egg

True...I assumed we'd get some actual tactics though.

Although we have deadlines already...from the refusal to first tier tribunal, then to the upper tribunal, then judicial review. I think what's happened in the case reported above, is that the modern slavery point was made belatedly meaning an injunction preventing deportation. I'm with you completely that all grounds of application/appeal should be made within the laid down process, not new ones lobbed in after you've lost.

I agree that there should be a finite deadline for appeals to be filed, but the appellant can only file the appeal. The rest is down to the system, and then the criteria to be applied.

You said: "If we tell them they are getting deported in a week then they have to put an appeal in with enough time to process and reject it and then get sent off p bthe flight as planned". We can't give them a week to have an appeal dealt with if the appeal can't be dealt with in that timescale. That's a process beyond their control. They can only appeal. The rest is down to the system.

Yep. Initially he is said to have said that he wasn't exploited. He was when it would help him.

That comes back to asylum seekers having to meet a deadline to which is beyond their control. The only ways to address the issue, I think , is (a) to tighten the criteria in all respects (including the relevance of slavery issues), (b) get the home office geared up to process and determine claims, and (c) throw judges at the appeal system. The watered down appeal system will just lead to more judicial reviews I'd imagine, and that'll probably be slower than the current system. There's no easy solution though. If we throw judges at this it takes them away from other areas of the system. It's a mess.

We'll agree to differ mate.

Yep. He's looking very limited so far, but I don't believe he is.

It shows he's clueless mate. Back to us, and the question. The squad is capable of much more than we're seeing, but the tactics aren't good. We're not pressing and aren't resistant to being pressed. We don't have much movement anywhere, especially between the lines. We're not getting the ball wide. The full backs aren't supporting or overlapping. We don't play though midfield, and have no grip on midfield. That's all aside of a little lad up top having the ball banged up to him, and nobody being around him. Etc. The short answer to the thread question is, from nowhere, if we carry on playing this way.

I'm not sure you're helping your man here. SoG's correct on this.

Feel free to highlight the empathy shown for the Palestinians. There's not a word of it. Not one. To save you wasting your time for something that isn't there, chat GPT says: Explicit statements of empathy (e.g. “I feel for the civilians in Gaza” or “I am sorry for what they are suffering”) → I saw none of that in these excerpts. If that's the case for the defence, I stand by all my comments about him.

What's happening at Rangers shows that the issue with Russball was/is Russ using it regardless of the players at his disposal. The squad we had last year could have done better than it did, and this year's squad should be doing much better than it is. Sadly, Pompey's manager got a much better tune out of a much worse squad of players in Sunday, and that highlights to me that it's not a player issue.

Hollywood

How can an asylum seeker meet a deadline to finalise an appeal when the application/asylum/appeal system is beyond their control?!

You've just asked for a change to the law. What change are you calling for? We can't just "send them back". You know better than to make comments like that.

What are you actually asking to be changed? Are you saying that as a country we should ignore claims of modern slavery as a relevant factor in asylum cases?

As per my post above, I think the answer is to abandon the separate process that addresses the claim of modern slavery, and just have it as a factor to be considered when dealing with the asylum application/appeal. The issue then is to deal with appeals quicker, and that means allocating more tribunals, judges, and resources to dealing with them.

It's more of an issue than that. If being a victim of slavery is claimed, that's a process that runs separately to the asylum application, although the decision of the former feeds into the latter. The former (and any government or quasi government decision) can always be the subject of judicial review. The only way to stop that, I'd imagine, is to take away that particular process, and just roll slavery claims up as part of the general asylum application.

I think the only legal change could be to stop a claim of being a victim of modern day slavery being relevant to a claim for asylum or for discretionary leave to remain. In reality, it's hard to see any government doing that.

I think they came to win, and waste time. They certainly had attacking intent, and could/should have won. I agree they wasted time from the off though. I reckon they faffed around for at least 6-7 mins at corners and throw ins.

I won't get drawn into SOG's post beyond saying that but it's hard to disagree with his comment that Hypo has shown "zero empathy for what the occupants of Gaza and the West Bank are being subjected to by the IDF and the so called Settlers".

Ariel

First blush answer was yes mainly for the reasons Kraken says - most people don't know their MP from Adam, and in truth are backing the party and/or the leader. The MP is just just the party representative in most people's eyes. But do we do the same if someone loses the party whip? They become an indy, and no longer represent the party they were elected under. Different situations, yep, but in both situations an MP's role changes. If one scenario triggers a by election, the other should. We can't have a political system where the whip system, and party discipline, goes for fear of a by election. On balance, a heavy hearted "no" from me.

One on one defending he was fine. Positionally he wasn't. When the keeper went down first time, Downes came over and spoke to Still, then went back and spoke to Mads. After that the defence pushed up for a while and we were more compact, but it didn't last long.

Yep. Mads also dropped far too deep, dragging Fellows back, and inviting their left back forward. That didn't help an already overrun midfield. Manning did well. Positionally sound and solid.