Prices of the electricity we use to charge

[soundwave]

 

[MikelBikel]

Vell, vell, vell, ze kold vinter ist persvaziv , ja?
No maple leaf relief in sight
Europe crying out for LNG, and they can see No business case

Germany looks to restart Nord Stream pipes despite ‘no business case’ for Canadian LNG

Germany’s once-firm stance against Russian gas imports is beginning to unravel as the country considers restarting the sabotaged Nord Stream pipelines.Not becau

www.westernstandard.news

 

[soundwave]

cant have that putin evil so must ship it half way across the earth for profit from the usa via rainbow fleet from green power oil powerd ships.

germany had a 50 year deal of lowest price gas off all of eu so putin blew up his own investment for the profit of the usa.

why dont the uk ban all imports from china ban every app nuke the inthernet to save the planet ., naaa

 

[Woosh]

Vell, vell, vell, ze kold vinter ist persvaziv , ja?
No maple leaf relief in sight
Europe crying out for LNG, and they can see No business case

The ceasefire in Ukraine can be negotiated soon. Nordstream will take some time to restart. Therefore backchannel talks are needed.

 

[Woosh]

cant have that putin evil so must ship it half way across the earth for profit from the usa via rainbow fleet from green power oil powerd ships.


germany had a 50 year deal of lowest price gas off all of eu so putin blew up his own investment for the profit of the usa.
Gas from Norway arrives by pipelines.
why dont the uk ban all imports from china ban every app nuke the inthernet to save the planet ., naaa

Germany buys gas mainly from Norway. We also buy from norway and some gas from USA.
Gas from Norway arrives by pipelines.
Trump wants to remove federal income tax and replace it with import duties.

We should copy Japan, let trump destroy the usa manufacturing, and say nothing.

 

[Ghost1951]

No such thing. As you are aware, and if not then well you are now.
But in reality I know that you have some knowledge of international law, even if you choose to ignore that and play your tune to the other low hanging fruits

It is only after an asylum claim has been processed and found there not to be a claim that a refugee or asylum seeker becomes 'illegal'
But 'illegal is only a small part and not the full understanding of the terms used.

Everyone in the world has the right to claim asylum in any country, and may have to arrive there under clandestine conditions in order to do so.

If is only after a seeker has been processed, fails in their claim and then absconds that they become illegal.
But ONLY if they abscond, otherwise they're classed as a failed asylum seeker.- Though they can appeal, and should be encouraged to do so.

No he wasnt. He worked for the bbc, but in no way is or was classed as a legal representative.

Therefore his comments were his own.
Therefore he is exercising his right to freedom of speech.


You'll be trying to convince us next the gbnews is centrist


Again I point you towards international law on seeking asylum/refugee status, which shows that your entire little rant is based on misinformation, but one that you appear to want to readily grasp.

Incidentally, migrants contribute about £80 billion to the UK economy, so deducting that 'several' billion(£3B to be exact, give or take a few mil) it looks like they are quids in.

Of course we wouldnt have to pay anything like that if not for tory policy in closing all safe routes and all but a single understaffed office to process any claims.
I mean we could have taken each claim as it came in and processed it in a little under a month, but tory policy meant we ended up with a gigantic backlog.


It is an unfortunate situation that we will probably have to run an amnesty on and just clear it that way. Not ideal, but it will save a lot of money. And then these new Brits can start contributing to the UK economy.

Heres an interesting point. Due to brexit, the country has lost nearly £100B in income(per year) So if not for immigration and the vast sums of money generated by them, the fallout from brexit would have been considerably worse.

Thank God for immigration. We could have been in a right sticky wicket if not for them.

Not a shred of that lunatic rant is supported by anything other than hard left cant.

Not only is it nonsense, it is false.

You say it is not illegal to enter the UK when you have no right to do so.

Maybe you don't know (or care) what the law actually says on the matter. Immigration Act 1974, section 24: See particularly provision D1. and E1.

"
24Illegal entry and similar offences.
[F1(A1)A person who knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order commits an offence.
(B1)A person who—
(a)requires leave to enter the United Kingdom under this Act, and
(b)knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave,
commits an offence.
(C1)A person who—
(a)has only a limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and
(b)knowingly remains beyond the time limited by the leave,
commits an offence.
(D1)A person who—
(a)requires entry clearance under the immigration rules, and
(b)knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance,
commits an offence.
(E1)A person who—
(a)is required under immigration rules not to travel to the United Kingdom without an ETA that is valid for the person’s journey to the United Kingdom, and
(b)knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without such an ETA,
commits an offence."

Immigration Act 1971

An Act to amend and replace the present immigration laws, to make certain related changes in the citizenship law and enable help to be given to those wishing to return abroad, and for purposes connected therewith.

www.legislation.gov.uk

You are a prating fool.

I won't bother with the rest of your nonsense.

 

[Woosh]

Not a shred of that lunatic rant is supported by anything other than hard left cant.

Not only is it nonsense, it is false.

You say it is not illegal to enter the UK when you have no right to do so.

Maybe you don't know (or care) what the law actually says on the matter. Immigration Act 1974, section 24: See particularly provision D1. and E1.

"
24Illegal entry and similar offences.
[F1(A1)A person who knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order commits an offence.
(B1)A person who—
(a)requires leave to enter the United Kingdom under this Act, and
(b)knowingly enters the United Kingdom without such leave,
commits an offence.
(C1)A person who—
(a)has only a limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and
(b)knowingly remains beyond the time limited by the leave,
commits an offence.
(D1)A person who—
(a)requires entry clearance under the immigration rules, and
(b)knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance,
commits an offence.
(E1)A person who—
(a)is required under immigration rules not to travel to the United Kingdom without an ETA that is valid for the person’s journey to the United Kingdom, and
(b)knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without such an ETA,
commits an offence."

Immigration Act 1971

An Act to amend and replace the present immigration laws, to make certain related changes in the citizenship law and enable help to be given to those wishing to return abroad, and for purposes connected therewith.

www.legislation.gov.uk

You are a prating fool.

I won't bother with the rest of your nonsense.

That Immigration Act 1974 does not apply in the case of channel crossings by small boats though.
Firstly, there is no real difference between crossing the channel by small boats or go to Ireland and cross the land border there.
How they cross the border is much less a consideration compared to our obligation to international treaties that we entered willingly into. The solution is thus international first.

 

[soundwave]

still dont get it do you ban all imports from china! save the planet destroy your company or put your money in to uk manufacturing machining custom bikes and all the parts in the uk, like titanium everything 3d printed
you go bust in a week haha and every house in the uk can put everything in the bin made in china what we be left with?

that's what you call a carbon off set substituted buy tax payers yet if you made a uk based free zpm you be killed as cant have free power for nothing.

whats the meaning of life if you cant end it all and if you kill one you are a murderer you kill them all you are a conqueror so who can say if you was right or wrong bar i got more power.

The "unstoppable force vs. immovable object" paradox is a classic thought experiment that explores the limits of power and resistance, highlighting the logical impasse of two seemingly contradictory concepts existing simultaneously

someone always has more power more money untill the $hit hits the fan

 

[saneagle]

Anybody got a birthday coming up and want a party, but have no friends:

Advocacy Programs, Hire Crowds and Manage Events with Crowds on Demand

Crowds on Demand is your home for impactful advocacy campaigns, demonstrations, PR stunts, audiences for hire and corporate events. Services available nationwide!

crowdsondemand.com

I wonder who are the actual customers?

Google Search

 

[saneagle]

Gold has gone up 3% in the last week. Somebody knows something.

 

[soundwave]

 

[Ghost1951]

That Immigration Act 1974 does not apply in the case of channel crossings by small boats though.
Firstly, there is no real difference between crossing the channel by small boats or go to Ireland and cross the land border there.
How they cross the border is much less a consideration compared to our obligation to international treaties that we entered willingly into. The solution is thus international first.

Utter twaddle. What planet are you on. I show you the law and you say it doesn't apply to someone coming from France in a canoe! Mad.

The law is perfectly clear to anyone who is not living in the world of make believe.

Whether it is being enforced is another matter.

It is an illegal act to enter the country when needing a visa or other permissive document if you do not have one. The law says so. I just quoted it. This means that to do so is a criminal act.

The police may not pursue criminal cases, in the same way they frequently do not pursue shoplifting cases, or many other criminal acts. This is negligence on their part. It does not make the acts legal.

This failure to enforce law is a symptom of the fact that we live in a broken country which does not even uphold its own laws. We have many organisations responsible for upholding laws which utterly fail to do so: OFWAT, is one. Water companies pollute rivers, lakes and the sea, and nothing substantial is done. Police don't enforce the law unless it is on a priority list, the Home Office does not deport those who arrive illegally, and even fails to deport foreign criminals. An army of jackal-lawyers bring cases citing foreign court rulings to frustrate the deportation of foreign gangsters, foreign rapists and foreign thugs convicted in our courts of serious offences. Bizarre reasons are given that supposedly mean the foreign malefactor should stay. We have 18069 foreign criminals awaiting deportation as of 14th March this year and among which are 2925 whose deportations were sought since the last election. A poisonous army of cnt lawyers will fight for the rights of these riff raff, tooth and nail and they will do so at the taxpayers expense.

This country is fuked. This poison is excreted by the hard left constantly like the fools who think it is not a crime to come here without papers and without visas when required by law. They don't live in a world of reality and fact. They think anything they make up is true.

The country is broken. This is not a party political point. The Conservatives have presided over massive decline. Previous governments signed up to treaty obligations which fly directly in the face of our laws and did not resolve the conflict between them. Judges regularly over-rule the government at the behest of foreign courts.

 

[Ghost1951]

How they cross the border is much less a consideration compared to our obligation to international treaties that we entered willingly into. The solution is thus international first.

Who entered into the obligations willingly? Were you asked? I wasn't.

Blair signed off on that and I will estimate here and now that about 80% of the British Public would strongly object to having to continue to host foreign criminals living here in contempt of our laws and customary rights.

That murderous wretch Abdul Ezedi was allowed to stay after various horrible fools spoke up in favour of his remaining after he had committed several sexual offences. One of them, knowing full well that they had to shadow him around the church to prevent him molesting women and children actually described him as a good christian. I know a woman who had one to one dealings with him in a professional capacity and said he was a terrifying, horrible man to deal with on her own in a surgery. Of course he later threw drain cleaner over a woman and her children when she rejected his advances. He travelled 300 miles from Newcastle to stalk her and attack her and her family. Never mind. He was a good Christian with human rights to come here and attack people.

The world is full of bleeding heart fools who allow us to be taken advantage of. People who can't see reality when it is right in front of them, such as those who think it is legal to just turn up here without papers or that the law does not apply to people arriving in a truck or a rubber ring from FRance are a major part of the problem.

 

[AndyBike]

Gold has gone up 3% in the last week. Somebody knows something.

Saw a vid recently from a pair of investment bankers who were saying that they believe the price of gold is going to rise substantially.

Im tempted to buy a couple of oz just to be on the safe side.

 

[AndyBike]

It is an illegal act to enter the country when needing a visa or other permissive document if you do not have one. The law says so. I just quoted it. This means that to do so is a criminal act.

UNLESS TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FOR ASYLUM

Under international law, anyone has the right to apply for asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 Convention and to remain there until the authorities have assessed their claim.
So to claim you must first be in the country you wish to claim in, or be in a safe country and do it from there.
As the tories shut all the routes, the only option is to land on British shores and make your claim at that point.

Now is that too hard for you to follow ?

Incidentally but we are talking about 20,000 people tops. in a country of near 70 million.
The only people who get so bent out of shape over this are GBnews watchers and reform voters. *You arent a reform voter are you ?

*apology if you are not a reform voter, I know its a bit of a slur

 

[Woosh]

Utter twaddle. What planet are you on. I show you the law and you say it doesn't apply to someone coming from France in a canoe! Mad.

The law is perfectly clear to anyone who is not living in the world of make believe.

Whether it is being enforced is another matter.

It is an illegal act to enter the country when needing a visa or other permissive document if you do not have one. The law says so. I just quoted it. This means that to do so is a criminal act.

The police may not pursue criminal cases, in the same way they frequently do not pursue shoplifting cases, or many other criminal acts. This is negligence on their part. It does not make the acts legal.

This failure to enforce law is a symptom of the fact that we live in a broken country which does not even uphold its own laws. We have many organisations responsible for upholding laws which utterly fail to do so: OFWAT, is one. Water companies pollute rivers, lakes and the sea, and nothing substantial is done. Police don't enforce the law unless it is on a priority list, the Home Office does not deport those who arrive illegally, and even fails to deport foreign criminals. An army of jackal-lawyers bring cases citing foreign court rulings to frustrate the deportation of foreign gangsters, foreign rapists and foreign thugs convicted in our courts of serious offences. Bizarre reasons are given that supposedly mean the foreign malefactor should stay. We have 18069 foreign criminals awaiting deportation as of 14th March this year and among which are 2925 whose deportations were sought since the last election. A poisonous army of cnt lawyers will fight for the rights of these riff raff, tooth and nail and they will do so at the taxpayers expense.

This country is fuked. This poison is excreted by the hard left constantly like the fools who think it is not a crime to come here without papers and without visas when required by law. They don't live in a world of reality and fact. They think anything they make up is true.

The country is broken. This is not a party political point. The Conservatives have presided over massive decline. Previous governments signed up to treaty obligations which fly directly in the face of our laws and did not resolve the conflict between them. Judges regularly over-rule the government at the behest of foreign courts.

I did not say that illegal migrants did not break any of our laws when entering the UK without a valid visa. I said it is a much less consideration compared to our obligations toward international treaties that we have willingly signed up to. That's the point to justice. They claim asylum, the court checks their case. If the court finds in their favour, the infraction for illegal entry will not be considered. If not, they have committed additional infraction and therefore will be rightly deported.
Look at the deportation of Venezuelans to el Salvador by trump administration. Judge boasberg issued an injunction for the plane to turn back and pause the program for 3 weeks.
Trump invoked the 1798 act to deport anyone suspected as enemies of the state without due process. Boasberg stopped that. The case went to appeal last week, the appeal court stays the decision of judge boasberg.

 

[soundwave]

 

[Woosh]

View attachment 62537View attachment 62538

can you really shoot any asylum seeker if you meet them on the beach of Dover?

 

[soundwave]

give me a gun and ammo ill kill the fkn lot

 

[Ghost1951]

There is no valid claim for asylum coming from France. For fks sake? What is wrong with you people?

France is not a place you need to flee from. Not since my father's generation cleared out the Nazis and the Vichy French collaborators. That was before any of us were born - just about, though Flecc might have been around as a boy back then.

The fact that a person feels afraid of living in Afghanistan gives no right to pick and choose where he moves to. Not at all. If you arrive in Turkey, claim asylum there.

To any sensible person, it isn't hard to discover the difference between an asylum SEEKER and an asylum SHOPPER.

I'd quite like to live in Canada. Fifty years ago, I might have got in, but now, they would not accept me. I don't go and sneak into the country and try and live there permanently. It is an unacceptable assault on their laws.

So it is with people escaping from France..... You don't need to escape from France, ergo - any claim that you had to come here in a rubber boat or the back of a truck, or under the external bike cover of a camper van is patently false, an abuse and a criminal act.

This simple and accurate logic may escape the defective brains of hard left fanatics, but the ordinary British Public understand it very well, which is why some people keep harping on about people who vote for Reform, or the Conservatives, or anybody but the bleeding heart Guardian tendency.

They also keep on talking about GB news. I don't watch it myself, not since Andrew Neil left. I watched it a few times when it first began and I thought it was pretty badly done and that some of the sets and the presenters were amateurish and not very good. I actually don't watch any TV news at all if I have the choice, though sometimes I am with people who do, and I sit politely while it is on.

In the end, a pluralistic news provision is a good thing. Otherwise you would just have a PRAVDA situation, so I have no objection to GB News other than that I have mentioned.

As for voting, for the last few decades I voted Conservative. They failed in power very badly. I had an excellent local MP called Opperman. He always answered letters from constituents and took up any issue that was reasonable and pursued it. This was not just my experience. He knew what an MP was for. He lost his seat in 2024. I understand why the party lost so badly. I have a new MP now, A Labour one. I wrote and congratulated him and mentioned an issue that afflicts Tynedale. We can hardly get any sort of radio signal here - neither DAB or FM. After six months with no response I wrote again and got a feeble excuse and a shrug. I was talking to a chap the other day about this . He spoke very warmly about Opperman and explained why. His daughter - about 32 years old had been buying a house when the banks suddenly cut back on the proportion of capital they would advance. His daughter had at the very same time been told in writing that the building society would give her a mortgage - all checked out, she would hear soon. Then she had a letter saying the offer was withdrawn because of the new policy on percentage to be loaned. This chap wrote to Opperman, giving his daughter's details and the circumstances of this disappointment and withina fortnight he responded to her telling her he had been in personal contact with the building society. A week later, she received a letter confirming that she had the mortgage.

That is why I voted for Opperman last time. The party had been a shambles, but he knew what an MP was for.