egg

Trying to find equivalences doesn't alter that it's strange that people criticise strong punishment of individuals inciting severe violence via Twitter.

The labour MP hasn't been condoned. Someone doing that on TV is a disgrace though , although it's unconnected to some dinlo inciting arson or worse via Twitter.

Err, JJ isn't Dibling. If we're doing daft comparisons, have you forgotten that Dom Ballard exists, as did Ryan Seager, etc etc. Show me one player we've managed well via the loan system over recent years. Just one. I'll spare you the search, there's been none.

What he would he have gained by staying here? I don't think we've developed our young players for life beyond SFC very well at all. They've had loans which haven't developed them, and that hasn't helped them. Since joining Chelsea, and getting over a serious injury, JJ has had half a season in league 2, this season in league 1. In all likelihood, the championship next season, if he's ready. He's playing, and now scoring. He's got the security of a decent contract, and it seems like his career is being well managed. Will he ever play for Chelsea, probably not, but they'll develop him for their gain, and that'll benefit him.

I find these tweet complaints irritating. I'm not sure why people can't acknowledge that inciting people to burn down buildings where people are housed is a tad unpleasant. The fact that the incitement is in writing, and in an arena where it can be pushed out to thousands of people, is a hell of a lot worse than inciting one bloke down the pub.

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.