This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
This is an absolute disgrace. I'm outraged that people can be treated like this in our country with our "high" standards.
G4S are clearly culpable, but just as much are the Home office (G4s aren't the one's f*cking up basic admin meaning people are being held for 2 years+) - and lets face it G4s haven't got a good record so should be watched like a hawk.
They are making immigration over stayers mix with criminals coming out of prison waiting to be deported. Drugs are rife. Beatings are frequent, many suicidal detainees (because they want to leave the UK but admin f*ck-ups mean they get stuck in there for months (some up to 2 years).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/g4s_brook_house_immigration_remo...
G4S are clearly culpable, but just as much are the Home office (G4s aren't the one's f*cking up basic admin meaning people are being held for 2 years+) - and lets face it G4s haven't got a good record so should be watched like a hawk.
They are making immigration over stayers mix with criminals coming out of prison waiting to be deported. Drugs are rife. Beatings are frequent, many suicidal detainees (because they want to leave the UK but admin f*ck-ups mean they get stuck in there for months (some up to 2 years).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/g4s_brook_house_immigration_remo...
10
6
In reply to balmybaldwin:
And all of this, without trial.
> This is an absolute disgrace. I'm outraged that people can be treated like this in our country with our "high" standards.
> G4S are clearly culpable, but just as much are the Home office (G4s aren't the one's f*cking up basic admin meaning people are being held for 2 years+) - and lets face it G4s haven't got a good record so should be watched like a hawk.
> They are making immigration over stayers mix with criminals coming out of prison waiting to be deported. Drugs are rife. Beatings are frequent, many suicidal detainees (because they want to leave the UK but admin f*ck-ups mean they get stuck in there for months (some up to 2 years).
And all of this, without trial.
2
5
In reply to balmybaldwin:
This is why you're outraged. You believe the UK has "high" standards. Burst your bubble and realise that many aspects of the UK are "3rd World" or worse and things become easier to understand.
W
> This is an absolute disgrace. I'm outraged that people can be treated like this in our country with our "high" standards.
>
This is why you're outraged. You believe the UK has "high" standards. Burst your bubble and realise that many aspects of the UK are "3rd World" or worse and things become easier to understand.
W
4
15
In reply to Bogwalloper:
You know, they really aren't.
> Burst your bubble and realise that many aspects of the UK are "3rd World" or worse
You know, they really aren't.
21
1
In reply to Bogwalloper:
It may be that we have different understandings of '3rd world', but I'd be interested to know which aspects of the UK are 3rd world or worse?
> This is why you're outraged. You believe the UK has "high" standards. Burst your bubble and realise that many aspects of the UK are "3rd World" or worse and things become easier to understand.
It may be that we have different understandings of '3rd world', but I'd be interested to know which aspects of the UK are 3rd world or worse?
In reply to Bogwalloper:
If the UK really was 3rd world, everyone would be trying to leave rather then get to it.
> This is why you're outraged. You believe the UK has "high" standards. Burst your bubble and realise that many aspects of the UK are "3rd World" or worse and things become easier to understand.
If the UK really was 3rd world, everyone would be trying to leave rather then get to it.
15
5
In reply to tony:
In this country the government can put people in indefinite administrative detention without trial.
I don't know if it qualifies as "third world" but it certainly looks like what is done in some countries that are qualified as "third world".
> It may be that we have different understandings of '3rd world', but I'd be interested to know which aspects of the UK are 3rd world or worse?
In this country the government can put people in indefinite administrative detention without trial.
I don't know if it qualifies as "third world" but it certainly looks like what is done in some countries that are qualified as "third world".
7
1
In reply to tony:
Gastronomy.
> I'd be interested to know which aspects of the UK are 3rd world or worse?
Gastronomy.
13
1
In reply to tony:
The way we treat immigrants waiting for deportation?
W
> It may be that we have different understandings of '3rd world', but I'd be interested to know which aspects of the UK are 3rd world or worse?
The way we treat immigrants waiting for deportation?
W
4
4
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Which British gastronomy are you thinking of: Indian, Nepalese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Lebanese....? I think you'll find these are properly termed "developing countries".
French maybe? They fit the bill
> Gastronomy.
Which British gastronomy are you thinking of: Indian, Nepalese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Lebanese....? I think you'll find these are properly termed "developing countries".
French maybe? They fit the bill
5
In reply to Bogwalloper:
It does seem odd that all these deportation centres are supposedly for the protection of the deportee, making sure they are not going to face persecution etc in their homeland, making sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed on the paperwork, when many other countries are criticised for just bunging them on the next plane out and to hell with the consequences.
It does seem odd that all these deportation centres are supposedly for the protection of the deportee, making sure they are not going to face persecution etc in their homeland, making sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed on the paperwork, when many other countries are criticised for just bunging them on the next plane out and to hell with the consequences.
3
In reply to Ian W:
Problem is, a lot of people in those "dentention centres" have committed no crime, done nothing wrong, and they end up being wrongfully locked up for years without trial before being released, simply because the home office is incompetent and has been given the power to lock up people merely for convenience without judicial scrutiny.
> It does seem odd that all these deportation centres are supposedly for the protection of the deportee, making sure they are not going to face persecution etc in their homeland, making sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed on the paperwork, when many other countries are criticised for just bunging them on the next plane out and to hell with the consequences.
Problem is, a lot of people in those "dentention centres" have committed no crime, done nothing wrong, and they end up being wrongfully locked up for years without trial before being released, simply because the home office is incompetent and has been given the power to lock up people merely for convenience without judicial scrutiny.
Post edited at 15:02
5
5
In reply to RomTheBear:
Well 45% are former prisoners, so a lot have, and that's leaving aside immigration offences.
The average stay is 118 days.
You really do you self no favours (again) by just making stuff up about immigration.
> Problem is, a lot of people in those "dentention centres" have committed no crime,
Well 45% are former prisoners, so a lot have, and that's leaving aside immigration offences.
> and they end up being wrongfully locked up for years without trial,
The average stay is 118 days.
You really do you self no favours (again) by just making stuff up about immigration.
Post edited at 15:06
16
2
In reply to MG:
Yes, what about the rest ? As I've said, many have committed no offence and end up being released.
The home office is paying huge sums every year in compensation for wrongful detention.
Do you think locking up people, sometimes for years, without trial, when no offence has been committed, acceptable ?
So ? That's already pretty bad if you've done nothing wrong.
Can you please tell me what I've made up ? I'm completely in line with all the parliamentary review on the topic, are they also making this up ?
You do yourself no favour by throwing wrongly accusations.
> Well 45% are former prisoners, so a lot have, and that's leaving aside immigration offences.
Yes, what about the rest ? As I've said, many have committed no offence and end up being released.
The home office is paying huge sums every year in compensation for wrongful detention.
Do you think locking up people, sometimes for years, without trial, when no offence has been committed, acceptable ?
> The average stay is 118 days.
So ? That's already pretty bad if you've done nothing wrong.
> You really do you self no favours (again) by just making stuff up about immigration.
Can you please tell me what I've made up ? I'm completely in line with all the parliamentary review on the topic, are they also making this up ?
You do yourself no favour by throwing wrongly accusations.
Post edited at 15:28
3
4
In reply to RomTheBear:
This " and they end up being wrongfully locked up for years without trial before being released". As above, they don't - typically a few months, often less, before being deported. The centres are not about bail before trial.
This " and they end up being wrongfully locked up for years without trial before being released". As above, they don't - typically a few months, often less, before being deported. The centres are not about bail before trial.
Post edited at 15:30
10
1
In reply to MG:
Your dishonesty is flagrant.
Complete quote :
"A lot of people in those "dentention centres" have committed no crime, done nothing wrong, and they end up being wrongfully locked up for years without trial before being released,"
"A lot" in English, means a large number, it doesn't mean "all" or even the majority like you (pathetically) tried to make it look.
> This " and they end up being wrongfully locked up for years without trial before being released". As above, they don't - typically a few months, often less, before being deported. The centres are about bail before trial.
Your dishonesty is flagrant.
Complete quote :
"A lot of people in those "dentention centres" have committed no crime, done nothing wrong, and they end up being wrongfully locked up for years without trial before being released,"
"A lot" in English, means a large number, it doesn't mean "all" or even the majority like you (pathetically) tried to make it look.
Post edited at 15:40
4
2
In reply to MG:
"Well 45% are former prisoners, so a lot have, and that's leaving aside immigration offences".
I would say Roms 55% is more of A LOT than your 45% A LOT
"Well 45% are former prisoners, so a lot have, and that's leaving aside immigration offences".
I would say Roms 55% is more of A LOT than your 45% A LOT
5
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
But they don't get locked up for years - see numbers above. If the average is 118 days, and large numbers are just held for a few days, at absolute worst a few are held for years. Further they aren't being held for trial.You really are tiresome. Just admit that you got it wrong.
But they don't get locked up for years - see numbers above. If the average is 118 days, and large numbers are just held for a few days, at absolute worst a few are held for years. Further they aren't being held for trial.You really are tiresome. Just admit that you got it wrong.
3
4
In reply to jethro kiernan:
I didn't actually dispute his "a lot", although since your bring it up, most of the 55% will have done something wrong, immigration-wise
I didn't actually dispute his "a lot", although since your bring it up, most of the 55% will have done something wrong, immigration-wise
7
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Just to help you, the reason I didn't quote the lot bit was that I wasn't disputing it. It was the held for years bit I was disputing - the average is 118 days. You specifically asked that I tell what you had made up, which I did.
(and yes, before you move the goalposts again, I am sure you will find some outlier cases where people are held for years - I am talking about the typical situations here)
> Your dishonesty is flagrant.
> "A lot of people
> "A lot of people
Just to help you, the reason I didn't quote the lot bit was that I wasn't disputing it. It was the held for years bit I was disputing - the average is 118 days. You specifically asked that I tell what you had made up, which I did.
(and yes, before you move the goalposts again, I am sure you will find some outlier cases where people are held for years - I am talking about the typical situations here)
2
In reply to MG:
I was being tonque in cheek, though I'm not sure I comfortable with your "most" of them will have done something wrong sweeping statement. Unless you have some figures to back it up it's actually quite a sinister statement.
I was being tonque in cheek, though I'm not sure I comfortable with your "most" of them will have done something wrong sweeping statement. Unless you have some figures to back it up it's actually quite a sinister statement.
3
1
In reply to MG:
Sorry mate, bit you absolutely lost it there. You can continue arguing with yourself as to what "a lot" means.
> But they don't get locked up for years - see numbers above. If the average is 118 days, and large numbers are just held for a few days, at absolute worst a few are held for years. Further they aren't being held for trial.You really are tiresome. Just admit that you got it wrong.
Sorry mate, bit you absolutely lost it there. You can continue arguing with yourself as to what "a lot" means.
2
5
In reply to MG:
Yes of course these are outliers nobody denied that or said the opposite, despite your pathetic attempts to make it look so. The problem is your "outliers" add up to hundreds if not more... that is what most people would consider "a lot" when talking about human beings...
Regardless of that, even 118 days on average is way too long.
> Just to help you, the reason I didn't quote the lot bit was that I wasn't disputing it. It was the held for years bit I was disputing - the average is 118 days. You specifically asked that I tell what you had made up, which I did.
> (and yes, before you move the goalposts again, I am sure you will find some outlier cases where people are held for years - I am talking about the typical situations here)
Yes of course these are outliers nobody denied that or said the opposite, despite your pathetic attempts to make it look so. The problem is your "outliers" add up to hundreds if not more... that is what most people would consider "a lot" when talking about human beings...
Regardless of that, even 118 days on average is way too long.
Post edited at 16:11
3
5
In reply to RomTheBear:
And to MG;
Will you two take your petty feuds and pedantry competitions somewhere else. Its boring.
You're like politicians trying to score points of each other, neither really caring about the issue at hand, as long as you can prove the other is more wrong than yourself
Jethro - stop encouraging them.
And to MG;
Will you two take your petty feuds and pedantry competitions somewhere else. Its boring.
You're like politicians trying to score points of each other, neither really caring about the issue at hand, as long as you can prove the other is more wrong than yourself
Jethro - stop encouraging them.
Post edited at 16:11
17
2
In reply to Ian W:
Sorry but it is relevant. The conditions you would expect for holding people long term when they have genuinely done nothing wrong (if this is every appropriate) are entirely different from those you would expect from short term detention of at best difficult people, and very commonly criminals. The conditions in the centres sound like poorly run prisons. I would hope the poorly run bit is solved, but I am fairly happy with the prison-like bit. If we were really dealing with sort of groups Rom makes out we are dealing with, I would have a problem with the prison but too.
> You're like politicians trying to score points of each other, neither really caring about the issue at hand, as long as you can prove the other is more wrong than yourself
Sorry but it is relevant. The conditions you would expect for holding people long term when they have genuinely done nothing wrong (if this is every appropriate) are entirely different from those you would expect from short term detention of at best difficult people, and very commonly criminals. The conditions in the centres sound like poorly run prisons. I would hope the poorly run bit is solved, but I am fairly happy with the prison-like bit. If we were really dealing with sort of groups Rom makes out we are dealing with, I would have a problem with the prison but too.
Post edited at 16:16
5
In reply to MG:
Yes, I think you, me and Rom all agree on that.
Holding conditions seem to be at best like a prison; which is unacceptable for ALL deportees, and it is unarguable that the home office and the various operators of these centres simply dont seem to care. But your lengthy handbag sessions are pathetic. However relevant you think your points / arguments are.
Yes, I think you, me and Rom all agree on that.
Holding conditions seem to be at best like a prison; which is unacceptable for ALL deportees, and it is unarguable that the home office and the various operators of these centres simply dont seem to care. But your lengthy handbag sessions are pathetic. However relevant you think your points / arguments are.
6
3
In reply to Ian W:
I wasn't the one who started the pedantry. He immediately started it when instead of engaging on the issue, he started misrepresenting what is being said.
And I do care about the issue, it's not the first time I mention it on these forums, I've vonlunteered for two years with migrant rights network which has been lobbying for years for the abolition of such practices (with very little success it seems so far).
I'm just trying to make him understand that this is a major issue with real life changing consequences, for people who sometimes have done absolutely nothing wrong and not broken any laws.
> And to MG;
> Will you two take your petty feuds and pedantry competitions somewhere else. Its boring.
> You're like politicians trying to score points of each other, neither really caring about the issue at hand, as long as you can prove the other is more wrong than yourself
I wasn't the one who started the pedantry. He immediately started it when instead of engaging on the issue, he started misrepresenting what is being said.
And I do care about the issue, it's not the first time I mention it on these forums, I've vonlunteered for two years with migrant rights network which has been lobbying for years for the abolition of such practices (with very little success it seems so far).
I'm just trying to make him understand that this is a major issue with real life changing consequences, for people who sometimes have done absolutely nothing wrong and not broken any laws.
Post edited at 16:34
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Exactly. British cuisine warrants a category below 'developing country' and the rightful and justified re-introduction of 'third world' to describe it. And that's before even considering the crime which the indigenous population of the British Isles like to call 'coffee'.
> I think you'll find these are properly termed "developing countries".
Exactly. British cuisine warrants a category below 'developing country' and the rightful and justified re-introduction of 'third world' to describe it. And that's before even considering the crime which the indigenous population of the British Isles like to call 'coffee'.
2
1
In reply to Ian W:
As above I don't think we do agree. I don't see that there is much choice but hold ex criminals due for deportation, and other similarly difficult people in something close to prison, short-term. I don't like it, but I don't like prison either really. However, unpleasant things are sometimes needed. How would you propose dealing with say a violent convicted drug-dealer who is due for deportation without some form of detention?
> Yes, I think you, me and Rom all agree on that.
> Holding conditions seem to be at best like a prison; which is unacceptable for ALL deportees,
As above I don't think we do agree. I don't see that there is much choice but hold ex criminals due for deportation, and other similarly difficult people in something close to prison, short-term. I don't like it, but I don't like prison either really. However, unpleasant things are sometimes needed. How would you propose dealing with say a violent convicted drug-dealer who is due for deportation without some form of detention?
Post edited at 16:24
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
I rest my case........
I'm genuinely impressed by anyone who volunteers like this; it must feel like a thankless task, but keep going on this one.
> I wasn't the one who started the pedantry. He immediately started it when instead of engaging on the issue, he started misrepresenting what is being said.
I rest my case........
> And I do care about the issue, it's not the first time I mention it on these forums, I've vonlunteered for two years with migrant rights network which has been lobbying for years for the abolition of such practices, (with very little success it seems so far).
I'm genuinely impressed by anyone who volunteers like this; it must feel like a thankless task, but keep going on this one.
2
3
In reply to Ian W:
With no chance of review of anything? We know mistakes happen? Isn't that worse. Also sometimes "immediately" won't be possible. FLights etc. will take time to arrange.
> Deport him/her immediately.
With no chance of review of anything? We know mistakes happen? Isn't that worse. Also sometimes "immediately" won't be possible. FLights etc. will take time to arrange.
Post edited at 16:26
1
2
In reply to MG:
If someone is in jail and is to be deported, the whole term of the sentence is available to arrange a flight / review etc etc. And if no flight is available immediately, they stay in jail until there is one. They'll be in a detention centre anyway, so they might as well stay in one that does not impose them on the non-criminal deportees.
If someone is in jail and is to be deported, the whole term of the sentence is available to arrange a flight / review etc etc. And if no flight is available immediately, they stay in jail until there is one. They'll be in a detention centre anyway, so they might as well stay in one that does not impose them on the non-criminal deportees.
Post edited at 16:28
9
In reply to Ian W:
That does sound superficially sensible. However, I imagine the practicalities of these things means these detention centres are needed. If it's choice of a criminal due to be deported disappearing on release from prison, or being held for a few days in a detention centre, I don' really have a problem with the detention centre option..
That does sound superficially sensible. However, I imagine the practicalities of these things means these detention centres are needed. If it's choice of a criminal due to be deported disappearing on release from prison, or being held for a few days in a detention centre, I don' really have a problem with the detention centre option..
5
In reply to RomTheBear:
"Regardless of that, even 118 days on average is way too long."
At the centre in the program the average stay is 48 days, the longest 2.5 years and that's because they fight their deportation orders.
45% of the people there have committed crimes and are now being deported and some are committing violent crimes whist they are there.
"On one shift, Callum sees a detainee who has been slashed across the neck by another.
His attacker apparently lashed out because he hadn’t got the extra egg that he wanted for breakfast.
On another occasion, the officer is told that two colleagues had been taken to hospital after being attacked by a detainee wielding a broken pool cue."
"Regardless of that, even 118 days on average is way too long."
At the centre in the program the average stay is 48 days, the longest 2.5 years and that's because they fight their deportation orders.
45% of the people there have committed crimes and are now being deported and some are committing violent crimes whist they are there.
"On one shift, Callum sees a detainee who has been slashed across the neck by another.
His attacker apparently lashed out because he hadn’t got the extra egg that he wanted for breakfast.
On another occasion, the officer is told that two colleagues had been taken to hospital after being attacked by a detainee wielding a broken pool cue."
8
1
In reply to Ian W:
Would work wonderfully except that a lawyer would be straight on the case draining the legal aid system arguing that his client should be released immediately because he has finished his sentence and detaining him a day longer in prison would be against his human rights.
Would work wonderfully except that a lawyer would be straight on the case draining the legal aid system arguing that his client should be released immediately because he has finished his sentence and detaining him a day longer in prison would be against his human rights.
3
2
In reply to Ian W:
Not sure what's the best way, but surely it doesn't make sense to put someone in administrative detention for several months simply because they've lost their ID, in a place filled with viokent criminals.
> If someone is in jail and is to be deported, the whole term of the sentence is available to arrange a flight / review etc etc. And if no flight is available immediately, they stay in jail until there is one. They'll be in a detention centre anyway, so they might as well stay in one that does not impose them on the non-criminal deportees.
Not sure what's the best way, but surely it doesn't make sense to put someone in administrative detention for several months simply because they've lost their ID, in a place filled with viokent criminals.
Post edited at 16:45
2
1
In reply to MG:
They have the whole sentence to sort out whether it is the correct decision. When they have served their time they should be taken directly to the airport if that is to be the policy.
The very problem with this whole mess is people are only supposed to be in the detention centre for a few days. not tens of days (majority), not hundreds of days(average), not a year (significant minority) not multiple years (outliers).
The place isn't designed for it, there is no judicial oversight, and little incentive for G4s to do anything like a decent job looking after people who afterall are human
They have the whole sentence to sort out whether it is the correct decision. When they have served their time they should be taken directly to the airport if that is to be the policy.
The very problem with this whole mess is people are only supposed to be in the detention centre for a few days. not tens of days (majority), not hundreds of days(average), not a year (significant minority) not multiple years (outliers).
The place isn't designed for it, there is no judicial oversight, and little incentive for G4s to do anything like a decent job looking after people who afterall are human
6
In reply to RomTheBear:
"Losing" their ID's is one way they can often avoid deportation!
On a recent TV program a team of Immigration officers were shown visiting a Chinese restaurant to check if the staff were legally in this country. One of the workers had no paperwork so they went to his home looking for his passport and the officer said on camera "If we can't find his passport there's not much we can do as the Chinese Embassy are not very co-operative".
"Losing" their ID's is one way they can often avoid deportation!
On a recent TV program a team of Immigration officers were shown visiting a Chinese restaurant to check if the staff were legally in this country. One of the workers had no paperwork so they went to his home looking for his passport and the officer said on camera "If we can't find his passport there's not much we can do as the Chinese Embassy are not very co-operative".
4
In reply to kmhphoto:
Yes, and what do you think this means for the other 55%, who have committed no crimes, some of them have not even broken any law, who gave to cohabit with violent criminal for months ?
> "Regardless of that, even 118 days on average is way too long."
> At the centre in the program the average stay is 48 days, the longest 2.5 years and that's because they fight their deportation orders.
> 45% of the people there have committed crimes and are now being deported and some are committing violent crimes whist they are there.
> "On one shift, Callum sees a detainee who has been slashed across the neck by another.
> His attacker apparently lashed out because he hadn’t got the extra egg that he wanted for breakfast.
> On another occasion, the officer is told that two colleagues had been taken to hospital after being attacked by a detainee wielding a broken pool cue."
Yes, and what do you think this means for the other 55%, who have committed no crimes, some of them have not even broken any law, who gave to cohabit with violent criminal for months ?
Post edited at 16:50
4
3
In reply to kmhphoto:
Recently, an Italian national was in immigration detention for 8 months because he lost his Italian ID card. Despite the Italian embassy cooperating, it took 8 months for the home office to release him.
How would you like being imprisonned 8 months without trial because you lost your ID ?
> "Losing" their ID's is one way they can often avoid deportation!
Recently, an Italian national was in immigration detention for 8 months because he lost his Italian ID card. Despite the Italian embassy cooperating, it took 8 months for the home office to release him.
How would you like being imprisonned 8 months without trial because you lost your ID ?
Post edited at 16:55
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
There is no mention of the embassy cooperating in that "case" which was presented by "Bail for Immigration Detainees" in an article.
There is no mention of the embassy cooperating in that "case" which was presented by "Bail for Immigration Detainees" in an article.
Post edited at 17:13
3
In reply to RomTheBear:
"Yes, and what do you think this means for the other 55%, who have committed no crimes, some of them have not even broken any law, who gave to cohabit with violent criminal for months ?"
The majority of the 55% are there because they're either failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants so I don't have an enormous amount of sympathy for them although I do agree that they should be kept separate from anyone that has served their prison sentences.
"Yes, and what do you think this means for the other 55%, who have committed no crimes, some of them have not even broken any law, who gave to cohabit with violent criminal for months ?"
The majority of the 55% are there because they're either failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants so I don't have an enormous amount of sympathy for them although I do agree that they should be kept separate from anyone that has served their prison sentences.
8
3
In reply to kmhphoto:
Ok, even if you don't have any sympathy for a failed asylum seeker or someone who overstayed his visa, or we refused ILR on a technicality, nothing justifies keeping them in detention without trial.
It's something quite basic that most democracies have, really, everybody should have a right to a fair trial. I'm pretty sure that's in magna carta somewhere !
I have no problem with putting people in detention if they've broken the law - but there has to be a fair trial and a judge, you can't let the home office effectively send people to prison (although they call it something else ) without any limit of time or proper judicial oversight.
It's completely stupid anyway, every year the home office has to pay millions in compensation for having wrongfully detained people.
You keep talking about the "majority" bit what about those caught by mistakes in the net ? Even one innocent rotting in detention is one too many.
Even if wrongdoings affect small number of people, year on year, it adds up, the consequences are terrible for those unlawfully detained, and it instigates a climate of fear.
> "Yes, and what do you think this means for the other 55%, who have committed no crimes, some of them have not even broken any law, who gave to cohabit with violent criminal for months ?"
> The majority of the 55% are there because they're either failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants so I don't have an enormous amount of sympathy for them although I do agree that they should be kept separate from anyone that has served their prison sentences.
Ok, even if you don't have any sympathy for a failed asylum seeker or someone who overstayed his visa, or we refused ILR on a technicality, nothing justifies keeping them in detention without trial.
It's something quite basic that most democracies have, really, everybody should have a right to a fair trial. I'm pretty sure that's in magna carta somewhere !
I have no problem with putting people in detention if they've broken the law - but there has to be a fair trial and a judge, you can't let the home office effectively send people to prison (although they call it something else ) without any limit of time or proper judicial oversight.
It's completely stupid anyway, every year the home office has to pay millions in compensation for having wrongfully detained people.
You keep talking about the "majority" bit what about those caught by mistakes in the net ? Even one innocent rotting in detention is one too many.
Even if wrongdoings affect small number of people, year on year, it adds up, the consequences are terrible for those unlawfully detained, and it instigates a climate of fear.
Post edited at 17:29
1
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
British cuisine is the cuisine I listed, amongst other things. You sound like a "little Englander" instead of embracing multicultural Britain
> Exactly.
>British cuisine is the cuisine I listed, amongst other things. You sound like a "little Englander" instead of embracing multicultural Britain
1
In reply to RomTheBear:
Often the reason they are kept in detention is because they fight against the deportation order. Should we let them all out to wonder the streets?
The amount of money paid out in compensation is a pittance compared to how much lawyers make in defending these people even though they know they have almost zero chance of winning, the longer they stay in the centres the more the parasites/lawyers are making.
Often the reason they are kept in detention is because they fight against the deportation order. Should we let them all out to wonder the streets?
The amount of money paid out in compensation is a pittance compared to how much lawyers make in defending these people even though they know they have almost zero chance of winning, the longer they stay in the centres the more the parasites/lawyers are making.
5
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Just because you can buy an english breakfast from a guy called Craig in the Costa del Sol it doesn't make it Spanish Mediterranean Cuisine!
Just because you can buy an english breakfast from a guy called Craig in the Costa del Sol it doesn't make it Spanish Mediterranean Cuisine!
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Well as Indian food in the UK bares little resemblance to food in India, I think certainly the luminous sugary rubbish people guzzle over here should be considered british. But most of it isn't good
Well as Indian food in the UK bares little resemblance to food in India, I think certainly the luminous sugary rubbish people guzzle over here should be considered british. But most of it isn't good
Post edited at 18:06
3
In reply to tony:
Making a tower block look nicer to rich people who live 1/4 mile away. Then because only poor people live there, use shoddy goods to save money and end up years later with 89 people burnt to death - surely that's a story straight from a Delhi slum?
W
> It may be that we have different understandings of '3rd world', but I'd be interested to know which aspects of the UK are 3rd world or worse?
Making a tower block look nicer to rich people who live 1/4 mile away. Then because only poor people live there, use shoddy goods to save money and end up years later with 89 people burnt to death - surely that's a story straight from a Delhi slum?
W
5
3
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I'd often wondered this and would really love to try some proper authentic Indian food which isnt imported Bangaldeshi food, laced with cream and sugar to suit our 'discerning' taste buds.
Wrong thread for me to ponder this, probably.
> Well as Indian food in the UK bares little resemblance to food in India, I think certainly the luminous sugary rubbish people guzzle over here should be considered british. But most of it isn't good
I'd often wondered this and would really love to try some proper authentic Indian food which isnt imported Bangaldeshi food, laced with cream and sugar to suit our 'discerning' taste buds.
Wrong thread for me to ponder this, probably.
1
In reply to kmhphoto:
You're not engaging with the issue, you're just sidestepping.
"Often" does not mean "always".
People should not be put in detention in the first place without a proper judicial process taking place.
What's happening currently is that the home office wrongfully puts many people in detention for convenience or intimidation, with no judicial scrutiny, keep them there at great expense, and when a judge finally looks at it after months and tells the home office to get stuffed, they release them and have to pay compensation.
In the meantime someone's life been severely impacted.
Except they win most of their cases it seems, since about 60% are released.
You may have a problem with the justice system - and by no means it is perfect - but it tends to work much better than giving powers of judge, jury and executioner to an incompetent government agency.
> Often the reason they are kept in detention is because they fight against the deportation order. Should we let them all out to wonder the streets?
You're not engaging with the issue, you're just sidestepping.
"Often" does not mean "always".
People should not be put in detention in the first place without a proper judicial process taking place.
What's happening currently is that the home office wrongfully puts many people in detention for convenience or intimidation, with no judicial scrutiny, keep them there at great expense, and when a judge finally looks at it after months and tells the home office to get stuffed, they release them and have to pay compensation.
In the meantime someone's life been severely impacted.
> The amount of money paid out in compensation is a pittance compared to how much lawyers make in defending these people even though they know they have almost zero chance of winning, the longer they stay in the centres the more the parasites/lawyers are making.
Except they win most of their cases it seems, since about 60% are released.
You may have a problem with the justice system - and by no means it is perfect - but it tends to work much better than giving powers of judge, jury and executioner to an incompetent government agency.
Post edited at 18:27
4
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
If we're insisting on privatising everything it would be great to see any evidence that the UK government knew the first thing about acting as a responsible client. Nothing good happens when you pay someone else just so you don't have to think about it.
If we're insisting on privatising everything it would be great to see any evidence that the UK government knew the first thing about acting as a responsible client. Nothing good happens when you pay someone else just so you don't have to think about it.
In reply to RomTheBear:
Where would you put these people then? I'm assuming you're ok with detaining the ones who have completed their prison sentences or are you happy to have these people back in the community?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rochdal...
"Justice Bernard McCloskey accused lawyers acting for the convicts of deploying stalling tactics against deportation and "weakening the rule of law". "
As for you claim of 60% are released - According to Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), “42 percent of asylum seekers detained in the UK go on to be released.
Where would you put these people then? I'm assuming you're ok with detaining the ones who have completed their prison sentences or are you happy to have these people back in the community?
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rochdal...
"Justice Bernard McCloskey accused lawyers acting for the convicts of deploying stalling tactics against deportation and "weakening the rule of law". "
As for you claim of 60% are released - According to Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), “42 percent of asylum seekers detained in the UK go on to be released.
Post edited at 20:09
3
In reply to Bogwalloper:
Just so you know, in my view you are trotting out demonstrably false propaganda from vile shit stirrers who used this tragedy almost immediately to further their cause.
Who would claim inches thick polyfoam insulation is about external appearance? Of course the improved look was cited in the planning permission application, but that's all part of the planning game.
> Making a tower block look nicer to rich people who live 1/4 mile away. Then because only poor people live there, use shoddy goods to save money and end up years later with 89 people burnt to death - surely that's a story straight from a Delhi slum?
Just so you know, in my view you are trotting out demonstrably false propaganda from vile shit stirrers who used this tragedy almost immediately to further their cause.
Who would claim inches thick polyfoam insulation is about external appearance? Of course the improved look was cited in the planning permission application, but that's all part of the planning game.
Post edited at 20:28
9
2
Nothing good with this imigrations, cause it's not "natural" migration like we know (
Immigrants who made the US were going there for work, not for social benefits)
Immigrants who made the US were going there for work, not for social benefits)
1
5
In reply to Davidweet:
Maybe the immigrants can write coherent English? Dude - really - if something gets you interested enough to register and post for the first time, try to make it make sense.
Maybe the immigrants can write coherent English? Dude - really - if something gets you interested enough to register and post for the first time, try to make it make sense.
7
In reply to RomTheBear:
Different judicial systems work in different ways. I used to visit "detained aliens" for the Red Cross in Helsinki. Most were in one detention centre which was OK, but not brilliant, but in the worst cases they were held for weeks, in some cases months, in solitary confinement in the Police gaol (basically a centralised holding facility). This was done when the main alien detention centre was full, and often when immigrants were first detained before being transferred. The Red Cross regularly raised the issue of mental health of these detainees with the government. The justification for the solitary confinement was to keep detained immigrants separate from those arrested for crimes, but became a pretty brutal form of punishment in itself.
You look at the Council of Europe and other reports on detention of migrants elsewhere in Europe, and I'm not convinced that it is so much better in many other places, despite clearly being shit in the UK. Afterall it was concerns about Greece that led to high courts across the EU telling their governments NOT to repatriate to Greece under Dublin II.
> It's something quite basic that most democracies have, really, everybody should have a right to a fair trial.
Different judicial systems work in different ways. I used to visit "detained aliens" for the Red Cross in Helsinki. Most were in one detention centre which was OK, but not brilliant, but in the worst cases they were held for weeks, in some cases months, in solitary confinement in the Police gaol (basically a centralised holding facility). This was done when the main alien detention centre was full, and often when immigrants were first detained before being transferred. The Red Cross regularly raised the issue of mental health of these detainees with the government. The justification for the solitary confinement was to keep detained immigrants separate from those arrested for crimes, but became a pretty brutal form of punishment in itself.
You look at the Council of Europe and other reports on detention of migrants elsewhere in Europe, and I'm not convinced that it is so much better in many other places, despite clearly being shit in the UK. Afterall it was concerns about Greece that led to high courts across the EU telling their governments NOT to repatriate to Greece under Dublin II.
Post edited at 21:45
2
In reply to TobyA:
The United Kingdom is the only EU member state without a legal limit on the period of immigration detention, a process which, I remind you, in the UK has no direct or automatic judicial oversight . The country opted out of the EU Return Directive, which includes an absolute maximum of 18 months for immigration detention.
This has been condemned strongly by the UN Human Rights Committee, and the UN Committee against Torture.
But I guess I must be making everything up...
> Different judicial systems work in different ways. I used to visit "detained aliens" for the Red Cross in Helsinki. Most were in one detention centre which was OK, but not brilliant, but in the worst cases they were held for weeks, in some cases months, in solitary confinement in the Police gaol (basically a centralised holding facility). This was done when the main alien detention centre was full, and often when immigrants were first detained before being transferred. The Red Cross regularly raised the issue of mental health of these detainees with the government. The justification for the solitary confinement was to keep detained immigrants separate from those arrested for crimes, but became a pretty brutal form of punishment in itself.
> You look at the Council of Europe and other reports on detention of migrants elsewhere in Europe, and I'm not convinced that it is so much better in many other places, despite clearly being shit in the UK. Afterall it was concerns about Greece that led to high courts across the EU telling their governments NOT to repatriate to Greece under Dublin II.
The United Kingdom is the only EU member state without a legal limit on the period of immigration detention, a process which, I remind you, in the UK has no direct or automatic judicial oversight . The country opted out of the EU Return Directive, which includes an absolute maximum of 18 months for immigration detention.
This has been condemned strongly by the UN Human Rights Committee, and the UN Committee against Torture.
But I guess I must be making everything up...
Post edited at 23:03
2
5
In reply to kmhphoto:
I have no problem with holding people in dentention prior being removed, especially dangerous offenders. All I wish is that this would be sanctioned by a judge and a proper judicial process.
But you keep avoiding the issue by taking always about failed asylum seekers or criminals.
I'm talking to you about people who have committed no crimes and broken no laws. Innocents who find themselves in detention without trial, and no date of release. But you keep avoiding the issue.
Yes, but that's only for asylum seekers.
For the whole it's about 60%.
"Some 30,000 pass through them each year at a cost of £35,000 per detainee – although approximately 60% return to their UK communities."
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/immigration/news/74020/mi...
> Where would you put these people then? I'm assuming you're ok with detaining the ones who have completed their prison sentences or are you happy to have these people back in the community?
I have no problem with holding people in dentention prior being removed, especially dangerous offenders. All I wish is that this would be sanctioned by a judge and a proper judicial process.
But you keep avoiding the issue by taking always about failed asylum seekers or criminals.
I'm talking to you about people who have committed no crimes and broken no laws. Innocents who find themselves in detention without trial, and no date of release. But you keep avoiding the issue.
> As for you claim of 60% are released - According to Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID), “42 percent of asylum seekers detained in the UK go on to be released.
Yes, but that's only for asylum seekers.
For the whole it's about 60%.
"Some 30,000 pass through them each year at a cost of £35,000 per detainee – although approximately 60% return to their UK communities."
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/home-affairs/immigration/news/74020/mi...
Post edited at 23:24
1
2
In reply to RomTheBear:
You're so aggressive - who said you were making anything up? My point was that the situation of detained migrants in grim in many countries. Judicial review isn't a great help if the court just rubber stamps the administrative detention decisions. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreb...
You're so aggressive - who said you were making anything up? My point was that the situation of detained migrants in grim in many countries. Judicial review isn't a great help if the court just rubber stamps the administrative detention decisions. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreb...
In reply to MG:
Don't hold your breath on that.
> You really are tiresome. Just admit that you got it wrong.
Don't hold your breath on that.
8
2
In reply to TobyA:
Appalling as the conditions in the detention centres are, you also have to look at the films smuggled out of prisons in the UK to see how under resourced they are and the levels of violence endemic in them. Mental health and social services have been cut to the bone, there's increasing numbers of homeless on the street and people lying in their own filth in care homes and hospitals.
This isn't some special punishment for migrants and asylum seekers, it's the state of services in the UK.
> You look at the Council of Europe and other reports on detention of migrants elsewhere in Europe, and I'm not convinced that it is so much better in many other places, despite clearly being shit in the UK. Afterall it was concerns about Greece that led to high courts across the EU telling their governments NOT to repatriate to Greece under Dublin II.
Appalling as the conditions in the detention centres are, you also have to look at the films smuggled out of prisons in the UK to see how under resourced they are and the levels of violence endemic in them. Mental health and social services have been cut to the bone, there's increasing numbers of homeless on the street and people lying in their own filth in care homes and hospitals.
This isn't some special punishment for migrants and asylum seekers, it's the state of services in the UK.
Post edited at 06:43
4
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Some people may disagree with you;
In an admission that must have been difficult for such a proud Frenchman, Raymond Blanc said that British chefs are best in the field of food culture and sustainability. The Michelin-starred chef and restaurateur also said that Britons are among the most discerning and demanding diners and food buyers in the world. He said: “Britain is leading the way in terms of food culture and sustainability and that has been led by consumers who want to know where their food and ingredients come from. “People in Britain are very demanding. They want to know that the animal welfare is good, the food is local, how it has been grown and how it has been cooked. The chefs here are used to doing that and other countries are now following the example.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/top-french-chef-raymond-blanc-admits...
Having eaten at The Fat Duck, Dinner bY Heston, Restaurant Nathan Outlaw, The Walnut Tree, and others, I agree with Chef Blanc.
> Exactly. British cuisine warrants a category below 'developing country' and the rightful and justified re-introduction of 'third world' to describe it.
Some people may disagree with you;
In an admission that must have been difficult for such a proud Frenchman, Raymond Blanc said that British chefs are best in the field of food culture and sustainability. The Michelin-starred chef and restaurateur also said that Britons are among the most discerning and demanding diners and food buyers in the world. He said: “Britain is leading the way in terms of food culture and sustainability and that has been led by consumers who want to know where their food and ingredients come from. “People in Britain are very demanding. They want to know that the animal welfare is good, the food is local, how it has been grown and how it has been cooked. The chefs here are used to doing that and other countries are now following the example.”
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/top-french-chef-raymond-blanc-admits...
Having eaten at The Fat Duck, Dinner bY Heston, Restaurant Nathan Outlaw, The Walnut Tree, and others, I agree with Chef Blanc.
3
In reply to Bogwalloper:
That's a myth which has long been busted.
> Making a tower block look nicer to rich people who live 1/4 mile away. Then because only poor people live there, use shoddy goods to save money and end up years later with 89 people burnt to death - surely that's a story straight from a Delhi slum?
That's a myth which has long been busted.
7
1
In reply to TobyA:
Not you ! Sorry if it felt directed at you, I just spent the whole thread explaining the situation to people who just want to deny the existence of the issue....
Of course. But the UK has some of the largest, the issue I pointed out with it is that effectively innocents are sent there unlawfully, and there is not much you could do about it.
> Judicial review isn't a great help if the court just rubber stamps the administrative detention decisions. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreb...
But at least you'd agree it's something and better than nothing.
> You're so aggressive - who said you were making anything up?
Not you ! Sorry if it felt directed at you, I just spent the whole thread explaining the situation to people who just want to deny the existence of the issue....
> My point was that the situation of detained migrants in grim in many countries.
Of course. But the UK has some of the largest, the issue I pointed out with it is that effectively innocents are sent there unlawfully, and there is not much you could do about it.
> Judicial review isn't a great help if the court just rubber stamps the administrative detention decisions. https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreb...
But at least you'd agree it's something and better than nothing.
Post edited at 07:14
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Comparing bog standard local restaurants in the UK with bog standard local restaurants across Europe I'd say we're light years behind.
Comparing bog standard local restaurants in the UK with bog standard local restaurants across Europe I'd say we're light years behind.
2
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
I'd disagree, but "de gustibus" and all that.
> Comparing bog standard local restaurants in the UK with bog standard local restaurants across Europe I'd say we're light years behind.
I'd disagree, but "de gustibus" and all that.
1
In reply to Big Ger:
Bust it for me then. I'm struggling to bust it on Google.
W
> That's a myth which has long been busted.
Bust it for me then. I'm struggling to bust it on Google.
W
1
3
In reply to Bogwalloper:
The new cladding was to improve insulation of the building - a sustainability measure in large part. Such retrofitting is happening a lot and for very good reasons. It had rather terrible unintended consequences in this instance.
The new cladding was to improve insulation of the building - a sustainability measure in large part. Such retrofitting is happening a lot and for very good reasons. It had rather terrible unintended consequences in this instance.
6
In reply to MG:
Also:
"It is used to improve appearance and energy efficiency.
Colourful green and blue panels designed to improve insulation and soften the look of the brutalist concrete block were fitted to Grenfell Tower in Kensington, West London, as part of a £9million refurb completed in May 2017."
W
Also:
"It is used to improve appearance and energy efficiency.
Colourful green and blue panels designed to improve insulation and soften the look of the brutalist concrete block were fitted to Grenfell Tower in Kensington, West London, as part of a £9million refurb completed in May 2017."
W
In reply to Bogwalloper:
"At least 149 high-rise buildings in 45 local authorities have failed fire safety tests in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. Cladding samples tested as part of a “major national investigation” into the use of panelling on housing blocks have so far produced a 100 per cent failure rate, a Government spokesperson said. "
Do you think they were all done for; > Making a tower block look nicer to rich people who live 1/4 mile away.
"At least 149 high-rise buildings in 45 local authorities have failed fire safety tests in the wake of the Grenfell Tower fire. Cladding samples tested as part of a “major national investigation” into the use of panelling on housing blocks have so far produced a 100 per cent failure rate, a Government spokesperson said. "
Do you think they were all done for; > Making a tower block look nicer to rich people who live 1/4 mile away.
Post edited at 08:49
8
In reply to Bogwalloper:
The problem was not the motives for the refurbishment it was the materials used to do it.
> Also:
> "It is used to improve appearance and energy efficiency.
> Colourful green and blue panels designed to improve insulation and soften the look of the brutalist concrete block were fitted to Grenfell Tower in Kensington, West London, as part of a £9million refurb completed in May 2017."
>
Well there not mutually exclusive. Would you rather that when inproving energy efficiency they make it more ugly? The problem was not the motives for the refurbishment it was the materials used to do it.
8
In reply to summo:
"Everyone" !!
> If the UK really was 3rd world, everyone would be trying to leave rather then get to it.
"Everyone" !!
3
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Isn't this just another example of where privatisation leads us, the race to the bottom is in full swing in more than just the prison service.
Isn't this just another example of where privatisation leads us, the race to the bottom is in full swing in more than just the prison service.
1
2
In reply to Bogwalloper:
This all started with a claim the UK was like a third world country in many respects. Grenfall was bad. Very bad. But it was also a very rare exception resulting from largely good intentions. This is what a housing fire South Africa does - 4000 houses destroyed. And it is only one of many. I guess there isn't much in terms of compensation or new housing either for those affected.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2017/03/14/too-many-foreigners-living-in-...
This all started with a claim the UK was like a third world country in many respects. Grenfall was bad. Very bad. But it was also a very rare exception resulting from largely good intentions. This is what a housing fire South Africa does - 4000 houses destroyed. And it is only one of many. I guess there isn't much in terms of compensation or new housing either for those affected.
http://www.sowetanlive.co.za/news/2017/03/14/too-many-foreigners-living-in-...
Post edited at 10:04
6
In reply to krikoman:
So State run services don't have equivalent problems: Mid-Staffs? Southern Health child deaths? Haringey child services?
> Isn't this just another example of where privatisation leads us, the race to the bottom is in full swing in more than just the prison service.
So State run services don't have equivalent problems: Mid-Staffs? Southern Health child deaths? Haringey child services?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Indeed. The issue has nothing to do with whether it is private or state run. It's Corbyn's Labour only mantra it seems, the solution to everything is to nationalise....
And of course with their little pet obsession, they are shifting the political narrative toward the realms of myth and ideology, away from the real issues, which profits tremendously their opponent in power...
> So State run services don't have equivalent problems: Mid-Staffs? Southern Health child deaths? Haringey child services?
Indeed. The issue has nothing to do with whether it is private or state run. It's Corbyn's Labour only mantra it seems, the solution to everything is to nationalise....
And of course with their little pet obsession, they are shifting the political narrative toward the realms of myth and ideology, away from the real issues, which profits tremendously their opponent in power...
Post edited at 12:22
2
In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:
Kayal is a nice place for Nottingham and I wish we had more South Indian style restaurants as its nothing like as impressive as the food I tried on holiday over there. Best I've had in the UK is somewhere near Stockport that looks a bit tatty but the food was exquisite and excellent value.
Kayal is a nice place for Nottingham and I wish we had more South Indian style restaurants as its nothing like as impressive as the food I tried on holiday over there. Best I've had in the UK is somewhere near Stockport that looks a bit tatty but the food was exquisite and excellent value.
In reply to Big Ger:
Ha, ha. You only had to go back 5 years to find an article from a guy who owns a restaurant making French food in which he's advertising his new business making food for Eurostar.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and i'll head down shortly to the greasy spoon round the corner to order "a small plate of sashimi , served on a glass-covered box filled with sand (...) and a sea shell in which an iPod (playing the sound of crashing waves) is hidden. The idea is you eat the fish and listen to the sea on headphones, and are transported back to a childhood day at the beach."
I'll report back on how that went.
Ha, ha. You only had to go back 5 years to find an article from a guy who owns a restaurant making French food in which he's advertising his new business making food for Eurostar.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and i'll head down shortly to the greasy spoon round the corner to order "a small plate of sashimi , served on a glass-covered box filled with sand (...) and a sea shell in which an iPod (playing the sound of crashing waves) is hidden. The idea is you eat the fish and listen to the sea on headphones, and are transported back to a childhood day at the beach."
I'll report back on how that went.
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Our local cafe refuses to serve it as; "We're not into plagiarism". They do a "carpaccio of african land snail, with raw dandelion flowers, on whole-wheat organic sourdough biscotti," instead.
> I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and i'll head down shortly to the greasy spoon round the corner to order "a small plate of sashimi , served on a glass-covered box filled with sand (...) and a sea shell in which an iPod (playing the sound of crashing waves) is hidden. The idea is you eat the fish and listen to the sea on headphones, and are transported back to a childhood day at the beach."
Our local cafe refuses to serve it as; "We're not into plagiarism". They do a "carpaccio of african land snail, with raw dandelion flowers, on whole-wheat organic sourdough biscotti," instead.
Post edited at 03:10
2
In reply to balmybaldwin:
And so we find funnily enough that G4s are creaming off big profits on the back of this abuse:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41260192
And so we find funnily enough that G4s are creaming off big profits on the back of this abuse:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41260192
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
It's "swings and roundabouts" with government contracts?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/09/g4s-57m-loss-if-government-...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/12/g4s-repay-overcharging-tag...
It's "swings and roundabouts" with government contracts?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/09/g4s-57m-loss-if-government-...
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/mar/12/g4s-repay-overcharging-tag...
In reply to kmhphoto:
Failed Asylum seekers can sometimes have the most compelling reasons to want to stay, and are not be able to due to a technicality. If I can find the head space in my weekend I'll look into some refused applications for asylum and post them on here.
Them being failed doesn't mean on a 'humanity level' that they don't have a decent reason for seeking to live here.
> The majority of the 55% are there because they're either failed asylum seekers or illegal immigrants so I don't have an enormous amount of sympathy for them although I do agree that they should be kept separate from anyone that has served their prison sentences.
Failed Asylum seekers can sometimes have the most compelling reasons to want to stay, and are not be able to due to a technicality. If I can find the head space in my weekend I'll look into some refused applications for asylum and post them on here.
Them being failed doesn't mean on a 'humanity level' that they don't have a decent reason for seeking to live here.
Post edited at 22:33
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I never said that, but since we're hear, I don't think the NHS were making 20% profit and still giving shit service.
Nor do I think they were charging for services they didn't actually provide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26541375
£108.9m, usually if someone stole from me, I'd stop doing business with them, seems the government are quite happy to just carry on. When will the next one be?
> So State run services don't have equivalent problems: Mid-Staffs? Southern Health child deaths? Haringey child services?
I never said that, but since we're hear, I don't think the NHS were making 20% profit and still giving shit service.
Nor do I think they were charging for services they didn't actually provide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26541375
£108.9m, usually if someone stole from me, I'd stop doing business with them, seems the government are quite happy to just carry on. When will the next one be?
In reply to Jim Hamilton:
Is it really though? It looks like more of one than the other, and there's a definite illegality to one and not the other. You're not comparing the same thing there are you?
Surely if you're in business then that the risk you take, no one will bail me out if I under estimate my costs.
I wouldn't expect to be spared jail or at least no more contracts if I charged for work I didn't carry out.
> It's "swings and roundabouts" with government contracts?
Is it really though? It looks like more of one than the other, and there's a definite illegality to one and not the other. You're not comparing the same thing there are you?
Surely if you're in business then that the risk you take, no one will bail me out if I under estimate my costs.
I wouldn't expect to be spared jail or at least no more contracts if I charged for work I didn't carry out.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...