Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[Gilzeantoscore]

Diane Abbott's care worker probably helps her.

Diane Abbott isn't Home Secretary.

 

[Baleforce]

Diane Abbott isn't Home Secretary.

yet

 

[scaramanga]

Diane Abbott isn't Home Secretary.

She would have been had the electorate been half as stupid as her.

 

[SpurMeUp]

I consider any time spent gaining additional qualifications to help with their job prospects as further education so degrees, apprenticeships, diplomas etc.

Think you'll find the gov announcement was regarding higher education.

Again you try and twist words, I never said people shouldn't go to university more that it shouldn't be rammed down people's throats as the best thing for them when you can clearly see that there are hundreds of thousands of graduates unemployed or on minimum wage/zero hours contracts all in thousands of pounds of debt. A real problem in society is the snobbery/sneering that you aren't worth as much or don't have the same intelligence or ability because you haven't gone to uni.

Why should it be 50%? Do 50% of jobs require degrees? You've already said some degrees aren't worth as much when you interview people so why are you advocating for people to get into debt when you would never hire them in the first place?

Why wouldn't I hire them? All things being equal I would prefer a graduate to a non-graduate as they have trained and developed writing and analytical skills. Things you have probably benefited from (which you think others wouldn't benefit from).

We should have a policy of investment in all areas of further education with better guidance on the different options to help people make up their mind what they want to do and if they want to go to uni then support should be provided through the admissions process etc but it they want to do something else then that should equally be encouraged.

Agreed. The problem is FE colleges are a joke. If you think a degree has no value, have a look at some of the FE courses and Apprenticeships. So much could be improved with all of them. University can be vocational. It doesn't really matter what you call the course - HE, FE etc - you just need courses that are of value, and in general universities deliver courses of greater educational value.

And I don't think I personally would go to uni now,

That is good because in the future, the government's direction of travel means you might not have had the opportunity.

I think it was a lot more important previously where you wouldn't even get interviews for certain jobs without a degree regardless of whether it was needed to perform the job, thankfully the world has moved beyond that and recognised people can fulfil those jobs without degrees. I would probably try and get an entry job and work my way up and get on the housing ladder asap, people I know who didn't go to uni didn't have the debt, had time to work their way up so we were on a par after uni grade wise and got on the housing ladder way before me and have reaped equity through rising property prices. Of course I write that in hindsight and people finishing a levels now would likely have a different perspective on it.

Old style apprenticeships are underrated. You can learn a lot more from being hands-on, and working with experts who are keen to teach their skills. Todays apprenticeships are quite often a way for companies to acquire cheap labour, and there isn't a huge amount of learning going on. The individual may be channeled into lowish income work without the prospects of development. A degree has potential to open horizons. It is not just about jobs, though on average graduates still earn more.

I don't think we disagree on the detail. Simply the headline. I believe in education and making it available to all. It is one area of socialism that is correct imo. Traditionally Conservatives believe in elitism. That they should keep knowledge for the elite. Send the wealthy kids to private school and then onto Univerity: where they make connections and perpetuate the wealth staying in their hands. I don't like that approach. And think anyone can educate themselves if they wish to. Encouraging people to do just that, by setting a target has to be a positive thing.

 

[Parklaner81]

She would have been had the electorate been half as stupid as her.

racist

 

[Grays_1890]

I see Shiela Shoebomb is being allowed back to UK bless her

 

[Diamond Lights]

But that's law right? She might come back and she can rot in jail which i'm all for, but we live in a land of laws and the Home Office has seemingly not acted within the law. Morally we can all agree the decision was right that they took, but that's not the question at hand. We can't all go around doing what we think is right if it's not within the law.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

We can't all go around doing what we think is right if it's not within the law.

Righto


Might bookmark that comment for later.

 

[Grays_1890]

But that's law right? She might come back and she can rot in jail which i'm all for, but we live in a land of laws and the Home Office has seemingly not acted within the law. Morally we can all agree the decision was right that they took, but that's not the question at hand. We can't all go around doing what we think is right if it's not within the law.

I thought they were making her stateless which isn’t illegal based on her actions?

Anyway she is back, hope she gets the book thrown at her

 

[scaramanga]

But that's law right? She might come back and she can rot in jail which i'm all for, but we live in a land of laws and the Home Office has seemingly not acted within the law. Morally we can all agree the decision was right that they took, but that's not the question at hand. We can't all go around doing what we think is right if it's not within the law.

What has the Home Office done that's not within the law?

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I thought they were making her stateless which isn’t illegal based on her actions?

Anyway she is back, hope she gets the book thrown at her

It is illegal to make someone stateless. It is not illegal to strip someone of British nationality if they have nationality/citizenship in another country, but it is to leave them stateless. That seems to be the issue - our government deemed she had rights to Bangladeshi nationality through her parents. Bangladesh have refuted this.
She's not back yet, the government are going to appeal the decision I think. Even if she does come back it's initially for the purposes of having her own appeal heard. Not sure what happens after that but yes, if she ends up with the right to stay here, then I would expect her to be charged and tried for her actions.

Unfortunately there will always be people who benefit from laws that were not intended to protect them, but those examples demonstrate the law is working fairly and properly. If the law itself is wrong, then that aspect can/should be dealt with. But as soon as we start picking and choosing who a law applies to (not saying you are doing that by any means) then we are on dangerous footing.
If the government have acted correctly about the Bangladeshi nationality rights, then hopefully that will be upheld by the courts. Although I have no idea what happens if Bangladesh refuse to agree.

 

[Grays_1890]

Isn’t this what makes it legal?

In January 2014, the Immigration Bill 2013–14 was introduced to extend the powers of the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised British citizen of their citizenship, even if that renders the individual stateless, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation of citizenship is conducive to the public good because the person "has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK."

 

[Diamond Lights]

Isn’t this what makes it legal?

In January 2014, the Immigration Bill 2013–14 was introduced to extend the powers of the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised British citizen of their citizenship, even if that renders the individual stateless, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation of citizenship is conducive to the public good because the person "has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK."

Not sure 100% but isn't 'naturalised' someone who was born outside of UK and becomes a National? As Begum was born in UK she is not naturalised? I might be wrong but i think that's the background.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

Isn’t this what makes it legal?

In January 2014, the Immigration Bill 2013–14 was introduced to extend the powers of the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised British citizen of their citizenship, even if that renders the individual stateless, if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the deprivation of citizenship is conducive to the public good because the person "has conducted him or herself in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK."

I didn't think she was a naturalised British citizen? She didn't apply to be British, rather she has British nationality automatically? I wouldn't stake my house on that though.
(Plus the gov has argued that they haven't made her stateless, which if they law allowed them to do that, then they wouldn't need to defend their actions?).

If the government have acted within the law, then I won't be shedding any tears. I can't help suspect however that they rushed something through because it was publicly favourable.

 

[scaramanga]

I didn't think she was a naturalised British citizen? She didn't apply to be British, rather she has British nationality automatically? I wouldn't stake my house on that though.
(Plus the gov has argued that they haven't made her stateless, which if they law allowed them to do that, then they wouldn't need to defend their actions?).

If the government have acted within the law, then I won't be shedding any tears. I can't help suspect however that they rushed something through because it was publicly favourable.

I think that's more the point - that she qualifies for Bangladeshi citizenship, therefore

It is illegal to make someone stateless. It is not illegal to strip someone of British nationality if they have nationality/citizenship in another country, but it is to leave them stateless. That seems to be the issue - our government deemed she had rights to Bangladeshi nationality through her parents. Bangladesh have refuted this.
She's not back yet, the government are going to appeal the decision I think. Even if she does come back it's initially for the purposes of having her own appeal heard. Not sure what happens after that but yes, if she ends up with the right to stay here, then I would expect her to be charged and tried for her actions.

Unfortunately there will always be people who benefit from laws that were not intended to protect them, but those examples demonstrate the law is working fairly and properly. If the law itself is wrong, then that aspect can/should be dealt with. But as soon as we start picking and choosing who a law applies to (not saying you are doing that by any means) then we are on dangerous footing.
If the government have acted correctly about the Bangladeshi nationality rights, then hopefully that will be upheld by the courts. Although I have no idea what happens if Bangladesh refuse to agree.

It would make sense that it's Bangladesh who have made her stateless as they refused citizenship after we removed hers.

 

[Aldo]

British Gas saying to workers that to avoid redundancies, they will have to change contracts which state that any overtime will be at regular rates rather than double - yes double - time.
Workers and GMB Union are kicking off.

 

[JerusalemMan]

British Gas saying to workers that to avoid redundancies, they will have to change contracts which state that any overtime will be at regular rates rather than double - yes double - time.
Workers and GMB Union are kicking off.

I assume they'll also kick off when/if redundancies are announced if they are successful in opposing this suggestion?

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I think that's more the point - that she qualifies for Bangladeshi citizenship, therefore

It would make sense that it's Bangladesh who have made her stateless as they refused citizenship after we removed hers.

Well that's the very crux of the issue isn't it? If they are correct in saying that she doesn't have Bangladeshi citizenship, then we have made her stateless. If Bangladesh is acting wrongly, and she does, then we haven't.
There's a secondary argument as to whether we are right to pass off our problems to other countries, especially when she has never lived there. But that's a moral/ethical/(risky? could the same be used against us?) argument rather than the legal issue in question at the moment.

 

[Aldo]

I assume they'll also kick off when/if redundancies are announced if they are successful in opposing this suggestion?

It’s unbelievable isn’t it? Particularly the context of:
• 650k job losses so far in the pandemic.
• 9m people furloughed.
• 4m projected to be unemployed.

 

[Glenda's Legs]

It’s unbelievable isn’t it? Particularly the context of:
• 650k job losses so far in the pandemic.
• 9m people furloughed.
• 4m projected to be unemployed.

Or it's an employer taking advantage of a situation to change contact terms they they have long wanted to change anyway. (I don't have any insight into British Gas btw, but it's possible).