JayClay

Nope. It's the ignorance of people like you who don't understand three simple concepts: 1 - Failed applicants are deported 2 - Successful applicants can be put to work in one of the many industries that have been struggling to fill vacancies since brexit, thus boosting productivity and tax revenues than could be spent on funding the pension and homeless issues 3 - If you choose to not process claims, as the current government is doing, then the cost of housing the pending applicants will continue to increase. It's so simple, I'm always surprised that anybody ever falls for it. Lucky the amount of people in the UK that are getting taken in is statistically irrelevant these days. They seem to be overly represented on this forum, for some reason. It's fine to be angry. But please just do the most basic level of research, try applying just a tiny amount of critical thinking, and channel your anger at the correct people.

Typical Daily Mail... full of lies.

or... get shot?

Oh. That makes it okay then...

Algeria doesn't even feature in the top 5, by the way... (https://www.unhcr.org/uk/asylum-uk)

Taken from https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/the-uks-asylum-backlog/ The dark blue bar indicates new arrivals in any given quarter. The light blue indicates the total amount outstanding. While there has been a small spike in new arrivals recently, mostly due to the issues in Hong Kong and Ukraine, it's clear to see that the reason we are spending so much money housing refugees is because the claims are not being processed! If you don't like the idea of paying 7 million per day to house pending applicants, vote in a government that will process the claims, deport the failed applicants, and put the successful applicants to work in one of the many industries that are currently desperately understaffed.

If you're spending $5000 on an intimate date whilst in the USA rather than waiting until you're next in Thailand, I have a funny feeling you'll end up spending way more than you think you will over here. I doubt you'll save money. You may (or may not...) have a more enjoyable time with the money you do spend, but just be careful you don't end up blowing the lot.

I stand corrected.

That would make it one 75-day report followed by a series of consecutive 90 day reports if you do it two weeks early every time. That's providing the next due date doesn't change when you report early, which I am relatively sure is the case. (Edit.... I was apparently wrong about this. Sorry!)

Why would he need to see a road number if he already knows what the road is called??

????????‍♂️ What if he doesn't know the name of the road number he's looking at? Presumably that's the whole reason he's zooming in; so he can read the road number!

Huh?? If they wanted to sell to both markets they would have had to apply for two sets of standards certification. Now they won't have to. The rest of your post I agree with 100%. But there's still a lot of pain to come with the rest of the implementation of Brexit. Dropping the UKIP certification requirement was a good step, but there's more pain to come which won't be u-turned on, unfortunately.

50 + 50 doesn't add up to 100?

No it has no impact on that. If companies want to sell into the EU they have to have the CE mark. So any company exporting to the EU will build their products to EU standards anyway. If companies want to sell in the UK they need the CE mark or the UKCA mark. Under the change companies wanting to sell to both markets would need both certifications. And that would have meant that companies in the EU would have to get the UKCA mark if they wanted to continue to sell to the UK, which would have lead to price increases by the manufacturers, and some companies no longer selling to the uk as it would not be financially viable. Now the change has been scrapped, neither UK businesses wanting to sell internally nor EU businesses wanting to sell to the UK need pay the extra costs for dual certification. So in summary, no changes to standards requirements as companies will always make products to the standards required to the markets they sell to. The climbdown just means that businesses won't have any additional costs and paperwork, and consumers won't have to worry about price increases and products becoming unavailable.

Again... The OP has never mentioned using the map while driving. As others have pointed out, just because you only use Google Maps for navigation, other people use it for other things.

It appears that you don't seem to understand the difference between simply using a map and navigating. The OP asked about road numbers because, presumably, that's what's annyoing him. Try it for yourself. Open Google Maps. Enter a landmark. The map zooms to the landmark and sometimes the road numbers/names are displayed, as well as the names of other buildings landmarks in the area. This can be extremely useful for knowing what area the pin is in. Unfortunately when you pinch to zoom, the names of these places appear and disappear as Google decides it knows best what you need to see.

The OP is talking about using Google Maps on his phone. There was no mention of him using it for live navigation. It is also one of my pet peeves that landmarks and road names appear and disappear apparently at random when you are zooming in and out. I doubt there's any way to change this behaviour, unfortunately. But I would be happy to be proved wrong.

What?

So you're married now..? How does your wife feel about you sweet talking other girls from under drunk guys noses, or taking girls to Phuket who over charge you? Or did the marriage happen relatively recently? Is the postman the bride?

What?

If I thought you were the only one who was angry I would have said: "precisely to make you angry". Your response shows exactly why you struggle to understand what's really happening. You appear to lack both reading comprehension skills and basic reasoning. Did you really think that I was suggesting that the government are attempting to pull the wool over your eyes, and youe eyes alone? That would, of course, be a ridiculous claim to make. There are millions of people just like you who are also susceptable to government lies. I, personally, wouldn't be proud of being a member of that particular group.

You are talking bull locks. There's no point debating with you on this matter.

Yes it must be such a fantastic life fleeing half way across the continent from war or persecution to then be stuck in a "hotel" (and I can guarantee you that word doesn't mean what you think it does), boat or tent for months and months complety unable to function as part of any kind of society. The anger the tax payer feels should be directed to the government who are letting the backlog pile up. Just try to think logically for a few minutes.... If the government processed the claims then they could send failed applications back, thus not needing to "house" them. And the successful applicants could be making themselves useful by filling some of the thousands of low-wage jobs that are currently going un-filled. Thus creating taxable income, and bolstering the economy. And so there should be. But do your research, apply some basic logic, and channel the anger where it belongs; rather than where the Daily Mail tell you it should be focused.

Claiming asylum is not illegal. If a claim is accepted, they are a legal immigrant. If a claim is rejected, they are returned to their home country. Therefore the people coming on the boats are never illegal immigrants. If the UK chooses not to bother processing claims, then so be it. They therefore have to pay to 'house" them instead. And they publish the huge figures on how much all this costs, precisely to make people like you angry. Just have a go at doing something positive and channel your anger at the people who really deserve it.

Has that always been the case?