The UK collapsing fast

a reply to: crayzeed

Cheers for the info.

Aye somebody will be making a small fortune off the backs of some very spurious people.

Wonder how "secure" the compound is?

Then again "Amazon" probably delivers the things on Prime.

a reply to: andy06shake

Like purchasing a vehicle with the intent of committing international crimes.

You could say I'm being a bit pedantic and perhaps/probably I am, but what national/international law says you can't transport people who pay/promise to pay for you to take them in a boat to another country?
A top notch copper (head of arms division here in Gloucestershire) told me that actor Samuel L Jackson arrived with his entrourage in a private jet from Switzerland at Staverton Airport here in Gloucester. Jackson had forgotten his passport in Switzerland. They told him to go back on the plane he arrived in and fetch it. Didn't matter how famous he was/is.
Two points...
#1 it wasn't down to the pilot to check his paperwork, anymore than a 'captain' of a ship or plane. So not down to the 'captain' of these illegal boats. So they can't/wont be held responsible. So if you are the owner of a 'vehicle' you wouldn't necessarily know that your 'passenger' doesn't have the required paperwork.
#2 Same goes to the retailer.... he doesn't know why you want to purchase a Lear Jet or a 30ft inflatable or where you are going to fly/sail it. So you can't go after the manufacturer either.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

Big play afoot.

Needs stopping.

All laws/rules are out the window.

One law for them, another law for us.

Their master plan is working. They control the media.

Stop the boats = stop the illegals.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Lets blame him after all he's the one pocketing the money.

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: andy06shake

Like purchasing a vehicle with the intent of committing international crimes.

You could say I'm being a bit pedantic and perhaps/probably I am, but what national/international law says you can't transport people who pay/promise to pay for you to take them in a boat to another country?
A top notch copper (head of arms division here in Gloucestershire) told me that actor Samuel L Jackson arrived with his entrourage in a private jet from Switzerland at Staverton Airport here in Gloucester. Jackson had forgotten his passport in Switzerland. They told him to go back on the plane he arrived in and fetch it. Didn't matter how famous he was/is.
Two points...
#1 it wasn't down to the pilot to check his paperwork, anymore than a 'captain' of a ship or plane. So not down to the 'captain' of these illegal boats. So they can't/wont be held responsible. So if you are the owner of a 'vehicle' you wouldn't necessarily know that your 'passenger' doesn't have the required paperwork.
#2 Same goes to the retailer.... he doesn't know why you want to purchase a Lear Jet or a 30ft inflatable or where you are going to fly/sail it. So you can't go after the manufacturer either.
Rainbows
Jane

#2 yes there is nothing illegal about selling boats

However

#1. They are deliberately evading passport controls etc. That is illegal. Also pretending stupidity is poor defence in law. People brining immigrants across in this manner absolutely know they do not have the paperwork.

a reply to: angelchemuel

People trafficking is illegal.

And being an accessory to human trafficking is also illegal.

Which is what i imagine them selling rubber dinghies to those sorts amounts to.

I am sure they could make that stick Jane if they had the inclination to do so.

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: SprocketUK

Lee Anderson said he was going to name all the MP's that voted for stopping the winter fuel payments. Farage is his 'boss'. Where did you see Farage failed to vote please?
Rainbows
Jane

it was linked to a document on x, hang on Ill try and find it again
My bad, he voted aye but that was on the conservative amendment to stop the bill.

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: SprocketUK

Lee Anderson said he was going to name all the MP's that voted for stopping the winter fuel payments. Farage is his 'boss'. Where did you see Farage failed to vote please?
Rainbows
Jane

it was linked to a document on x, hang on Ill try and find it again

All the votes are registered and published, so I don't understand what Anderson could reveal that is not already public knowledge.

Here is a link to the Bill in question (I think) and votes divided by categories: Ayes, Noes and No Votes. Farage is in amongst the Ayes.

votes.parliament.uk...

originally posted by: Encia22

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: angelchemuel
a reply to: SprocketUK

Lee Anderson said he was going to name all the MP's that voted for stopping the winter fuel payments. Farage is his 'boss'. Where did you see Farage failed to vote please?
Rainbows
Jane

it was linked to a document on x, hang on Ill try and find it again

All the votes are registered and published, so I don't understand what Anderson could reveal that is not already public knowledge.

Here is a link to the Bill in question (I think) and votes divided by categories: Ayes, Noes and No Votes. Farage is in amongst the Ayes.

votes.parliament.uk...

When you look at the didn't vote it's amazing how many Labour MPs suddenly had somewhere very important they needed be.

a reply to: Encia22

Thanks, this is where my confusion came from I think.
Farage failed to vote on Opposition day: Winter Fuel Payment but later voted for the conservative amendment, so really Lee Anderson should name and shame him.

a reply to: SprocketUK

Cheers, SprocketUK.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

It should be compulsory for them to vote if they are an MP.

After all that's kind of what they are paid to do.

Stand up and be counted.

Or shut up resign and join the dole queue.

Do your job or get tae fu@k being my thinking on the matter.

a reply to: andy06shake

It's been a while, but unless I'm mistaken, I think that sometimes they are obliged to not vote to balance out when an MP of the opposition can't be present for health, family, force majeure. Obviously, there are those who will also abstain, but the risk the wrath of the Whips.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: BedevereTheWise

It should be compulsory for them to vote if they are an MP.

After all that's kind of what they are paid to do.

Stand up and be counted.

Or shut up resign and join the dole queue.

Do your job or get tae fu@k being my thinking on the matter.

Problem is antiquated parliamentary structure and traditions make it too easy for MPs to avoid. Only a fraction of MPs can participate in any debate so why does voting have to be in person?

a reply to: Encia22

By the looks of it when MP from the opposition or a specific party can't be present due to health, family reasons, or other urgent matters, it can create a situation where the balance of votes is affected.

But they are paid to do a job, and if they fail to vote down to not wishing to be seen to have done so, that just seems completely wrong to me.

And a cop-out.

a reply to: BedevereTheWise

In this day of age, it does not seem to need to be in person.

So my answer would have to be the same antiquated parliamentary structure and traditions stop them from phoning in their opinions on the matter.

Which would appear to be all to rather convenient.

a reply to: andy06shake

I notice the present UK government sems to be getting active in fining people who use the remaining fireplaces for heating a 300 pound fine. He seems to really want the oldies off the block.

a reply to: annonentity

I notice the present UK government sems to be getting active in fining people who use the remaining fireplaces for heating a 300 pound fine.

I did not know the UK government had much to do with substances used for clarifying liquids.

He seems to really want the oldies off the block.

I never imagined we would see a Labour government treat pensioners in such a manner if I'm honest.

I dont think many people who voted for them did.

If i did not know better you would think its pay back because the poor sods voted for Brexit.

As to the £300 fine thing.

Not many people still use open fires and chimneys in this day of age.

Have you seen the price of coal.

But fines for the likes are also rather draconian.

What's next bring back the window tax ffs.

a reply to: andy06shake


I think they are trying to cut down on the number of people using woodburners to heat their homes.

originally posted by: annonentity
a reply to: andy06shake

I notice the present UK government sems to be getting active in fining people who use the remaining fireplaces for heating a 300 pound fine. He seems to really want the oldies off the block.

I think the fines only apply to unseasoned/non kiln-dried wood and wood thats been tanelised or had similar treatment as they wont produce much heat but a lot of nasty smoke. Using log burners and fireplaces is fine if the wood has gone through the required processes.

Biochar is the way to go as it's far cheaper, produces loads more heat , carbon negative and the end product is great for the garden.

The treatment of pensioners is sickening though and probably what Starmer will be remembered for.