Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
There's no evidence that free movement of people is a bad thing, or that the government can control an "ideal" level of immigration without it.
It's recognised that in the Republic of Ireland especially directly on the borders with Northern Ireland there is a significant pricing difference on common consumables in the supermarkets and so forth. I've heard credible but anecdotal evidence that there's simply no point in the investment of opening a supermarket or electronics retailer within driving distance of NI for that reason.
So from the perspective of richer counties/provinces/etc get richer from free movement of people over borders at the expense of the poorer ones in other countries, I'd strongly suggest there's some backing to that. That's before we get into targetted subsidies, which is apparently what caused this to happen - normalising prices britain-wide in spite of increased shipping costs to NI.
Now I don't doubt there are scenarios where the opposite is true for whatever reason - Switzerland certainly enriches its neighbours with free movement but harsh residency regulations, however given our geography and general economy I'd suggest that the net outcome for the UK (and by that I mean anywhere that isn't london) trends towards the negative.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/19 19:08:54
Some people find the idea that other people can be happy offensive, and will prefer causing harm to self improvement.
Future War Cultist wrote: It does. If we leave, we will no longer be at the table shaping single market policy. But if we stay in the single market it means accepting all of its rules, including free moment of people. We'll be a worse situation than we are now. So again, I say get out of it completely.
Why not stay in until something we don't like happens? Leaving the single market strikes me as a terrible idea.
Future War Cultist wrote: Being in the single market means accepting their rules but without any say in creating them. If we're going, go all the way.
However the proposed idea is that by leaving the EU we will be able to set up all these free trade rules which rather than complying with one set of rules as we do with the EU. This will now mean we will have to comply with 10's to 100's of countries individual set of rules which *we will have no say in*. And if we want to stay trading with the EU then we will still have to comply with their rules as well!
I do also find it bizarre these 60MPs think being a bastion of free trade means leaving the largest block of free trade countries that has been set up.
An annotated list of all the studies showing that immigration is a bad thing that damages national and international economies.
This gave me a good laugh...
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 10:18:23
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Future War Cultist wrote: Being in the single market means accepting their rules but without any say in creating them. If we're going, go all the way.
I find it interesting that you describe EU rules as "their" rules. It seems as if you don't recognise that the UK is part of the EU, has a major role in shaping the EU's rules, and gives effect to the rules in UK by parliamentary legislation (e.g. the Human Rights Act.)
In other words the rules are our rules.
Furthermore, if after Brexit we wish to interact with the EU, we are going to have to adapt ourselves to their rules, because they will be by far the larger and more powerful partner in the partnership.
The crux will be the balance between access to the free market and free movement of EU citizens.
Future War Cultist wrote: Being in the single market means accepting their rules but without any say in creating them. If we're going, go all the way.
However the proposed idea is that by leaving the EU we will be able to set up all these free trade rules which rather than complying with one set of rules as we do with the EU. This will now mean we will have to comply with 10's to 100's of countries individual set of rules which *we will have no say in*. And if we want to stay trading with the EU then we will still have to comply with their rules as well!
I do also find it bizarre these 60MPs think being a bastion of free trade means leaving the largest block of free trade countries that has been set up.
An annotated list of all the studies showing that immigration is a bad thing that damages national and international economies.
This gave me a good laugh...
What is alarming is that these MP's are still out of touch even with those of us who voted leave. Mother knows best, even when they have been told they don't and mummy is on the verge of being shoved out of the door.
The Leave vote was partly motivated by the perceived out of touch-ness of the political elite.
Ironically, the left-wing parties -- Labour, SNP and Lib-Dem -- are the most Euro-friendly. The Tories have always been split on the issue, hence UKIP and the referendum, despite the government's official position. Labour is conflicted.
I think the problem of being in touch is made worse by the closeness of the result and the huge disappointment of the Remain side. It isn't politically possible to ignore 16 million or whatever the number is voters' opinions, especially if you are MP for a constituency that clearly voted for Remain. At the same time it looks impossible to reconcile the issue.
Apparently Theresa May has a massive issue with unpaid internships and the way they advantage the better off, even though it was recently talked out of time by Tory MP's, and is looking to include forced payment for them in the Queen's speech next year.
Source: Private Eye, most recent copy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 11:04:42
I'm torn. On one hand, they can be really useful for people neding to gain a quick bit of experience, and shouldn't have to always be paid if the internee doesn't care. On the other hand, they're now industrially exploited, and help to differentiate the experience levels between the well off and poor when it comes to getting on the bottom rung of employment.
It's like the gig economy. It offers flexibility and opportunity to a handful, but is exploited to the maximum by unethical employers, to the detriment of workers. So I think I come down against unpaid internships, but that's only because the rapacious exploitation of the average worker demands it. In a better world, it wouldn't be a problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/20 11:09:00
If it was illegal not to pay interns and an intern doesn't want to be paid they could waive their fee or donate it to charity, but as you say, there is a wide expectation that interns work for nothing, and this creates a strong bias in favour of the children of rich parents.
As regards the gig economy, it has always been possible to be self-employed and pick and choose the jobs you do. The zero-hours contract is a different thing, forcing all the labour cost risk of running a business on to the employee.
With all the fallout from the EU referendum, spare a thought for one family-run business in north-west England. Manchester United's debt has risen from £286.2m to £337.7m, partly because of the change in exchange rates since the vote.
.. so not everything to do with Brexit is bad news see ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Its a start at least, some recognition of the decades of lack of investment in regions outside of the South East, although 1.3bn is still a bucket in the ocean. It'd be nice if they scrapped HS2 altogether and used that budget to address the horrendous infrastructure all over the UK.
It's a proven correlation, spending on infrastructure and transport equals financial growth. Financial growth outside of London will help the economy by being more diverse and robust, it's perhaps the only positive thing I've seen so far over the last few months.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/20 12:01:20
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
Kilkrazy wrote: May had a reputation when Home Secretary for keep the cards and reins close to her own chest.
Seeing as she was a complete disaster as Home Secretary, she had to keep her cards close to her chest!
She failed on immigration targets, she locked a man up for 8 years without charge, and has proven herself to be an enemy of liberty with her backing for various programmes that give the green light to spy on the British public.
And this is the person to steer the good ship into a bright new Brexit future?
God help us.
May is a political amateur. Not as bad as Dave, or Gordo, but that's not exactly saying much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I'm torn. On one hand, they can be really useful for people neding to gain a quick bit of experience, and shouldn't have to always be paid if the internee doesn't care. On the other hand, they're now industrially exploited, and help to differentiate the experience levels between the well off and poor when it comes to getting on the bottom rung of employment.
It's like the gig economy. It offers flexibility and opportunity to a handful, but is exploited to the maximum by unethical employers, to the detriment of workers. So I think I come down against unpaid internships, but that's only because the rapacious exploitation of the average worker demands it. In a better world, it wouldn't be a problem.
It's the old James Madison quote: if men were angels, we wouldn't needs laws...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/20 12:23:45
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Seeing as she was a complete disaster as Home Secretary, she had to keep her cards close to her chest!
She failed on immigration targets, she locked a man up for 8 years without charge, and has proven herself to be an enemy of liberty with her backing for various programmes that give the green light to spy on the British public.
In all fairness, the Home Secretary portfolio has been considered a poisoned chalice for a few decades now. It was known as the 'career killer', because assorted Secretaries never seemed able to control the department, meet any of the objectives they set themselves, and were always invariably blamed for a very large proportion of whatever domestic problems cropped up over the course of government. It's why Cameron gave it to her as the token woman representative, he didn't want to taint the careers of any of his fellow etonians. She was never expected to last more than a few years.
I don't doubt she worked herself to the bone keeping the bad press to a minimum on that score, and virtually all the really negative headlines that cropped up (passport delays, immigration targets, etc) were really very little to with her personally and more to do with her being designated scapegoat as Home Secretary.
That said, I won't disagree with you on her firm backing of draconian governmental surveillance powers. But 'an enemy of liberty' is wandering into the realms of hyperbole. She reckons the government needs those powers to do their job. You and I (and many others), think otherwise. There's no objective 'truth' on that score though, and we are free to vote elsewhere if we dislike her stance strongly enough. Democracy in action, YMMV.
In a way, we do it to ourselves, after any terrorist incident, there's always newspapers screaming out 'Why wasn't this person caught in advance?!', and the politicians knee jerk to try and accommodate that.
Seeing as she was a complete disaster as Home Secretary, she had to keep her cards close to her chest!
She failed on immigration targets, she locked a man up for 8 years without charge, and has proven herself to be an enemy of liberty with her backing for various programmes that give the green light to spy on the British public.
In all fairness, the Home Secretary portfolio has been considered a poisoned chalice for a few decades now. It was known as the 'career killer', because assorted Secretaries never seemed able to control the department, meet any of the objectives they set themselves, and were always invariably blamed for a very large proportion of whatever domestic problems cropped up over the course of government. It's why Cameron gave it to her as the token woman representative, he didn't want to taint the careers of any of his fellow etonians. She was never expected to last more than a few years.
I don't doubt she worked herself to the bone keeping the bad press to a minimum on that score, and virtually all the really negative headlines that cropped up (passport delays, immigration targets, etc) were really very little to with her personally and more to do with her being designated scapegoat as Home Secretary.
That said, I won't disagree with you on her firm backing of draconian governmental surveillance powers. But 'an enemy of liberty' is wandering into the realms of hyperbole. She reckons the government needs those powers to do their job. You and I (and many others), think otherwise. There's no objective 'truth' on that score though, and we are free to vote elsewhere if we dislike her stance strongly enough. Democracy in action, YMMV.
In a way, we do it to ourselves, after any terrorist incident, there's always newspapers screaming out 'Why wasn't this person caught in advance?!', and the politicians knee jerk to try and accommodate that.
I agree with some of what you say, but I 100% stand by my comment about May being an enemy of liberty.
I have no idea how you feel about terror suspects, but if a man is accused of terrorism, he should be charged, and then allowed the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. That's how it works in Britain, and has done so for centuries.
These ancient rights are the birthright of every British man and woman, and even if the accused is foreign, he/she should still be allowed due process and all that.
What you don't do is lock him up for years, and then hide behind the feeble excuse of 'national security' or similar bullgak about not being able to present evidence of the accused's 'guilt.'
As for the spy powers that May has championed for years, they add up to a load of bullgak. They assume that all 60 million + of the UK population is guilty, and you know as well as I do, that anybody with a half decent knowledge of IT will just laugh and evade this bulk storage.
Also, any terrorist worth their salt won't be using email or social media to plan any attacks, because it gets monitored.
This week has seen the government get away with evicitng Chagos islanders from their home to make way for a American military base, and of course, these new spy powers.
I have many other reasons for wanting Scottish independence, but given the bullgak, the corruption, the loss of liberty, the constant attack on democracy, that is coming out of Westminster these days, I no longer wish to be part of the UK. This is no longer the country I knew and grew up with....
Things weren't perfect years ago, and I'm the first to admit that, but something has gone badly wrong with the UKIMO....
I want out....
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Justice Secretary Liz Truss must "get a grip" on the backlog of inmates being held beyond their sentence, the chief inspector of prisons has said.
Peter Clarke said it was "completely unjust" that offenders serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) terms were "languishing in jail".
He warned that IPP sentences, abolished in 2012, were having a serious effect on prisoners' mental health.
The Ministry of Justice said a new unit had been set up to tackle the problem.
More than 3,800 prisoners in England and Wales are serving indeterminate IPP sentences, designed to protect the public.
Of those, 500 should be let go, former Justice Secretary Michael Gove said, when he delivered the annual Longford lecture in memory of prison reformer Lord Longford.
Mr Gove said executive clemency should be granted to release prisoners who had served far longer than the tariff for their offence and had now - after multiple parole reviews - served even longer than the maximum determinate sentence for that offence.
Chart showing how many IPP prisoners are serving several years beyond their original sentence
Speaking to the BBC's Today programme, Mr Clarke said Mr Gove was the latest in a line of secretaries of state who had pointed out flaws in the system.
The prisons inspectorate identified problems with IPP sentences eight years ago, yet little had been done since and progress was "painfully slow", Mr Clarke said.
He added: "This should be addressed as a matter of urgency, and it's not just a case of resources - there have been failings and blockages in the prison service, in the probation service and the parole board.
"And we suggest that the only person who's got the authority to get a grip on the way things happen - it may mean policy changes...is the secretary of state [Liz Truss]."
On prison visits, he said inmates - including one who was seven-and-a-half years over his tariff - told him they felt "trapped in the system" and unable to prove that they were no longer a risk to the public.
One IPP prisoner, James Ward, told the BBC he feared he would never get out. He is in his 11th year in prison after being given a 10-month sentence for arson.
Introduced in 2005, the sentences were designed for high-risk criminals responsible for serious violent or sexual offences.
If, at the end of their tariff, their danger had not been reduced sufficiently, they would continue to be detained until they had satisfied the Parole Board that they could be managed safely in the community.
But the punishments were abolished in 2012 after it emerged they were being used far more widely than intended - and in some instances for low-level crimes.
Some 3,200 prisoners have served more than the tariff or minimum sentence they were given, while 400 of them have served at least five times the minimum.
Mr Clarke was speaking as HM Inspectorate of Prisons released its report saying "significant failings" in the prison, probation and parole systems were contributing to the numbers still in custody years after the end of their tariff.
They have been denied the opportunity to demonstrate whether they present a continuing risk to the public, or to have this properly assessed, the study added.
Spoiler:
Mr Clarke said it was widely accepted that the implementation of the sentence was "flawed".
He said that while some on IPP sentences remained dangerous, others presented a much lower risk to the public but "system failures have impeded their progress".
"The problems with the legacy of the IPP sentence are well understood and there is an openness in government to find new and innovative solutions to the problem," he said
James Ward was given a 10-month IPP for arson in 2006. Now in his 11th year in prison, he still has no release date.
He regularly self-harms, sets light to his cell, barricades himself in and has staged dirty protests.
With a low IQ, and mental health problems, he cannot cope with prison life.
In a letter he wrote to the BBC last week, he said he was struggling inside prison.
''I'm hoping they let me out with some support because I'm not getting none in here.
"Hopefully it will happen but I doubt it."
He has a parole board hearing in January, when his solicitor will be arguing for his release.
His sister, April Ward, says he has recently cut his wrist.
"We always worry about James," she said. "The biggest fear for my mum and dad is that they will never see James walk free and live a normal, happy life."
She said his prison had given him the job of cleaning out prisoners' cells, which meant wiping blood off the walls where other prisoners had self-harmed.
Prisoners asked him to pass drugs between the cells and when he refused, they threw things at him.
"He feels like he's been forgotten about, that nobody wants to help him. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the IPP sentence. It's madness," she added.
Prisoner ‘trapped’ in jail for 10 years
In July, the Parole Board chairman Nick Hardwick said Ms Truss "needed to consider" changing the release test to make it easier for IPP prisoners to be freed.
In Wednesday's lecture, Mr Gove called Mr Hardwick "superb" and said he should be given the resources and flexibility to ensure more IPP cases could be processed and more individuals released.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Public protection remains our key priority, however this report rightly highlights concerns around the management of IPP prisoners.
"That is why we have set up a new unit within the Ministry of Justice to tackle the backlog and are working with the Parole Board to improve the efficiency of the process."
View comments
IPP sentencing was a step too far. At least this government is trying to get to grips with the issues but It is taking far far too long. Of course the issue then crops up as to what support these offenders get when they step outside the gates.
Justice Secretary Liz Truss must "get a grip" on the backlog of inmates being held beyond their sentence, the chief inspector of prisons has said.
Peter Clarke said it was "completely unjust" that offenders serving Imprisonment for Public Protection (IPP) terms were "languishing in jail".
He warned that IPP sentences, abolished in 2012, were having a serious effect on prisoners' mental health.
The Ministry of Justice said a new unit had been set up to tackle the problem.
More than 3,800 prisoners in England and Wales are serving indeterminate IPP sentences, designed to protect the public.
Of those, 500 should be let go, former Justice Secretary Michael Gove said, when he delivered the annual Longford lecture in memory of prison reformer Lord Longford.
Mr Gove said executive clemency should be granted to release prisoners who had served far longer than the tariff for their offence and had now - after multiple parole reviews - served even longer than the maximum determinate sentence for that offence.
Chart showing how many IPP prisoners are serving several years beyond their original sentence
Speaking to the BBC's Today programme, Mr Clarke said Mr Gove was the latest in a line of secretaries of state who had pointed out flaws in the system.
The prisons inspectorate identified problems with IPP sentences eight years ago, yet little had been done since and progress was "painfully slow", Mr Clarke said.
He added: "This should be addressed as a matter of urgency, and it's not just a case of resources - there have been failings and blockages in the prison service, in the probation service and the parole board.
"And we suggest that the only person who's got the authority to get a grip on the way things happen - it may mean policy changes...is the secretary of state [Liz Truss]."
On prison visits, he said inmates - including one who was seven-and-a-half years over his tariff - told him they felt "trapped in the system" and unable to prove that they were no longer a risk to the public.
One IPP prisoner, James Ward, told the BBC he feared he would never get out. He is in his 11th year in prison after being given a 10-month sentence for arson.
Introduced in 2005, the sentences were designed for high-risk criminals responsible for serious violent or sexual offences.
If, at the end of their tariff, their danger had not been reduced sufficiently, they would continue to be detained until they had satisfied the Parole Board that they could be managed safely in the community.
But the punishments were abolished in 2012 after it emerged they were being used far more widely than intended - and in some instances for low-level crimes.
Some 3,200 prisoners have served more than the tariff or minimum sentence they were given, while 400 of them have served at least five times the minimum.
Mr Clarke was speaking as HM Inspectorate of Prisons released its report saying "significant failings" in the prison, probation and parole systems were contributing to the numbers still in custody years after the end of their tariff.
They have been denied the opportunity to demonstrate whether they present a continuing risk to the public, or to have this properly assessed, the study added.
Spoiler:
Mr Clarke said it was widely accepted that the implementation of the sentence was "flawed".
He said that while some on IPP sentences remained dangerous, others presented a much lower risk to the public but "system failures have impeded their progress".
"The problems with the legacy of the IPP sentence are well understood and there is an openness in government to find new and innovative solutions to the problem," he said
James Ward was given a 10-month IPP for arson in 2006. Now in his 11th year in prison, he still has no release date.
He regularly self-harms, sets light to his cell, barricades himself in and has staged dirty protests.
With a low IQ, and mental health problems, he cannot cope with prison life.
In a letter he wrote to the BBC last week, he said he was struggling inside prison.
''I'm hoping they let me out with some support because I'm not getting none in here.
"Hopefully it will happen but I doubt it."
He has a parole board hearing in January, when his solicitor will be arguing for his release.
His sister, April Ward, says he has recently cut his wrist.
"We always worry about James," she said. "The biggest fear for my mum and dad is that they will never see James walk free and live a normal, happy life."
She said his prison had given him the job of cleaning out prisoners' cells, which meant wiping blood off the walls where other prisoners had self-harmed.
Prisoners asked him to pass drugs between the cells and when he refused, they threw things at him.
"He feels like he's been forgotten about, that nobody wants to help him. Nobody wants to take responsibility for the IPP sentence. It's madness," she added.
Prisoner ‘trapped’ in jail for 10 years
In July, the Parole Board chairman Nick Hardwick said Ms Truss "needed to consider" changing the release test to make it easier for IPP prisoners to be freed.
In Wednesday's lecture, Mr Gove called Mr Hardwick "superb" and said he should be given the resources and flexibility to ensure more IPP cases could be processed and more individuals released.
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "Public protection remains our key priority, however this report rightly highlights concerns around the management of IPP prisoners.
"That is why we have set up a new unit within the Ministry of Justice to tackle the backlog and are working with the Parole Board to improve the efficiency of the process."
View comments
IPP sentencing was a step too far. At least this government is trying to get to grips with the issues but It is taking far far too long. Of course the issue then crops up as to what support these offenders get when they step outside the gates.
If you want to judge how civilized a society is, look to their treatment of prisoners in jail...
It will tell you a lot...
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Tony Blair is positioning himself to return to British politics, it has been reported.
Great. The sink hole to hell is opening on Tuesday afternoon, around 15:47.
Lol.
You know what, good. I wait for the mental gymnastics of Labour supporters distancing themselves from their former saviour. I'll be hearing a lot of 'Blairite this' and 'not labour that' if more weight is added to this revelation.
'Things can only get better' You know who you are.
Tony Blair is positioning himself to return to British politics, it has been reported.
Great. The sink hole to hell is opening on Tuesday afternoon, around 15:47.
Lol.
You know what, good. I wait for the mental gymnastics of Labour supporters distancing themselves from their former saviour. I'll be hearing a lot of 'Blairite this' and 'not labour that' if more weight is added to this revelation.
'Things can only get better' You know who you are.
Can you imagine if Blair ran against Corbyn? I hate the man, but I'd pay to watch that one unfold.
Shock result, Sarkozy knocked out in the primaries, with Francois Fillon and and Alain Juppe taking a narrow first and second respectively. As a former Prime Minister of France, what would Fillon taking the French premiership mean for the EU and Brexit?
As far as I can ascertain, Fillon views it with a certain degree of realpolitik and equanimity. 'Brexit should be treated neither with hostility nor compliance' he said previously (or words to that effect, my French is pretty rudimentary). He reckons that trying to 'punish' us like Juncker wants is daft and counterproductive, but there shouldn't be any question of us retaining financial/common market access. He thinks a new trade agreement should be drawn up (canada style), one that's beneficial for everyone involved, but also makes it clear that we're not part of the EU.
More widely, he wants a European hard Schengen border with a European border force, an interlocking European defence alliance, and to wrest control of the euro away from Brussels and back into the hands of a more unified group controlled by national governments directly (to try and offset the fiscal issues and weaknesses the euro has).
Speaking from our perspective, Juppe would be better for us. He's shown himself to be more amenable than Fillon on things like retaining market access without freedom of movement. Fillon is no eurocrat, and he won't set out to sabotage us, but he won't give us anything he doesn't have to.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/20 23:48:16
Well done KK.
