GroveHillWanderer

Based on what's been quoted from this article, Die Welt is not reporting that secret negotiations are actually taking place, it's reporting that two people think they're likely to happen. There's a difference.

Again the fact that some people do qualify and will apply does not alter the point I was making - which was that the fee is not what will put people off.

Yes, I was summarizing, and in doing so, deliberately lumping some of the categories/requirements together for brevity and also because not to do so would have meant simply repeating in full, what was in the graphic that was already posted. My overall point still stands - it's not the fee that will put people off, it's the other financial requirements.

That's some classic selective quoting and subsequent mischaracterisation, right there. If you read the full text of EU regulation 2257/94 while it does contain the phrase about abnormal curvature, there are two points to be made. Firstly, before the list in which that phrase appears, it says that all the primary listed requirements are "subject to the special provisions for each class." And when you get to the sections on Class 1 and Class 2 bananas, it says that they can have defects of shape. So, like the later legislation, it's actually only the premium (or "Extra" class bananas as the regulations call them) that have to be "free from abnormal curvature." Secondly, even saying that Extra class bananas must be free from abnormal curvature, does not mean they can't be curved - in fact, it logically means that they can be curved. Commission Regulation 2257/94 Another fail from the Torygraph, I'm afraid.

I would say there are enough details to say that's the total fee for 10 years. It's what's been annnounced and there's no hint of any additional fees being required. What the main issue would be for most people, I suspect, are the relatively onerous financial requirements to qualify in the first place. That's basically, whether working or not, having $80,000 a year in income; for "Wealthy Global Citizens," having in addition, a minimum of $1 million in assets and an investment in Thailand of $500,000; for retirees, having in addition to the income requirement, an investment of $250,000 in Thailand. If I'm being honest, I don't expect to see a whole bunch of people both qualifying and applying for this new LTR visa.

It matters not a jot how long it took them, the point is that any shape of banana was permitted under EU rules (contrary to what Johnson and his acolytes would have had us believe).

That's completely untrue. They did not have rules that bananas could not be of an abnormal shape. As the regulations I already quoted from above show, they simply said that bananas with full scale defects of shape were to be classified as "class 2."

Is the EU really dictating the shape of your bananas? As that article further points out, the EU never dictated the shape of bananas, it simply had regulations on how they should be classified by grade. This included saying that bananas sold as: So basically, the EU was saying that bananas could be of any shape, they just couldn't be sold as superior grade if they were excessively malformed. Curvature was never even mentioned.

It's true that the landlord should do the TM30 so yes, try to get them to do it first, but I'm not sure I'd agree with not being concerned if they don't. There have been a number of stories on here of people having to pay a fine when they go to immigration for something else and the IO finds there's no TM30 on file for the person's current address. Yes, in theory it should be the landlord that would be liable for any fine but that's not how it's worked out in practice for several people. Some have even had their extension application refused for lack of a TM30. I did my own TM30 online, using the Section 38 app, so you could try that (although some people have reported having problems with it recently). Regulations for TM30's have changed a few times recently, so I would go into immigration and ask them what their requirements are, in relation to a TM30 for you. At least then you know where you stand.

If you can't tell the difference between having one meal with campaign workers during a meeting held as part of election campaigning, which police decided was not a breach of the rules as it was clearly work-related, and a series of close to twenty boozy, drinks-filled parties held on a regular basis, week after week, for no other reason than to drink and socialize, which led to a total of 126 fines being issued to 83 individuals, then I would have to have serious doubts about your powers of analysis.

Me too - I've really enjoyed it so far.

Here in Hua Hin, they've actually installed a couple of what are known as "Pelican crossings" in the UK - Pedestrian, Light-Controlled, crossings. Basically, it's a zebra crossing with a push-button controlled set of lights. Many local drivers still drive straight through them even when the light is red.

There's no realistic prospect (or in many cases, viable legal means) of doing so. As I've pointed out several times now, the statute of limitations and the lack of physical or other corroborating evidence, beyond the victims own testimony, would make any prosecution almost (or indeed, legally) impossible at this stage.

That's absolutely and categorically untrue. As@Bkk Brianhas pointed out. At the time of the memorandum, Ukraine was already in a partnership with NATO.

There are no opinion polls showing that high a number, as far as I'm aware. I did post a link to a poll showing 53% in favour of re-joining, however.

There's nothing in the OP or in the linked Pattaya News article that indicates the 14 year-old was in charge of the motor bike.

It's true that any of Epstein's clients who had sex with underage girls committed the crime of statutory rape. However, if we're talking about other people involved in the crimes Maxwell was charged with, they date from between 1994 and 1997. As I already mentioned, most such crimes would be a) almost impossible to prove, especially 25-30 years later and b) beyond the statute of limitations now, anyway.

Even if they did, for those that were underage (which was nearly all of them, at least to start with) they were too young to give consent anyway. For those young girls (some as young as 14) if anything of a sexual nature took place, it's a crime no matter what.

One of the problems with prosecuting any third parties is that according to pretty much all the accounts I've read including those given by the girls, the alleged offences almost always took place behind closed doors. So it would come down to a case of, "He said, she said." If the people alleged to have been involved, simply say (as for instance, Alan Dershowitz does) that nothing happened except for a simple and legitimate massage with no sexual component, that would be almost impossible to disprove. Without independent eye witness testimony there wouldn't be much chance of a conviction. The other big problem is that even if they could prove crimes took place, in most cases, the alleged offences involving these girls are beyond the statute of limitations now. They were only able to indict Maxwell so long after the events took place, because of a change in New York law that allowed historical crimes to be prosecuted. However it's too late to use that again now, as well. Any charges under that law had to be filed before the end of 2020. So I would say there's little to no chance that any others could be prosecuted at this stage.

This is not an article written to describe the details of the cave rescue as such, though. It's an article about how two of the British divers involved, have received honorary degrees from a UK university. Many other people, of multiple nationalities, were involved in the rescue and of course they all deserve credit but once again, that's not the main point of this story - it's about the fact these two specific people were given honorary degrees.

Legally and technically, it can be undone - all it requires is for the UK to re-apply for membership. Whether that is likely to happen though, is a different question altogether. Although it is perhaps interesting to note that one of the most recent opinion polls on this shows a majority in the UK are in favour of re-joining. Joining or Staying Out of the EU

Yes, please, please let it be JRM - aka "The Honourable Member for the 18th century." That would be an absolute godsend for the opposition parties. I doubt if there's a more widely disliked politician in the Tory Party. This is the man, that when appointed by Boris to find and publicise the benefits of Brexit, decided the best way to do that was to ask readers of The Sun (probably they most "down-market" tabloid newspaper in the UK) to write and let him know if they could identify any possible benefits. Jacob Rees-Mogg issues plea to readers of The Sun to flag possible Brexit benefits to him

Congress already gave them the right. This was pointed out by Justice Elena Kagan in her scathingly-worded dissent, as follows: Kagan Calls the Supreme Court’s Ruling on the EPA ‘Frightening’: Read the Full Text

Final total of resignations in one day - 44! The highest number of resignations in one day that any PM has ever suffered. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2022/jul/06/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-sajid-javid-resignations-uk-politics-live-latest

It's not hearsay when the evidence consists of the person committing the crime on tape, using their own words.