I mean, there are plenty of economists whose careers would suggest it’s extremely possible to at least make an educated prediction
I mean, there are plenty of economists whose careers would suggest it’s extremely possible to at least make an educated predictionIt’s impossible really to evaluate given additional requirements on health education etc
I mean, there are plenty of economists whose careers would suggest it’s extremely possible to at least make an educated prediction
This is exactly my pointIt's not just finances, it's the whole scenario.
Just out of interest, do you live near/have stayed or been past any of these hotels?
This is exactly my point
It’s meaningless trying to justify either migrant hotels or a royal coronation in purely economic terms, when so much of the opposition to them is rooted in cultural differences.
Rachel Reeves?I mean, there are plenty of economists whose careers would suggest it’s extremely possible to at least make an educated prediction
"Being a state event, the Coronation was paid for by the UK Government and Buckingham Palace through the Sovereign Grant - which comes from a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate revenue - and the Privy Purse, money from a private estate known as the Duchy of Lancaster."Spending millions and millions in housing illegal "migrants"
Spending millions and millions on an historical event, crowing the king of our own country ❌️❌️❌️❌️❌️❌️
Regardless of if you're for the monarchy or not, the spending would have been recouped in part or even maybe a profit, unlike the hotels that are now unavailable for the public to spend money in.
I smell bullshit here.Extra people = extra economic activity + extra tax revenues
I’m sure some will end up being a net drain on public finances but so long as the net benefit is greater than the cost of the hotels then presumably it’s a money spinner and you’ve no problem with it
Extra people = extra economic activity + extra tax revenues
I’m sure some will end up being a net drain on public finances but so long as the net benefit is greater than the cost of the hotels then presumably it’s a money spinner and you’ve no problem with it
I've personally had a stone kicked at my dog when walking past one of these hotels in Bournemouth and the little rat ran back inside when confronted. This was about midday and I hadn't even glanced towards him.
Could do with some visible police presence to move them on.I went to Bournemouth a couple of months ago.
I didn't feel safe on my own up in that square where Popworld and the other bars are. There were people taking it in turns to do laps to look for people to target and then communicating with each other. Every bouncer pretty much warned about it when leaving a place saying that it's well known they will pick pocket or mug people.
Literally hundreds of immigrants sat about at night time, like a ghetto. Zero chance I'd let my daughter walk through on her own.
Yes but they're invisible and only get involved with the aftermath when a crime is committed.Could do with some visible police presence to move them on.
There was zero.Could do with some visible police presence to move them on.
Typical.There was zero.
You're obviously an optimist. Most of the time they do fuck all after a crime has been committed - even if you have evidence. I mean, they will give you a crime number but that seems too be about it.Yes but they're invisible and only get involved with the aftermath when a crime is committed.
Report on the news this morning about shoplifting epidemic in the city centre here in Coventry, some crazy stat and the police denial that they don't do anything !
I highly doubt the hotel's owners didn't knowSo has the Delta Hotel in Warwick.
It's now housing 350 single male "asylum seakers" it was taken over by the home office last weekend, with the hotel having just 24hrs notice, and locals only finding out after the fact.
Apparently the home office is quietly looking at taking over a number of other hotels in the area as we speak.
And how long it takes.Protests in London after people arrested for terror offences. Be interesting to see how those arrested are sentenced.
Not sure what you're expecting to happen here. To me the headline is trying to make it read like he's been released early which isn't the case.Another terrorist lunatic who they're about to let out.
Terrorist who played 'important role' in radicalisation of Manchester Arena bomber freed from prison
"It comes two months after the Parole Board refused to free him early because he was still considered a "high risk of serious harm to the public" and had a "propensity to radicalise others".
Abdallah was recalled to prison for breaching licence conditions in 2021."
What a clown country the UK is.
If you want to argue changes to sentencing that's fine but as we know the prisons are already full to capacity so if we're proposing to lock people up indefinitely where are we putting them?The 31-year-old was released from HMP Full Sutton in East Yorkshire on Tuesday when his sentence came to an end, the PA news agency understands.
Despite losing his latest parole bid in September, he is now eligible for automatic release from prison because his sentence - set in court by a judge - has expired.
Not sure what you're expecting to happen here. To me the headline is trying to make it read like he's been released early which isn't the case.
If you want to argue changes to sentencing that's fine but as we know the prisons are already full to capacity so if we're proposing to lock people up indefinitely where are we putting them?
They may be at the end of their sentence so there is very little that can be doneThe article goes into detail about how he is still a danger to society. I am not really sure what you are getting at here. If he is still a threat then he shouldn't be walking the streets, surely?
There would be a lot more room in prisons if we weren't putting people away for stupid offences, and weren't hosting so many foreign criminals. It doesn't make sense to release someone like this so that there is room for someone posting silly tweets.
As I said if you want to apply that you need to change the law as the courts ability to give indeterminate sentences for public protection was removed in 2012, having only been introduced in 2005.I am not really sure what you are getting at here. If he is still a threat then he shouldn't be walking the streets, surely?
There isn’t but having seen in the prison that I volunteer at the director / governor has a lot of power to say come on this is nonsense releasing this guyAs I said if you want to apply that you need to change the law as the courts ability to give indeterminate sentences for public protection was removed in 2012, having only been introduced in 2005.
Under the current law not sure there's any other option than to release him even if he is considered a danger given he has completed his sentence.
Yep criminality is hideous especially when authorities turn a blind eye or ignore the vulnerability of the victims
The four months on remand would have been enough for them imo.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable about this one. Most of the others who see themselves as victims, it turns out had either played down their role in events or already had a long list of previous. That doesnt apply here. I'm not suggesting they werent in the wrong, but see absolutely no benefit in jailing them. They will have lost jobs, have already spent 4 months on remand and it's accepted they are extremely unlikely to commit any other crime.
The sentence is nearly a third of that given to a child rapist. It’s insane.
I'm not sure I'm comfortable about this one. Most of the others who see themselves as victims, it turns out had either played down their role in events or already had a long list of previous. That doesnt apply here. I'm not suggesting they werent in the wrong, but see absolutely no benefit in jailing them. They will have lost jobs, have already spent 4 months on remand and it's accepted they are extremely unlikely to commit any other crime.
Laughed at a firework, send them down for life!!!
I'm not sure I'm comfortable about this one. Most of the others who see themselves as victims, it turns out had either played down their role in events or already had a long list of previous. That doesnt apply here. I'm not suggesting they werent in the wrong, but see absolutely no benefit in jailing them. They will have lost jobs, have already spent 4 months on remand and it's accepted they are extremely unlikely to commit any other crime.
They pleaded guilty to violent disorderLaughed at a firework, send them down for life!!!
They pleaded guilty to violent disorder
They pleaded guilty to violent disorder
So why did they plead guilty to violent disorder?Yet it's not actually said if they were actually violent.
Looks like they admitted being there.
Wonder what legal advice they had?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?