egg

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 They become an indy, and no longer represent the party they were elected under.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.

Agreed, although it's a mystery what Hamas ever expected to achieve by taking those hostages, and what they hope to achieve by holding on to them.

What the IDF do to Palestinian hospitals. https://www.instagram.com/reel/DI3zyZWsGFc/?igsh=MTA5czFvbWRoN3oyNQ== I can only assume that preventing people from getting well is a way of Israel protecting itself.

Yep. We defended well enough, but they constantly bypassed midfield which was a big part of the issue today. The full backs didn't help either by barely getting forward. I think the issue is in the instructions though, not the players.

Runs and ball winning are different things mate. If you did watch him, you'd have seen him in all sorts of positions to receive the ball. Charles spent the game covering the atrocious Downes. The difference in the last quarter was that Downes went off. There was no other midfield addition - AA and Stewart went up top.

I was in the Itchen/Chapel corner and was watching him loads.I doubt those runs would have been seen watching on the TV, or as easily from other parts of the ground. In the first half, he made loads of little runs into pockets, but the midfield didn't get hold of the ball enough to use him, ditto Archer. They weren't bust a gut runs, but enough to find space, and offer himself up for the ball. Second half, his runs were more obvious, and we had more of the ball. He didn't use it as well as he should have, but he found loads of space still. If there's a criticism, I'd have liked him to drop in and demand the ball, but with full backs sitting deep, midfielders not breaking the lines, the wingers being pressed, what would have done with the ball as he was the bloke who's job it was to link the play. With a properly functioning midfield, and centre backs who don't just welly it to a small lad up top, I think he could be really effective. He was a victim of tactics and poor performances all round today.

Amen to that. Things like this, and my year to date, reinforce what's important. Happiness, health, friends, family, and peace of mind. Not much else really matters.

Although I'm not slating him for it, we looked terrible in the first half after switching to it. In particular, our full backs didn't get high enough up the pitch.

Very sad news. Not sure of the circumstances, and hopefully it was natural causes rather than life getting too much. Regardless, he was a great character and a superb fighter. RIP.

Yep. Ball into a man who can't win it or hold it up. Lose it. Hope to win it back. Repeat. I've no idea what his midfield set up is supposed to be. Seems like the players don't either.

Are you watching?

Can't believe that's a serious call. Azaz is the only one moving and offering an option.

We've been shocking. I don't do pies, but I've gone for a pie. Their sub keeper has passed the ball more than Downes. Only Azaz and Archer offering up for the ball. Shite.

I think you misunderstand her comparison. It's not literal. I'd hazard a guess that many of those 2 million people would prefer death to their existence.