7by7

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Like there will be consequences when art 16 gets triggered without any reason.

Von der Leyen did not trigger Article 16. It was threatened and a reason given. Not that I agreed with any of that, and obviously as head of the Commission the buck stops with her.

Just as I don't agree with Foster, Paisley and Johnson when they, too, threaten to trigger Article 16. Do you? 

As you're a dyed in the wool Boris fanboy, I suspect that you believe it's bad when the EU do it, but good when Boris does the same!

17 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

That is a stretch even for you! You know full well UvL's position is hugely more prominent and significant than Simon Case's position. That's a ridiculous comparison and just highlights the lengths you'll go to to win an argument ????‍♂️

Both are heads of their respective political master's bureaucracies.

So if your really believe your statement that "UvL's position is hugely more prominent and significant than Simon Case's position" it must logically also mean that you believe the same of their respective political masters; that the EU is hugely more prominent and significant than the UK!

Although I do believe that Brexit has damaged the UK, I certainly cannot agree with that!

2 hours ago, Harveyboy said:

Great at least i know where my hard earned Tax i pay is going ..im afraid i won't be granted such favours here in LOS 

In this instance it's going to protect public health.

That Thailand doesn't have the same policy is no reason for the UK to copy them. In fact, to protect public health Thailand should follow us in this!

8 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Right move.

 

Herd immunity isn’t achieved by omitting to inoculate part of the population.

3 hours ago, Pique Dard said:

it's obvious! covid-19 doesn't  choose its victims! an infected migrant would easily transmit the covid to a british citizen

Indeed.

How many with dubious or no right to be here would come for the vaccine if they were told that their immigration status would be checked and if found wanting they would be deported? 

Very few; particularly after the Windrush scandal!

Do we really want these people added to the looney anti vaxers and Covid doesn't exist brigades!

This is a public health matter, and for that reason all must be treated the same.

@goldenbrwn1, no idea what you mean by "the usual agenda."

I grew up with Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee and, imho the best of all, Baker and preferred the lengthier and more developed storylines of the serial format of the classic era. I sometimes find that the single episode format makes things rather rushed.

However, there have been some excellent ones in the new era, too. Especially where the story is spread over two or more episodes. I'm thinking in particular of series 6 with The Silence and anything with Missy in; especially the two part "The Magician's Apprentice/The Witch's Familiar."

But we all have our own taste.

As for this actual topic; is Doctor Who shown in China? Yes.

17 hours ago, goldenbrwn1 said:

I was just upset with them over what has become of DR WHO

Spoiler alert!!!!

Scroll down past this post to avoid them.

Should you wish to avoid the spoilers, I'll respond to the other, and main, point of your post separately.

What upset you?

A female Doctor?

Two female Doctors, actually, due to the introduction in "Fugitive of the Judoon of Ruth Clayton, a character revealed to be a previously unseen incarnation of the Doctor?

That Bradley Walsh (Graham) and Tosin Cole (Ryan) have left?

That Captain Jack's brief return in "Fugitive of the Judoon" and central role in the New Year special "Revolution of the Daleks" are unlikely to be repeated?

That Jodie Whittaker may be leaving at the end of the next series?

That the pandemic meant filming for series 13 of the revival (series 39 in total) was delayed, the series has been reduced from an originally planned eleven episodes to eight, won't be on screens until later than planned?

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

You have not provided anything of the sort, just more twisting. Your reference to WA does nothing to refute my claim at all. It rather supports it actually, in that they made provision in the hope it would be extended by Barnier’s negotiating strategy. 

I provided a quote from, and link to, the Institute for Government.

Who are 'they' who made the provision? It was Boris who triumphally announced the WA as his deal!

BTW, Article 132 of the WA allowed the Joint (UK/EU) Committee to extend the transition period if both the UK and EU agreed. The UK could have suggested it, the EU could also have done so.

However, as far as I can ascertain, although the EU members of the committee informally suggested an extension to allow both the EU and UK to focus on responses to the pandemic, no formal request was ever made. Apparently because the informal suggestion was rejected out of hand by the UK representatives on the committee. 

Unless you can provide evidence to show otherwise. 

But I expect that yet again you'll use your excuse for not having any evidence to support your claims by saying that you don't dance to other's tunes!

1 minute ago, Loiner said:

Real people in real businesses were already using new systems long before TV adverts.

What systems were those?

Why no evidence of them from you?

2 minutes ago, Loiner said:

The TV ads appeared for those who may not already be trading with the U.K. but possibly could need to get themselves informed.

Err, the UK government's TV ads, shown in the UK, were specifically directed at business large and small in the UK who wanted to continue to trade with the EU. Not people outside the UK who wanted to trade with the UK!

Of course these people needed to get informed; but as the updates to the UK government's guidance proves, not even the UK government knew what would be required until the agreement was finally reached on Christmas Eve.

To be fair, though, there was some advice from the government on what would be required if there was no deal; but as there is one, that was binned.

6 minutes ago, Loiner said:

They are one of the last stages of general public information,

 Yes, the guidance I linked to was the last stage of information; because nothing was certain until the agreement was reached. But that guidance and it's updates first appeared in July 2020. 

I've asked you for earlier guidance; you haven't provided it.

But maybe you believe businesses in the UK are all equipped with crystal balls or time machines so they can see the future! Then again, given the nonsense you post, that wouldn't surprise me!

9 minutes ago, Loiner said:

or for nosey bystanders like yourself. 

Nosey bystander? Being concerned about the effects of Brexit on business and therefore the economy in my country makes me a nosey bystander?

A pathetic comment from someone with no real argument and zero facts to back up what you say.

11 minutes ago, Loiner said:

If you were involved in a business or sector trading with the EU, you would already know all that

I admit to not being involved in trade with the EU; but I know people who are. From what they tell me, plus reports in the media of the many delays and difficulties faced by UK exporters to the EU, especially small to medium businesses show that they most definitely did not know all that; because the advice from the government was effectively "wait and see."

Of course, if all is as wonderful and easy as you claim, why is Gove asking for an extension? Not even you can call him a Remainer who is trying to sabotage Brexit! Can you?

On 2/6/2021 at 3:14 PM, goldenbrwn1 said:

At last something decent done by the beeb .

 For many years in various social media, blogs, letters in MSM etc. I have seen many complaints of BBC bias coming in equal measure from both the far right and the far left.

Which indicates to me that they're probably not biased at all.

The usual extremist viewpoint being; "I disagree with what you say; therefore you are biased!" Coupled with "I agree with you on this occasion, so you're not biased about this subject."

6 minutes ago, tebee said:

<snip>

In the UK, not only had no one  explained to business what would be required, but that shambles we call a government could not get itself ready in time for it's own self imposed deadline ! 

Indeed.

As shown earlier, the official UK guidance to businesses was not updated to take account of the trade agreement until 31/12/20; seven days after the agreement was reached.

OK they had to rush it. Which probably explains why they made such a hash of it, that the guidance has had to be updated four times since!

So much for claims that everything was ready to roll over a year ago!

16 minutes ago, Loiner said:

Gagging for it they were, especially the extended contributions which would have been due with an extended transition. They were all clamouring in June, until Boris said No to another extension. Well done Bozza, again. 

Evidence has been provided to refute your claim; where is yours to support it?

Or will you yet again resort to your  your usual feeble "I wont dance to your tune" excuse for not doing providing any?

15 minutes ago, Loiner said:

You may only get your appreciation  of the government Brexit preparations from the TV adverts or what you read in the Grauniad. You are wrong and doing your twisting again. System and paperwork have been in preparation for the past few years and progressively rolled out for over a year. 

TV adverts made under the instruction of and paid for by the UK government which directed people to the UK government pages I linked to.

Nothing in my post came from the Guardian or any other media. Click on the links in my post and you will see all the information on how to prepare for Brexit I've quoted comes from the UK government!

That UK government information was first publicised last July; as my link clearly shows.

Prove me wrong by providing an official UK government 'how to prepare for the requirements of the post Brexit UK/EU trade agreement' from before the government's July 2020 announcement.

I await your usual feeble "I wont dance to your tune" excuse for not doing so.

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

The UK was not a member state in December. We left in Jan 2020. 

 But we were still subject to all the rules and regulations until the end of the transition period; midnight on 31st December 2020.

As explained ad infinitum; we used those rules and regulations to unilaterally authorise use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

Hungary only has a 6 month authorisation to use the Russian vaccine. The European Medicines Agency has to license any vaccine for use in EU countries, but they allow countries to license vaccines temporarily (how generous of them). 

Which is how we were able to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in December though still subject to the EU rules and regulations. That approval was also temporary. Although now we are no longer under those rules and regulations, that point is moot.

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

The EU should be bending over backwards to help ease the the export issues for the UK. After all, our Oxford scientists produced a vaccine that is cheap and easy to store and therefore easy to roll out globally. The EU should be thankful for that. Plus if the EU do the decent thing we are more likely to help them out of their own self inflicted vaccine crisis.

The EU approved the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine once an application had been submitted. EMA receives application for conditional marketing authorisation of COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca

Quote

The assessment of the vaccine, known as COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, will proceed under an accelerated timeline.

Although supply shortages of the vaccine meant that despite this the EU will not have the amount they had been promised: Covid: Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine delivery to EU to be cut by 60%. 

Problems at the Pfizer plant, also in Belgium, have led to the reduction in promised deliveries to both the UK and EU.

UK to face delay in delivery of Pfizer Covid vaccine

Coronavirus: EU anger over delayed Pfizer vaccine deliveries

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

Memory failing or can’t be bothered to look it up?

 You're making the claim; up to you to provide the evidence with which to back it up.

But you can't; because, as shown above, your claim is nonsense, therefore such evidence doesn't exist! 

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

According to posts in this thread, the EU appears to have prepared new paperwork for post-Brexit trade. 

 Of course; the paperwork required under the trade agreement between us and the EU.

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

You would need advice from a third country if their paperwork has changed. 

Why would it? Unless the terms of the trade agreement between that country and the EU have changed.

5 hours ago, Loiner said:

The UK has introduced new paperwork, which has been prepared and rolled out over the past few years. 

Yes, we have introduced new paperwork, as required under the trade agreement between us and the EU.

But "rolled out over the past few years?" No.

HMRC has for many years issued guidance on what is required for British firms importing from or exporting to other countries. The EU had been excluded from this guidance while we were an EU member because we were in the customs union and sending goods from the UK to another member required the same customs and other legal paperwork as sending goods from, for example, Cornwall to Perthshire; i.e. none.

In fact, despite leaving the EU on 31/1/20, we were still effectively a member until the end of the transition period at midnight on 31/12/20; therefore still effectively in the customs union.

The government did start their campaign, including the TV ads with the smiley, happy people saying they were getting ready for Brexit, last July: Major new campaign to prepare UK for end of the transition period. But this campaign did not contain any specific details of what would be required for the simple reason that until the trade agreement had been signed, or we'd left with no deal, no one knew what would be required; either by us or the EU.

See also The Border Operating Model: "A guide to how the border with the European Union will work after the transition period."

Note it was originally published last July when no one knew what would be required. Six updates since; the first in October and then again 31 December 2020 "to reflect the FTA with the EU." Last update, so far, being on 6th January 2021.

On 2/4/2021 at 4:33 PM, Loiner said:

Avoiding it again? Which community  gangs are responsible for the multiple grooming and abuse of young white girls?

Where or when have I ever denied who was responsible for the appalling abuse committed by gangs of mainly Muslim men? I haven't; ever.

What did your hero do to uncover this abuse and bring these men to justice? Nothing.

All he did was jeopardise their trials with his breaking of reporting restrictions.

You can continue in your gullible belief in all the self publicist says, even helping to fund his luxury lifestyle if you do; but that wont change the truth.

I won't be responding to your attempts to defend this violent criminal, fraudster, serial liar and defender of his paedophile EDL mates any further.

On 2/4/2021 at 2:31 PM, kingdong said:

Didn,t say i had a problem with the total 2.5 million eu citizens resident in the uk,just the ones on the ponce,i made that clear in my post,twisting again.

Not twisting.  As I made it clear in my post, the FoM directive prevents people using to FoM directive from coming to the UK purely to 'ponce,' i.e. claim benefits.

Of course, some may be claiming fraudulently. But surely even you are not so naïve to believe Brits don't do that, too.

If you are aware of anyone committing benefit fraud then, given your concern over benefit ponces, in all conscience you must do your civic duty and report them.

Twisting again? You mean like when you accused me of that and a direct link to your post in question proved I'd quoted you verbatim!

On 2/6/2021 at 9:41 AM, GinBoy2 said:

But in the US system lying, or failing to disclose information on a visa application will throw up serious red flags for any subsequent visa application.

The same for the UK. If there is evidence of fraud being used in a  current or past application, then any future application within the next 10 years is likely to be refused.

See Immigration Rules paras 9.7.1 to 9.8.8.

However: staying longer as a visitor than was stated in the application would not come under the above. It would also not be treated as grounds for refusal of a subsequent application provided:

1. the person did not overstay their visa's validity (usually 6 months for a visit visa) and
2. an acceptable reason is given in this application for staying longer than originally stated in the last application.

From the OP it seems that @Kabuta's girlfriend was fine on the first point, but due to her agent's negligence failed the second.

That is the problem with some agent's; especially those who promise an easy visa process. I can understand why some may wish to use a reputable agent, and if one does then for a UK visa application my advice is:

• use an agent who has an office in the UK and so is registered with the OISC;
• if the agent claims membership of any regulatory or professional organisation, including the OISC, or any professional qualification from any  organisation, check the validity of that claim with the organisation concerned, a reputable agent will have no problem with you doing so;
• if possible obtain a personal recommendation from a satisfied client known to you or the applicant personally.

On 2/6/2021 at 7:02 AM, Adiudon said:

I don't recall any mention of not supplying photographic proof of a relationship. I submitted between 20-30 from memory.

 Although UKVI's Visiting the UK: guide to supporting documents was updated in January this year,  a version of the following has been included for at least the 20 years I've taken an interest.

Quote

9. Documents you should not use as evidence

Some types of documents are less useful as evidence in visit applications. These include:

......personal photographs

 To be honest, this has changed slightly from previous versions of the guidance, in which it clearly stated not to submit any photographs except the passport sized ones required in the days before VFS took the applicant's digital photograph as part of their biometrics capture.

34 minutes ago, Loiner said:

A touch of whataboutery to deflect attention? Which group is it that this man is publicising and why?

Not whataboutery; the truth. But as you consistently prove; you have no interest in the truth.

As far as I am aware, the only thing he is publicising is himself.

You've obviously fallen for his self publicity. You've probably even contributed money to help him fund his luxury lifestyle. 

NICE LITTLE EARNER Tommy Robinson is UK’s best-funded politician with £1m house and sunken hot tub

Quote

FAR-right activist Tommy Robinson owns a luxury £1million home and has become Britain's best-funded politician after he was jailed last year.

The 35-year-old has reportedly boasted that he received "probably in excess of £350,000" in donations in just two weeks.

Money well spent by those gullible enough to give it to him?

Carry on defending him if you wish, I've already posted and linked to enough evidence to refute you and show what type of person he really is.