Very much so, I've been around since the mid 1930s when Hitler was well disposed to Britain, considering us a natural ally. Back then he enjoyed lots of support from the English establishment.
.
Prices of the electricity we use to charge
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
.
I've been buying it for 5 years now. It was £1400 when I started, now it's £2400. It's the sort of thing that helps you spread your bets on investments. I already have property and equities. My main reason for buying gold is as a hedge against currency collapse rather than an investment.
A lot of financial experts have been predicting a currency collapse, but I think Trump's activities have stabilised it a bit. That was a good idea eliminating all the waste to get an immediate improvement, which is what any business should do when in financial trouble. Politicians don't think like that. UK is still wasting money hand over foot, so the collapse of the pound is still a possibility.
We used to fish there too.
When Brexiteers Found Out What Sovereignty Meant #shorts
Three years ago today, the Daily Express suddenly realised what brexit sovereignty meant. We left the single market, and the Daily Express ran an article hai...
www.youtube.com
I have been buying sovereigns though. Got 8 of them, but its not quite the same as pure gold.
That said, a single sovereign is easy to sell should i suddenly need money(unlikely), but still easier than trying to sell a bar.
Personally speaking,I might not have been so honest should i have happened upon this lot.
We know what you're up to. A girlfriend is a bit more expensive, but they can do much more than a robot if you treat them right. It's all about the way you service them.
Everything you've posted on this subject is totally wrong.
We wouldn't be here to discuss it if our ancestors hadn't exercised their natural right to exist anywhere on the planet they were born on by moving from Africa.
We wouldn't be here to discuss it if our predecessors, the Neanderthals, had passed effective laws to totally exclude us, in a primitive version of the Enclosures.
And that word shows why you are so wrong. It was the enclosures that created all the evils of privilege that have plagued us here ever since. It followed the same labelling, but of larger areas, that created the countries that over time gave rise to all the evils of excessive governance, dictatorship, warfare, eugenics and so much else that is wrong.
In our large population world, governance is a necessary evil, but it should always be constrained by the rights of all and never overrule the most fundamental right to live anywhere on OUR planet.
There is no need for that evil when the natural law of available resources together with fair, sharing governance is all that is needed. The outcome is that populations adjust to the available resources so are automatically self limiting.
It's a system called socialism, sometimes called the left wing. Primitive thinkers like yourself object, only thinking in the short term about immediate personal gain and loss, rather than the true objective of solving the whole puzzle of how to govern most acceptably to the majority.
.
Just downloaded an 8 Billion parameter Deepseek model to my AI mini PC and discussed this UK Rubber boat asylum claim subject.
It was quite funny to see how the Deepseek model pondered the subject. It was confused, like most sensible people would be at an asylum claim from someone who just travelled from France.
Here is its 'thinking process' when I asked:
"Can a person who arrives in a rubber boat from France which is a safe and civilised country, honestly apply for asylum in the UK?"
Thinking from Deepseek model:
Okay, so I'm trying to figure out if someone who arrives in the UK via a rubber boat from France can make a genuine asylum application. The person is coming from a country that's described as "very safe and civilized." Hmm, that seems contradictory because usually, people seek asylum when their home country isn't safe.
First, I need to understand what an asylum seeker is. From what I know, an asylum seeker is someone who arrives in another country seeking protection because their own country is unsafe. So, if the person is coming from a safe country like France, why would they need asylum? That doesn't make sense at first glance.
But wait, maybe there's more to it. Perhaps the individual has some other reason for wanting to stay in the UK instead of returning to France. Maybe they're fleeing something else, like persecution or harm that isn't directly related to their country's safety. But if France is safe, why would they need to flee from there? That part confuses me.
Also, I should consider how the UK handles such cases. Do they evaluate the safety of the applicant's home country when processing asylum claims? I think they do. So even if someone arrives via a rubber boat, the authorities might still check if France is safe and whether the person has a genuine reason to fear returning there.
Another angle is the method of arrival. A rubber boat suggests an irregular or illegal crossing, which might affect how their application is treated. But does that mean it's automatically rejected? I don't think so. The legality of entry doesn't necessarily determine the validity of the asylum claim; it's about whether they can establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
So, putting this together: if someone arrives from France, which is considered safe, their application would likely be scrutinized closely. They need to provide evidence that there are substantial reasons why they cannot return to France, such as ongoing threats or persecution. If they can't show that, the application might be denied.
But wait, maybe there's a specific issue in France that I'm not aware of. Perhaps they're fleeing from a particular region within France that isn't as safe as other parts? Or maybe they have personal circumstances that make their home unsafe, even if the country overall is considered safe.
I should also think about legal definitions and how the UK's asylum laws work. The 1951 Convention relates to refugees, requiring that someone cannot return to their home country due to a well-founded fear of persecution. If France isn't the cause of their fear, then the application might not meet the criteria.
In conclusion, while arriving via a rubber boat from France (a safe country) makes it harder to establish a genuine asylum claim, it's not impossible. The individual would need to demonstrate a compelling reason why they can't return, regardless of how they arrived.
It then came to an answer:
Based on the analysis, here is a structured response:
Can a person arriving in the UK via a rubber boat from France make a genuine asylum application?
It was quite funny to see how the Deepseek model pondered the subject. It was confused, like most sensible people would be at an asylum claim from someone who just travelled from France.
Here is its 'thinking process' when I asked:
"Can a person who arrives in a rubber boat from France which is a safe and civilised country, honestly apply for asylum in the UK?"
Thinking from Deepseek model:
Okay, so I'm trying to figure out if someone who arrives in the UK via a rubber boat from France can make a genuine asylum application. The person is coming from a country that's described as "very safe and civilized." Hmm, that seems contradictory because usually, people seek asylum when their home country isn't safe.
First, I need to understand what an asylum seeker is. From what I know, an asylum seeker is someone who arrives in another country seeking protection because their own country is unsafe. So, if the person is coming from a safe country like France, why would they need asylum? That doesn't make sense at first glance.
But wait, maybe there's more to it. Perhaps the individual has some other reason for wanting to stay in the UK instead of returning to France. Maybe they're fleeing something else, like persecution or harm that isn't directly related to their country's safety. But if France is safe, why would they need to flee from there? That part confuses me.
Also, I should consider how the UK handles such cases. Do they evaluate the safety of the applicant's home country when processing asylum claims? I think they do. So even if someone arrives via a rubber boat, the authorities might still check if France is safe and whether the person has a genuine reason to fear returning there.
Another angle is the method of arrival. A rubber boat suggests an irregular or illegal crossing, which might affect how their application is treated. But does that mean it's automatically rejected? I don't think so. The legality of entry doesn't necessarily determine the validity of the asylum claim; it's about whether they can establish a well-founded fear of persecution.
So, putting this together: if someone arrives from France, which is considered safe, their application would likely be scrutinized closely. They need to provide evidence that there are substantial reasons why they cannot return to France, such as ongoing threats or persecution. If they can't show that, the application might be denied.
But wait, maybe there's a specific issue in France that I'm not aware of. Perhaps they're fleeing from a particular region within France that isn't as safe as other parts? Or maybe they have personal circumstances that make their home unsafe, even if the country overall is considered safe.
I should also think about legal definitions and how the UK's asylum laws work. The 1951 Convention relates to refugees, requiring that someone cannot return to their home country due to a well-founded fear of persecution. If France isn't the cause of their fear, then the application might not meet the criteria.
In conclusion, while arriving via a rubber boat from France (a safe country) makes it harder to establish a genuine asylum claim, it's not impossible. The individual would need to demonstrate a compelling reason why they can't return, regardless of how they arrived.
It then came to an answer:
Based on the analysis, here is a structured response:
Can a person arriving in the UK via a rubber boat from France make a genuine asylum application?
- Understanding Asylum Seekers: An asylum seeker is typically someone who flees to another country due to unsafe conditions in their home country. Therefore, arriving from a safe and civilized jurisdiction like France presents initial challenges.
- Method of Arrival: The use of a rubber boat suggests an irregular crossing, which may affect how the application is processed but does not automatically determine its validity.
- Country Safety Assessment: The UK evaluates the safety of the applicant's home country. If France is deemed safe, the individual must provide evidence of a well-founded fear of persecution or harm in their home country to qualify for asylum.
- Legal Considerations: The 1951 Convention defines refugees as those unable to return due to a well-founded fear of persecution. If the threat is not related to conditions in France, the application may be denied.
- Specific Circumstances: The individual may have personal reasons why they cannot return to France, even if the country overall is considered safe. These could include regional unsafe conditions or personal threats.
Ha ha ha ha -
That's hilarious nonsense.
We don't live in a world where a few bands of hominids were wandering around a world empty of people, hunting with spears., and moving from place to place as they ate up the available animals and plants they could forage.
That bus left, twenty thousand years ago when people had multiplied to millions and started farming. Even two thousand years ago when Boadicea and the Iceni tribe tried to repel the Romans who had turned up, everybody knew you couldn't just rock up and start taking stuff, because it impacted on the people who were already there. This is why the Native American tribes were more or less perpetually at war with one another.
When William the Bastard (yes that was his actual name) turned up as William the Conqueror in 1066 and slaughtered Harold and his army at Hastings, the people knew they had to defend their country or starve.
Now of course the population of England (and it is England that the vast majority of migrants come to live in) has risen to the ridiculous and frankly terrible level of 434 people per sq km. This makes it one of the most densely populated (proper) countries in the world - not counting city states like Monaco.
Apart from the sheer density of people in a non-expanding island, there are no available houses and the cost of housing is frankly crushing for anyone who hasn't bought one and owned it for a long time. This crushes the younger generation whoever they are.
Since about 1995 we have had 9 million migrants into England. This can not go on without destroying the environment, the quality of life and the future of the people.
The reason that the Conservatives were thrown out of power apart from numerous failures was that Under Sunac they allowed over a million people to enter the country to settle in a single year. The people just won't put up with that any more.,
Population density of countries we might compare ourselves with:
England 434 people per sq km
France 122 people per sq km
Spain 96 people per sq km
Germany 241 people per sq km
Sweden 26 people per sq km
Russia 8.5 people per sq km
USA 38 people per sq km
if that doesn't convince the doubters, I don't know what will.
England 434 people per sq km
France 122 people per sq km
Spain 96 people per sq km
Germany 241 people per sq km
Sweden 26 people per sq km
Russia 8.5 people per sq km
USA 38 people per sq km
if that doesn't convince the doubters, I don't know what will.
The question you have posed is too simplistic, as we can see from the answers the Ai gave - for example ... "So, if the person is coming from a safe country like France, why would they need asylum? "
This shows that the Ai is believing that the asylum seeker is a resident of France.
Some people coming over consider the UK to be a lot safer than other parts of Europe, and some have family here.
Another thing to consider, is many people seeking asylum also speak English, as English is a more universal language than French(or Spanish, German etc)
And there are others that would just like to live in the UK, which as an asylum speaker is their right.
Try asking the question again, but with more parameters and I would suspect you'll get a very different answer.
And how many have left ? I take it that aspect wasnt part of your 'calculations' given that about 480,000 migrate from the UK each year. Then of course we have approximately 670,000 dying in the UK, and a similar number are born.
So in a year, the UK loses about 1.1million people
Again, a complete lack of detail
The countries listed have very different terrains and of course the most striking that they are different sizes.
For example you've listed the UK as X per square km, and Russia as X/square km
But these cannot be compared as the UK have a total area of about 94,000 sq miles and Russia has a total area of about 6 1/2 million sq miles
Then we need to consider the geology, (and we'll stick to the UK)
England has 434 per sq mile Scotland is 174 per sq mile
in land mass terms, England is about 50,000 sq miles, and Scotland is 30,000 sq miles or about 60% between the two.
But populations arent showing a population difference of 60%, its more like 40%
This difference is because Scotland is pretty mountainous, which is not the best place to build a city
So if you want to do comparisons, then make the comparison the same taking land mass and geology into account.
Last edited:
Of course it doesn't convince me, or anyone else who knows the real problem. It's not the immigrants who are, in the first instance it's our dishonest governments who continue to pretend we are a first world affluent power by continuously borrowing us into uncontrollable debt.
Remember, I said sharing our resources fairly with all, not our grossly excessive borrowings. We've been continuously in productive decline since 1950 and if only our true earned resources had been shared fairly, all living standards would have substantially dropped to the point where nobody would want to migrate here and many of us native Brits would no longer have stayed here anyway. Thus honest government would have substantially shrunk our population, not grown it.
But to have that, the public have to accept the cure and the hardship that comes with it. Though I hate to admit it, Starmer and Reeves are on the right lines, slashing our benefits and living standards to affordability while trying to make us economically more viable.
But they will fail of course, since as you posted, the public won't stand for practical policy that hurts and will throw them out of power.
You really must try harder to think these problems through to the end solution. You complain about all our ills but never post a workable solution to them all, as I'm currently doing here.
.
![20250331_163609[1].jpg](/forum/data/attachments/60/60380-e0878134d8a4bb2fc5c2c4584a3052c8.jpg)
Has France now taken the path or Russia and Turkey in banning highly effective insurgent party candidates from running for office?
Le Pen sentenced to 4 years and banned from office for five years.
Along with her about twenty other National Rally candidates found guilty of embezzling EU funds over the work given to EU funded office assistants .
Le Pen sentenced to 4 years and banned from office for five years.
Along with her about twenty other National Rally candidates found guilty of embezzling EU funds over the work given to EU funded office assistants .
French far-right leader Marine Le Pen barred from running for public office for five years
Le Pen's ban - after being found guilty of embezzling EU funds - means she would not be able to run in the 2027 presidential election.
www.bbc.co.uk
This is what happens every single time.
The tories are as corrupt and pretty much fleece the public purse. Labour gets in and has to fix the problems, which always means taking tough choices
The public dont like these choices, as they bear the brunt, so lose their love of the labour party, and eventually vote the tories back in and around we go again
90%(actually I think the figure is higher) of the super rich in the UK donate to the conservative party. They dont actually vote, i mean a single vote is going to do nothing, so they influence in other ways, mainly by greasing palms
I don't think so. The maximum sentence for embezzlement of eu funds is 10 year jail time and 1 million euros fine. She's been sentenced to 2 years house arrest plus 2 years suspended sentence and 5 years ban from holding a public office.Has France now taken the path or Russia and Turkey in banning highly effective insurgent party candidates from running for office?
Le Pen sentenced to 4 years and banned from office for five years.
Along with her about twenty other National Rally candidates found guilty of embezzling EU funds over the work given to EU funded office assistants .
French far-right leader Marine Le Pen barred from running for public office for five years
Le Pen's ban - after being found guilty of embezzling EU funds - means she would not be able to run in the 2027 presidential election.www.bbc.co.uk
She and 24 others embezzled 4 millions euros. If the case goes to appeal, she and the others could end up with real time behind bars, not house arrest.
What counts is that half of Scotland is empty, bogs, rocks and mountains and nobody besides the odd stalker, forester or shepherd lives there. The other noticeable thing is that most migrants do not want to live in Scotland. There are some, but there are no Bradfords or London's there, where migrants make up a large portion of the population.
What counts is where the people - especially newcomers live. They live in England and the whole of England is VERY, VERY heavily populated - over populated, in my opinion and this is the major reason that our housing is vastly too expensive. There is a huge shortage already, and notwithstanding the efforts of the current government to fix the utterly dysfunctional planning laws (which I applaud) and the suggestion that we should build on greenbelt, we will never catch up on the massive dearth of housing in England which has built up over the last thirty five years until we cut migration and put our own people back to work.
Embezzled four million Euros?
AS I understand it, they went after them because some of the clerical staff the NR Euro MPs had did some work that the EU now say was for NR. I think this smells of a disruption attack on a very successful insurgent party and it looks exactly like what Erdogan has done to his major rival in Turkey and what Putin did with Navalny and every other challenger he had - only to be fair - nobody has killed the NR candidates yet.
To be clear - there are things about NR's policies that I don't like, but I think the people in any democracy should be able to vote for whoever they like and that people putting themselves up for the people to chose should not be disposed of by judicial trickery.
Shock Marine Le Pen verdict rocks French far right
The far-right figurehead has been barred from running for public office for five years, throwing her plans into disarray.
www.bbc.co.uk
Ask ChatGPT to search the case and sum it up for you. Le Pen is not the only RN's members to appear in court. I originally thought 4 years prison was a little harsh until I found out that it was 2 years house arrest + 2 years suspended sentence. As she is no longer an MEP, she doesn't run any risk to spend a night in jail.
As Andybike suggested, I modified the query slightly to add a qualifier here in bold and gave it to ChatGPT. Here is the new query:
Can a person who came from Afghanistan and arrives in a rubber boat from France which is a safe and civilised country, honestly apply for asylum in the UK?
And here is the reply:
Reasoned about asylum application eligibility for 16 seconds
Yes, they can apply for asylum regardless of how they arrived. In the UK, the right to seek asylum is based on an individual’s claim of persecution or danger in their home country—not on the route taken to get there.
Key Points
- Right to Apply:
Even if someone enters by an irregular route (such as by rubber boat), they have the legal right to apply for asylum if they can demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution or harm in Afghanistan. - Scrutiny of Entry Route:
The manner of entry may be considered by immigration authorities. Irregular entry can complicate the process and might affect how the claim is handled, but it does not automatically disqualify the applicant. - Safe Third Country Consideration:
While France is considered a safe and orderly country, the fact that the journey started there does not necessarily preclude an asylum claim in the UK. However, if authorities determine that the applicant could have sought protection in France (a “safe third country”), this might be examined during the processing of the claim. - Legal Advice Recommended:
Given the complexities of asylum law and the potential implications of an irregular entry, it’s crucial for anyone in this situation to seek advice from a qualified immigration lawyer or a trusted refugee support organization.
Related Articles
-
MTF Enterprises announces acquisition of EMU Electric Bikes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Wisper 806T folding bike wins Which? ‘Best Buy’- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Sustrans calls for protected cycle lanes- Started by: Pedelecs
-
Amazon launch their first UK e-cargo micromobility hub- Started by: Pedelecs
