there at a bad moment. Been there done that, all too often. Cross country is possible I guess.
While this highlights our lack of infrastructure it may also be looking at the alternative. Back at my previous work place they actively discouraged driving anywhere. They would prefer you to stay overnight in a hotel rather than drive. It took some real adjustment from people to get used to the idea but it did go in that direction in quite a short time with some very active management of travel. It was frustrating to start with but worked.
Perhaps we need to stop taking certain things for granted and taking these small sacrifices?
1 Like
A story thatâs going under the radar right now:
The governmentâs lackey, the BBC, arenât reporting about it. What a surprise. 
2 Likes
No one ever predicted that did they?
You need to read beyond the headline, which is counter to the governmentâs direction of travelâŚ
Marisa Heath, policy adviser to the Trade and Animal Welfare Coalition, said she was âpleased that Defra wants an enabling power to introduce bans on imports not meeting our standards.â
She added: âWe think this is crucial to meeting the governmentâs commitment on not allowing trade deals to undermine our standards through imports, and we know there is a lot of political support for this. We hope that DIT drops its opposition to the proposal.â
The suggestion, according to multiple people with knowledge of the process, was for import bans to be implemented via secondary legislation instead of primary, meaning the government would be able to change laws without a parliamentary vote.
Defra, run by Farming Secretary George Eustice, wanted to put the clause in the upcoming âanimals abroad bill,â which the government is currently consulting on. It was seen as a compromise move after the government rejected a proposal for a blanket ban on all imports of products produced to lower standards than those allowed for domestic producers in the U.K.
Others denied that the proposal had been blocked by Truss. âThe British public want us to get on and secure new trade deals and promote animal welfare,â said one trade department insider. âIt isnât mutually exclusive.â Another person across the detail said the idea had fallen by the wayside because it was considered not specific enough.
However, the new Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan, who took up the role last month, could be more sympathetic to a compromise proposal on import bans of the kind that was suggested. The trade department declined to comment, as did Defra and an official close to Truss, who now serves as the foreign secretary.
Farming Minister Victoria Prentis told a House of Commons committee on Wednesday that the government might need to be âa bit cleverer and more flexible than just relying on legislationâ to maintain high standards.
She suggested commitments in trade deals and international agreements on standards, as well as labeling products according to issues like their animal welfare backgrounds. On the latter point, she said the government had been cool on the idea in the past but âpost-pandemic weâre coming to a slightly different view.â
A consultation on labeling for animal welfare is expected to be published in early December.
Law on welfare
Lorraine Platt, co-founder of the Conservative Animal Welfare Coalition, said the group would welcome new legal procedures âwhich would make it possible for the secretary of state for the environment, food and rural affairs to protect our farm animal welfare standards and protect British farmers from low welfare imports.â
At the moment, there are import bans on chlorine or acid-washed chicken, pork treated with ractopamine, hormone-treated beef and meat, eggs and dairy produced using antibiotic growth promoters. The U.K. is in the process of banning foie gras imports, and a ban on fur imports could be on the cards.
Advocates argue that without bans, items below domestic production standards will enter the market no matter what, and in new trade deals where all items drop to zero tariffs, such as the proposed deal with Australia, the risk increases.
For example, stalls that prevent pigs moving around are meant to be banned in Europe but some places are still using the practice, leading to the assumption their pork will be coming into the U.K.
Meanwhile, the government is looking at banning uncomfortable animal transportation practices in domestic transit, and it will be difficult to monitor whether other nations Britain imports from do similar.
Former Conservative Vice Chair Roger Gale noted there was a âtension within government, because those who just want to strike trade deals, want to strike trade deals, and those of us who are concerned about animal welfare issues take a rather different view.â He noted that Trevelyan was still to show her hand on the issue.
The headline could more accurately read, âGovernment continues to review how best to further raise animal welfare stipulations for domestic and imported produceâ.
1 Like
Fixed it for you. 
Did you miss this?
At the moment, there are import bans on chlorine or acid-washed chicken, pork treated with ractopamine, hormone-treated beef and meat, eggs and dairy produced using antibiotic growth promoters.
1 Like
No
-
I dont trust anything this government says
-
My edit was done in the spirit of not being serious.
That is not what the letter says!
Itâs the same line as the UK the accords are not being fulfilled, there really isnât any difference on a political stance.
All this for fish. 
2 Likes
2 Likes
My question to Alex Wickham is âwhat the fuck is the point of a nincompoop studying Politics and International Relations?â
Then pretending to be a journalist?
No wonder the UK is a fucking mess! 
2 Likes
Precisely.
If youâre going to try to blow things out of all proportion, at least get your facts straight first.
But thatâs not how it works, is it, especially on the right.
1 Like
Which bit is not said in the letter because itâs amazing how many French speakers are also saying that it is an accurate translation?
Just look in the replies.
Lots of comments along the lines of, âwhere does it say that the EU need to ensure leaving the EU is damaging?ââŚ
ErrrrâŚright here,
âil y a davantage de dommages a quitter lâUnion Europeenâ
Oh, right.
That really doesnât mean that, thereâs a fucking context to it as always. So England is full of French speakers who donât understand French and particularly French used in diplomacy. DEoesnât surprise me when the English donât speak French when they visit France!
It is all in accordance with the accords signed!
For added information he specifically mentions the public european and in that regard he is indicating the Frenchfishermen . You might understand better if you looked at the political angles rather being absorbed in patriotic fervor and legal nonsense that hasnât even come yet. This is a highly political situation and the nationalistic pomp pomp isnât going to help!
Fuck me.
The letter literally calls on it being clearly demonstrated to the public that leaving the EU is more damaging than remaining.
This is done in the context of the French threatening to take unilateral (and therefore unlawful) action in breach of the TCA, deliberately as a punitive measure for the UK simply applying the terms of the TCA.
NO IT DOESNâT!