mokwit

we are not really talking deportations, we are talking people accepting paid for flight and GBP3,000 to go home. So if you lose your job or run out of money then just take the generous offer. I'm not being churlish with this, because if Labour really have materially increaased deportations they deserve the credit, but I can't help but think 8,308 in 5 months represented an existing, ongoing pipeline - a 16% increase could just be normal variation in numbers YoY - it's not a doubling, is it? Once again credit where due if really due, but If they are claiming results that are not really theirs.............. 2,061 were not voluntary and this suggests an existing ongoing pipelline i.e. process started under previous Government. Good luck getting an involuntary deportation through the courts in 5 months. From memory, there are at least 3 appeals possible. absolute gravy train for Immigration lawyers.

If the number for July to September is 8,308 and is up 16% on the same period YoY then that would suggest that the number in the previous year was rather more than four................... Where are you getting four from?

It didn't, it is a continuation. Granted, numbers are up 16% (June-Sept YoY), but clearly something was being done. The Tories made an agreement with France (at vast expense) but you could be forgiven for thinking France wasn't holding up its end of the bargain.

This is a 16% increase YoY i.e. from under "Tory rule", so not that big a thing to crow about, especially as they were paid GBP 3,000 to leave (if they did). Basically if they overstay they get given GBP 3,000 and flight paid to go home (note Thai system is different). The unwilling, I am sure are dragging it through the courts indefinitely. 'The returns were classed as voluntary and were likely to include people who had overstayed their visas. The Home Office offers incentives for voluntary returnees of up to £3,000 including for babies and children. The sweeteners are provided in the form of pre-loaded cards that can be activated once people touch down in their home country. The government is keen to trumpet its deportation credentials with figures published on Thursday revealing 8,308 enforced and voluntary returns between July and September 2024, a 16% increase on the same period last year. The majority – 6,247 – were voluntary returns, an increase of 12% on this category of returns during the same period in 2023. While the government is keen to promote the numbers returned they have failed to mention publicly that the destination of these historic deportation flights was Brazil.' Interesting that even The Guardian are querying this. Source, none other than the link brigades favourite. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/01/brazilians-deported-home-office-secret-flights-uk https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/immigration-system-statistics-year-ending-september-2024/summary-of-latest-statistics

Appearing on her Onlyfans channel for 120 hours would probably cover that (they don't all make millions).

With breaks for snacking, obviously.

Nobody borrowed your car yet?

Not much hope after decades of Merkel rule.

If you give enough people a biologically active molecule, some are going to die from it. Top down public health knows this and balances the expected lives saved vs losses, it is a tradeoff. What was wrong was the way eople were coerced into a novel therapeutic (MRNA vaccines) which had not undergone the normal FDA approval process. There is an argument that accelerated approval may have been right under the circumstances, especially if the vaccine actually did 'stop the spread'/provide immunity* but people screamed at "deniers" that it was FDA approved, when it was not FDA approved in they way that normally means. It was not a vaccine as vaccines were understood prior to the definition being changed*. The only vaccine I can think of given to reduce infection not prevent is the Polio vaccine which is given after someone has contracted polio, but that is because it may have benefit due to the way Polio spreads - BUT the vaccine is normally given to PREVENT infection.

You should have turned them back at the state line. The hypocrisy of fleeing the cesspit they created.

I'm not really sure that it was to the extent that it wouldn't have happened anyway. I doubt that tax breaks alone were what made this shift viable/profitable. Also, they still pay rates on their hypermarket sites. People shopped in off high street hypermarkets because it was easier and better and the same with online. It would have happened anyway, just that the big retailers might have made a bit less doing it.

It is a secular trend. Unfortunately the creative destruction of capitalism can be brutal to the businesses displaced by the new model.

Certainly this is the way pricing is set in privately owned malls, but it seems many councils were increasing rates against a backdrop of secular declines in footfall. They assumed they could make up for lower occupancy and lower car parking revenues by increasing the rates on the remaining businesses.

I'm sure they did. Supermarkets are big business, after all. However, with the move away from the High Street, Supermarkets became as much a property business as a retailing business, the ascent of TESCO has been ascribed by one fund manager as being due to competitiveness through low cost land purchases. The founder of Foodland here stated that his low prices business model was dependent on being able to buy the site at low cost. Also you get greater economies of scale with hypermarkets.

Yes, it's disgraceful how the Tories forced supermarkets and big box retailers into large off high street sites and then made online shopping the preferred alternative. They also forced local councils to charge ridiculous rates to shopkeepers and to gauge shoppers on parking - they even managed to make Labour councils do this!

How much of that "power" is hers?

That's because it no longer censors along political lines like other social media, so they see posts from normal people.

I think you are misunderstanding what I wrote. I was talking about the MSM lying by omission and distortion. The point is that on X if someone lies, omits, or is disingenuous, likely someone will call them out on it.

Surely this problem can be solved by a referral to the miracle working Doctors that treated him [Thaksin] for his life threatening ailments. Look at him now, traveling the country and giving speeches.

I would have thought that was self explanatory In this context people like the person on the Left. The people who say these things - it kinda defines them. Note I use the term Leftist more to describe a personality type, holding Left wing views does not of it's own make them a Leftist/Leftie, if they are capable of discussion without resorting to name calling/tactics/shoutdowns they are merely on the Left of the spectrum. While I'm here, can you define the Far Right?

What is very telling is that Liberals are leaving X for Bluesky not because their own free speech is being curtailed, it isn't, but because other people's free speech is no longer being curtailed.

RT gives a different perspective, albeit with an agenda of it's own, it might be the truth (all that is required when others are lying) or it might be propaganda, the MSM is unreliable and if you think otherwise you might want to reflect on who is living in an echo chamber.

We have people posting on here who don't know this (the link brigade).

...and you are only told what they want you to know, shown what they want you to see. Lying by omission and distortion is rampant.