They have really missed the boat on restricting them. Banning the disposable ones is a good start (one of Sunak’s better policies) as they are the equivalent of “loosies” which were always a gateway into smoking.
Personally, I think vapes should have to smell and taste like Woodbines. They are a great help to existing smokers but have been marketed as a gateway device into nicotine adiction.
I’ve just been looking through Hansard to see if Farage is the complete waste of space that everyone seems to be saying. I compared his attendance to my MP who was also elected in July for the first time and it does appear that Farage shows up when he wants to hear his own voice and do a racism.
I noticed that he has put quite a few written questions in on the 3 days that he appears to have bothered to do any work. (I noticed that he had signed no early day motions so he clearly never gets out of bed on time.) I’m not sure if any of these actually relate to constituency business but I was quite amused by the curt reply that Angela Eagle gave to him:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-10-11/8694/#
I have only used tobacco “flavoured” oils the entire time I’ve been vaping.
Started a new job a few months ago, and wasn’t allowed to travel with my vape.
Had to use disposable ones on sale at work, which were all fruit flavours.
It was like inhaling a boiled sweet, fucking awful
I accidently inhaled a Werthers Original the other day.
After the coughing and spluttering I was actually a bit gutted
Scummy thief defended by scummy defence from his lawyer
Story by Martin Evans
Will Pearson was given a 12-month community order and fined after he stole from a 73-year-old grandfather
A thief who stole £350 from a trusting pensioner has been spared jail after a court heard he only took the same amount as the Government had by scrapping the winter fuel allowance.
Will Pearson, 23, could have been jailed for 26 weeks for fleecing an elderly man who had invited him into his home and given him tea and sympathy when he knocked on his window late at night.
However, he was able to walk free from court with a 12-month community order and a financial penalty after his lawyer argued his crimes were no worse than Sir Keir Starmer’s.
John Cooper, mitigating at Workington magistrates court, said: “£350 is a significant amount to some people. I’m not sure what the situation is for this gentleman.
“It’s exactly the same amount the Labour Government has taken off pensioners in the winter fuel allowance.”
John Cooper argued that Pearson’s crime was no worse than the Government’s regarding the scrapping of the winter fuel allowance
Pamela Fee, prosecuting, said the 73-year-old victim had reported an incident of theft from his home address in the remote village of Millom, Cumbria, on Friday October 18.
At around midnight, the man was sitting downstairs in his living room when Pearson appeared at the window looking distressed.
The pensioner, who told police he used to work with homeless people, was concerned for Pearson’s welfare and so invited him into his home. Pearson told the victim his family had kicked him out and he did not have anywhere to stay that night so he gave him £20 to stay at a nearby hostel.
Ms Fee explained that Pearson had initially seemed “very appreciative” but returned a few minutes later saying he would need another £60.
At 5am, Pearson returned once more, claiming to have been kicked out of the hostel and the victim invited him in once more and made him a cup of tea to warm him up.
But while he was out of the room fetching some biscuits, the thief took the opportunity to rifle through the man’s wallet, stealing hundreds of pounds before fleeing.
The court heard that the victim went out in his car to search for Pearson, but was worried about calling the police because he did not want him to get a criminal record.
Instead he called a member of Pearson’s family, who was known to him and when he explained what had happened got the reply: “I’m not surprised.”
Clickbait headline though, unless the judge explicitly said that the defence was part of the reason why he avoided jail.
My guess is it’s more likely to be due to the limited space available…
They are illegal if they have entered a Country against its said policies.
Illegal immigrants in the [UK] include those who have:
If you enter the UK ‘irregularly’, in other words crossing a countries international border without the required authorisation or documentation it is illegal.
The 1951 Refugee Convention | UNHCR.
The 1951 “Refugee Convention” was set up in the aftermath of the Second World War, for people fleeing persecution of war. This was determined for persons Pre-1951 but was adapted in 1967 to remove geographic and time based constraints.
A Refugee is a person classed as suffering from War/Persecution, etc. so for example Ukrainian’s.
Asylum Seekers are defined differently, in that they are claiming persecution, etc (similar to a refugee) but their case has to be decided upon. Due to differing factors.
Immigration is where people want to move to a different country to work/live and involves the process of checking a persons documentation to see if they meet the criteria, in other words their documentation is legal.
SO….if the documentation at the point of trying to gain entry to the UK or An other Country is not legal, it is…………? If it is deemed legal, then carry on in. If it is deemed Illegal, then a different approach is taken.
So, Is this not determined upon entry??? Additionally, how can an illegal immigrant be waiting upon the result of their application if they have never made an application in the first place?
It’s a good point and one that I definitely need to research more.
My concern, without any factual information is the impact of China and how they are investing /lending money to countries on the back of the countries resources.
So does the UK have a proper process in place? Is it adequate? As you said it has been under funded since 2010, a couple of quid chucked into it over the last few months doesn’t fix it, surely?
Regarding point 2 I think it was Noo-Noo and I corrected myself.
Regarding the rest of your response(s).
Look, believe it or not, I am not here to say I am right, or to wind people up. I am here to discuss things and I like to present a more open minded observation to the Status Quo on this forum.
There is so much back slapping on this thread, closely rivalled by the ignorance of looking facts in the face.
Whether the media portraying the issue are right or left wing, it is still an issue central to the Government. It is still an issue which needs addressing, or as I would put it ‘managed correctly’. How, I don’t know.
So, the rise in popularity of Far Right parties is based on sensationalised stories? Ok, that’s one way of looking at it. Let’s just jump on board the naivety of History.
Additionally, you cannot just be so speculative in a response/defence. You have to have provide some kind of fact or basis.
By whom, the ones who choose to reply with snarky responses congratulating themselves on their supposed moral superiority and completely ignoring the facts, calling others pedantic when called out on that?
Again, who’s ignoring facts apart from the usual trolls? As far as I can see, everyone else is, and has been debating with their opinions based on their interpretation of facts.
Which issue? “Immigration” in general is such a nebulous problem. Is it a problem of the numbers of migrants? Is it a problem of the integration of migrants? Is it a problem with illegal immigration? Is it a problem with the asylum system? Is it a problem with principles? Is it a problem with how principles are applied? Is it a problem with supposedly incompatible cultures?
The main issue that I see is that the “issues” are ill-defined, and the right-wing rags use it to just generate a general xenophobia and borderline racism. Can’t call them brown people or Pakis? We’ll just tar them all with the brush of being “Muslim” then.
Ask me again when I have had the time to dig out the research showing (a) the pure numbers of headlines over the last few years demonising immigrants and Muslims, (b) the sociological research/polling showing that anti-immigrant attitudes correlates negatively with the ethnic diversity in a area, and (c) the research connecting the rise of far-right support with the volume of anti-immigrant rhetoric.
But you have to accept that in the area of social science research, there can often be a lack of a smoking gun, because it’s often impossible to come up with a directly causal link since you have limited ways in which to conduct controlled experiments.
But here’s something to whet your appetite on that while you wait for me to have the time to find that research: ‘We want our peace’: why is France’s far-right support such a rural affair? | France | The Guardian
Austerity is working I guess?
I don’t know if this is what you are getting at, but you can, of course enter a country illegally, and be deemed an illegal immigrant.
The point, which I’m not sure if you understand, is that as soon as a person claims asylum, then they are entitled to leave to remain and have their asylum claim processed. It is not legally possible to be an ‘illegal asylum seeker’.
Nor is there any legal requirement that an asylum seeker must travel by a legal route. And there is no requirement for an asylum seeker to claim asylum in the first safe country they enter.
When they have had their claim processes, if it’s deemed that the don’t qualify for asylum, then their legal status would revert to an illegal immigrant and the country would have the right to deport them.
The problem we have had for the last decade or do is that the Tories wound down the processing system, leaving anyone claiming asylum in a legal limbo, and adopting increasingly bizarre holding methods, such as legionnaires riddling boats, and the Rwanda scheme.
The best way to look at Farage and Reform is to totally ignore their bluster on immigration, and see it for what it really is - a way to get the proles onboard while they go about their real agenda.
If you look at their economic policies, it’s basically Liz Truss but worse. They are staunchly against any action on climate change. They don’t believe in human rights or the welfare state. They don’t want an NHS.
Ultimately Farage represents a political/business class that believes that rich people should pay very little tax, while operating with a deregulated economy that allows them to exploit anything - people, nature, natural resources - in the pursuit of more money than they already have.
I don’t think they really give that much of a shit about immigration. They aren’t committed ideologues on the matter. I just think it’s the logical thing to use to distract the proles, while they quietly dismantle all the barriers to rich people getting richer while poor people get poorer. If there was something better than immigration, then they’d use that.
Ultimately, that’s what Brexit was about. The shit about sovereignty, and immigration and controlling our borders, was always bollocks. It was about getting the UK away from the regulatory framework of Europe, and creating a low taxation, low regulation UK.
They are a lot fucking worse than a bunch of racists moaning about immigration, and we need to focus on the whole package, not just the headline stuff.
Immigration in the right measure of people offering the right skills which in turn offers the right contribution to society and the economy is a good thing, and a necessity.
Finding the right way of managing immigration is clearly difficult, and expensive.
The planned collaboration with France to set up a UK immigration centre their side of the channel seemed a logical step, but that plan seems to have just quietly disappeared.
With the right legal facilities set up, you’d probably see less demand for people trafficking on perilous boat trips, and those that still made the trip could probably be deemed “illegals”.
What’s not helpful is the blanket “no to immigrants” mobs, not the “take all immigrants” protestors who surprisingly all live in one bedroom bedsits
Oh, and you were doing so well.
So you think it’s helpful then?
In fairness, they used to smoke. I did. Progress of a sort.
