egg

Thanks for that. So trying to compare an apple to an orchard. Still shows poor judgement, at best, though.

No idea mate, I'm just trying to think of a logical reason for the ridiculous delay. If they're proceeding based on the same incidents as the EFL, it should be quick and easy. All a bit odd.

There's a paywall... headline doesn't look great though!

The punishment was a package, so any appeal would address all issues together. The timing point is being made out as an issue that it isn't. As the appellant, you want an urgent appeal, not a delay - you want a wrong rectified without delay. Same day or short delay appeals are common. There shouldn't be a need to spend ages preparing for an appeal of that sort. Our case was that the panel got it wrong based on the evidence, the rules and any precedent. Any credible legal team should know how they say the panel got it wrong, and be able to take that into an urgent appeal.

I'm not sure all the facts were known. We admitted three specific episodes, and the tribunal made certain findings. Whether the FA are investigating whether Tonda did anything else, we don't know, but that's the only reason I can think of for the prolonged delay.

Prick is my go to. Fine word.

I think any immigration assesment should include knowledge of UK derogatory terms. Essential for integration.

It's good, but I'll raise you Plonker.

Wally is a belter.

That's one of your better posts.

Oh that's it! Making it temporary doesn't alter the scope. What's the reduced scope you suggest? Let's assume there's no safe areas - ie Gaza, or nowhere safe for certain people, ie disabled or an oppressed group? Your explanation re overseas processing isn't clear. Someone in France, wanting to come here, where do they get processed?

Reduce to what? Which countries would allow us to process there? Wouldn't that just invite more applications?

3 settlements now proposed in Gaza. No surprise. https://aje.news/rlfmko?update=4823185

I've read mixed reports on the ruling. On one hand I've read that only people intercepted at sea have amnesty. If that's right, anyone hitting dry land could be turned back. That was my initial understanding. I've also read that only people who'd scaled or penetrated a border fence or similar could be turned back. I've not delved to clarify but the former seems more likely, and that any confusion has come from the media spinning an agenda.

There's something in that, although there's a school of thought that wider geo politics were at play due to US and Israeli beef with Spain re lack of support over Iran and recognising a Palestinian state. It goes something like disaffected youth all but encouraged to cross the border, blind eyes turned on Moroccan side, uproar and unrest leading to Spain feeling heat, a decison to switch US bases from Spain to Morocco, US troops having a presence/control along the straight of Gibraltar, and Moroccan troops possibly peacekeeping in Gaza. Not sure what to make of it, but the US pulling out of Spain and setting up base in Morocco seems plausible, wheras 60k young lads thinking they'd have a day out then be picked up and welcomed in Madrid with a Cruzcampo never felt likely.