Weston Super Saint

The cost is irrelevant whoever is in power if the benefit of spending the money outweighs the cost of it. Surely that's the issue that matters? Starmer could quite easily budget for the cost once he gets in power, but has refused to commit to doing so....

Apparently, Starmer has said he won't reinstate the planned works for HS2 to go to Manchester when they have control of the hot seat. Odd really as such a ridiculous political own goal would pretty much guarantee victory in the next election, surely? Maybe, and I know this is way out of left field, Sunak's calculations are correct and the costs really do outweigh the potential benefit.… Isn't this what we've all been asking, sensible decisions from the Government that don't spunk billions for little reward?

Go for it then, list a couple of examples of the 'drivel'. There should be loads for you to choose from. I'm not even expecting it to pass the burden of proof to stand up in court, just some examples....

What are his "other skills" and why don't they require "hard work"?

The point was that FtF stated that the "left" never "play the person", literally just before his post I quoted... I guess that means he considers himself to be "the right"...

So you don't agree that you call people right wing / Tommy Robinson supporters if they don't agree with your opinions?

I think it's as simple as anyone who doesn't agree with soggy is a right wing, racist, baby killing, nazi cunt.

Wouldn't that be "playing the man"?

Which means Starmer will announce it today as one of his key commitments to re-instate once they win the election, that would be a 'no-brainer' surely? Alternatively, if Starmer doesn't announce it will be re-instated, doesn't that actually suggest Sunak has made a tough decision, but the right one?

It's all downhill after about 35, sadly. I was getting plenty of injuries using 'heavy' weights so have switched completely. I now go for 'reps' at a lower weight - usually around half the weight I was using for 3 sets of 10, but now I do 1 set of 40, 1 of 30, 1 of 20 and 1 of 10 (usually add a little more weight for the last one). The lactic build up hurts but muscle definition is hugely improved.

It is a concept 2, but I use the one in the gym. My old man bought one for about a grand, but I don't have the space for one. 7.5k on Tuesday in 34:28.

We'll put that down as a 'no' then I honestly thought this subject wasn't that hard to grasp, but it seems certain posters delight in proving me wrong time and time again.

Incorrect. Victims of modern day slavery are always given asylum. That has fuck all to do with the "individual" as I doubt any of them are "choosing" to be victims.

Yep. Although as a victim of modern day slavery, he received help and if his teacher hadn't been quite so ignorant of the rules, would have been able to obtain his visa without deception. Not really sure what your point is though....

Also, a pretty pointless exercise as the "baby" can choose their own gender when they get to primary school.

Surely even you understand the difference between legal and illegal migration.

Right up until the next traffic lights when you rinse and repeat 😁

I was in Wales on Wednesday where every road has been changed to 20 from 30. The Welsh are moaning like fuck as they are now being overtaken by electric scooters in the middle of Swansea - the ones that aren't actually legally allowed on the road! It hasn't gone down well!

I always remember his voice from a kids program from the late 70's(?), but I've no idea which one it was.

I assume this is governed by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, so presumably we have Tony and the loving, caring Labour party to thank for these stipulations.

Very true. The question is, was UK law put in place to ensure we abide by the refugee act?

Isn't that through the application of the 1951 charter on refugees rather than a decision made wholly by the UK? Also, isn't it the UNHCR that decides who is and who isn't a refugee rather than someone who crosses the channel on a small boat?

They aren't being trafficked against their will to sit around claiming benefits. They are classed as modern day slaves and will be put to work by their "owners" in jobs where the "owners" control the money they earn, or they will be used as sex workers and never see any money. That is what the traffickers "get" out of the arrangement. That is very different to many others crossing on the boats who have already paid someone for their crossing based on promises of the golden goose at the other end.

Not necessarily.... The criminal gangs could be illegally trafficking people i.e. modern day slavery. The "people" are therefore not doing anything wrong per se if they have no control, as they are legitimate victims. There is a distinction between all those that cross the channel illegally (i.e. without the documents to do so legally), some choose to do so willingly, others are forced to do so. Some will claim asylum legitimately, some will claim asylum spuriously. It's a complicated area, so little wonder folk like aintclever get confused. Easy mistake to make.

Illegal economic migrants?