TWeaK @ Tweak @feddit.uk

Posts

0

Comments

143

Joined

2 yr. ago

There is some reason to arrest her. She had already been in the country for 3 weeks doing who knows what, so now that they suspect she was doing something wrong it's worthwhile to investigate.

There's even some justification for making the detention a miserable process, so as to deter others. It's very shitty, and I don't agree with it, but there is at least a rationality about it.

The real kicker is the length of the detention. This isn't in the interests of America, this is only in the interests of the private prisons padding their bill to the American taxpayer. The whole process is shitty, but this last part proves that they are only serving their own interests.

Yes that's my point. There's a bit more of a process from the Canadian land border than at an airport. At an airport, you'd just be turned around and paying for a flight. At the land border - particularly the border between two countries that don't want you - it's going to take a bit longer because the logistics are more complicated. Also, there might be some kind of investigation, as she has already been staying in the country for several weeks at this point.

However we should be talking about like 3-4 days at most (if that), not 3 weeks.

While I agree the time in detention was excessive, this wasn't at an airport, it was at the Canadian land border. So it's understandable that she wouldn't immediately get on a plane back home - she'd likely have to be taken to a central facility and then transferred to an airport. But yeah, that shouldn't take 3 weeks.

You're angry at America and ICE, but it was Canada that refused her entry and first took issue with her activity. After that, when she immediately came back across the border, America was pretty much obligated to look into things.

They definitely should have just deported her immediately, but she apparently did break the visa terms. I read somewhere it was to do with her giving tattoos, or at least that was part of the accusation against her.

3 weeks' detention is the fucked up part.

She narced on herself to Canada, then America overheard.

Exactly. Canada refused her entry first, then when America learned why they detained her.

She should have been deported and put on the next flight at her expense, not detained for nearly 3 weeks, but she definitely fucked up and took the piss with her visa.

Yeah you get reduced hours with a number of things, particularly buses. Shops have more incentive to stay open, though.

Classic examples being Good Friday running like a regular Saturday, Saturday running like a regular Sunday but Easter Sunday is as normal because everything is already sparse enough.

Yeah, this article is saying they're ready to do something they're already doing.

The one thing I would say on top of your comment, however, is that North Korea have generally been less interested in attacking other state actors and more interested in monetary crimes, like when they stole millions in crypto. China and Russia generally don't devolve into that kind of "petty" crime; not sure about Iran though.

Lol was thinking it might not have been a good idea to move back to East Anglia, but hey ho..

I would lean towards there being chickens available, but KFC doesn't want to pay for them. They want one supplier to provide all of it, rather than a bunch of smaller suppliers.

But you're absolutely right, this is the kind of question the author of this article should have asked.

Their chicken generally isn't that great either.

Special relationship at risk if UK bans arms sales to Israel, if Trump wins the election.

Also, in my view the EU is quite undemocratic. The separate Council, Commission and Parliament are an affront. Especially the fact that the Parliament, which represents the electorate, does not have the power to introduce legislation.

You do realise that the entire structure of the EU was primarily dreamt up by British legal experts? It's quite literally one of the best, most robust and most competent systems of governance in the world.

Yes, Parliament can't introduce legislation by themselves, but that's because we don't want populists like Farage, Boris or Trump to do that. They're charismatic, but not actually competent. That's why talented legal experts in the European Commission (who are each appointed by elected governments of member states, the UK had 6 iirc), people who actually know how law works, write the laws. The elected MEP's vote on the laws.

However even here we're missing the fact that the European Parliament (EP) do have a say in the legislation. The EC writes an "Impact Assessment" with rough draft of the law they're thinking of writing (which anyone can comment on), then this is presented before Parliament who propose and discuss amendments. So it's completely disingenuous to imply that the elected EP is somehow beholden to the "unelected" (but chosen for competency by elected member governments) EC bureaucrats.

And all that skips around what starts the EC's initial proposal. Aside from occassionally writing laws off their own backs, the EC responds to requests from:

• The European Council (heads of state or government of each EU country)
• The Council of the European Union (government ministers from each EU country)
• The European Parliament (directly elected by EU citizens)
• Citizens themselves, following a successful European Citizens’ Initiative

That's right, not only can Parliament demand new legislation (they just have to get the big boy lawyers to write it for them), but individual citizens can directly!

Parliament has the final say in whether or not legislation is implemented. That's completely democratic. What you call "an affront" is actually competent people writing effective legislation. Rather than bullshit like the Rwanda deal which states the UK will accept vulnerable refugees from Rwanda in exchange for the small boat migrants to Rwanda (all paid for by the UK taxpayer), or the general ineptitude of no legislation at all and a Hard Brexit causing issues like sewage being dumped in our rivers since water companies now face restrictions on importing treatment chemicals from the EU.

William Rees-Mogg wrote 3 books in the 90s, I forget the 3rd one but the other two were called "(The Best Time To Buy Is When There Is) Blood In The Streets" and "The Sovereign Individual". The latter describes a Sovereign as someone who earns more than $200k per year (90s money, so more like £500k today) and uses their wealth and influence to live above the laws of any nation. This is the kind of "sovereignty" his son Jacob Rees-Mogg campaigned for, he's literally laughing at all his supporters while he's doing it.

Yeah, I mean apparently this is being driven by charities for the blind, but you can even see in the main image for the article that there is a defined crossing over the cycle lane with different texture pavement tiles. The blind are far from being ignored here.

The petition isn't over with this response, it'll run for 6 months and if it breaks 100,000 signatures it is required to be debated in Parliament.

Recycling is bullshit, we should be re-using glass with a deposit system. Like much of Europe.

You don't apply for a permit, you go to LinesearchbeforeUdig - lsbud.co.uk. This is a free service anyone can use, and you'll get emails from various asset owners with maps of what they have in the area you select. Some might try to charge for this, these ones are assholes.

As far as the law is concerned, it's up to you to make sure you do it right and the costs for doing it wrong will all fall on your shoulders.

The only permit you need AFAIK is planning permission - which won't be granted until you convince them you've done a sufficient line search. Aside from that, you need permission from the land owner, of course.

Exactly. The whole "privatise the profits, socialise the losses" needs to end.

You should remind those people that the Rwanda deal is two way, the UK is taking vulnerable refugees from Rwanda in exchange.