Today's discussion about the news
Comments
-
I've seen quite a few similar arrangements with steel netting covering steep rock faces on the roads up to some French ski resorts.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
They do have quite a lot of experience with this kind of stuff... as I say, I guess it's a mixture of trying to stop stuff moving where they can, and reducing the risk of disasters by slowing down or catching stuff that does fall.
Apparently, reading a repost about this case, they routinely record on regular road-sweeps where there is debris on the road, and follow that up with geological checks & plans. This particular site had had no instances of debris, so was considered low risk. Not surprisingly, they are re-assessing it tomorrow. Meanwhile there are some pretty big diversions in place.
0 -
Steep faces and overhanging sections over the road seem like quite different situations to me - I certainly wouldn't be volunteering to stand on the road to drill up into the overhanging rock!
0 -
They do it from above. Rope access companies.
0 -
"...where it has a designated track..." - which is 99% of the tram network. The strict city centre where it shares mainly with pedestrian traffic, taxis, retail deliveries and busses, is maybe 800m radius. The only bit I can think of where it does share with car traffic is Eccles New Road into Media City, well outside the city centre, but there's never been a problem with congestion on that road and the tram travels at 30mph.
0 -
Surely you need to fix it underneath the overhang or it's not going to catch/support the rocks that fell in Brian's photo.
0 -
Yup, the same way they blasted the 'grooves' that serve as balcony roads.
Anyway, here's a nice photo of them securing rock high up above the Gorges de la Bourne - looks like it's intended to hold it in place, as it's a jolly long way down to the bottom of the gorge. Thankfully not as many workers are killed these days as were when these crazy roads were constructed.
This gives a slight idea of the challenge (even if it doesn't really capture the scale)
0 -
Must admit, I'm struggling to think of a bit of road just like this that they've 'engineered' following a fall.
0 -
For a start we were accepting massively more applications from some countries than some other nations were. If you were seeking asylum where are you gonna go? We can also alter laws that make it clear you will go back when your country of origin is safe - and enforce it.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
Yes but you work down in general.
0 -
This is just not true.
UK is 21st.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It is true.
What you have posted is not a response to the point I'm making.
For example - if you were an Albanian asylum seeker a few years ago the chances of your application being granted were hugely better in the uk than most other European countries. This obviously led to Albanians coming here in preference to those countries
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/albanian-asylum-seekers-in-the-uk-and-eu-a-look-at-recent-data/
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/83/home-affairs-committee/news/195596/no-case-for-routinely-offering-asylum-to-claimants-from-safe-albania-home-affairs-committee/
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
-
Weren't they really the agent just to break the state school 'monopoly' and of the 'Blob' and QTS pathways?
0 -
That link is from over a year ago. The specific issue with Albanian migration has already been addressed directly with the Albanian government. It's one of the more constructive bits of immigration policy that the Conservatives implemented.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The coalition government did some bad things.
1 -
The UK does consider all cases on their merits, so for example, Iraqi Kurds are able to apply. Other countries reject all cases from Iraqi Kurds.
0 -
Yes I am using it as an example of how being soft on accepting asylum applications will result in more - it'd be very hard to present evidence for that happening from the future !!!
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
What are those? No jobs?
0 -
I've provided two examples. The way things are identity cards stricter enforcement of black market employment so there really are no jobs would be a third, good suggestion I agree with you.
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Also some deterrence (in the form of knowledge that if you arrive illegally from a safe country then you will be sent back there) will help. Labour have put in nothing of the sort and are unlikely to do so.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
I'd have more confidence in Labour than the party that gutted border control tbh.
0 -
Hire enough immigration staff to clear the backlog of application, genuine claimants can start looking for work, dodgy ones get sent back home. I seem to remember something like 60% of claims get rejected once they are actually processed.
It seems like such an easy win compared to nonsense like the Rwanda plan.
0 -
You can't just send people back home.
1 -
Aren't there already some strict regulations about Right To Work, with draconian fines if breached? Certainly RTW is a PITA at one of my employers, where it used to lapse if you didn't make a claim for six months and had to go through the whole process again.
Maybe if the regulatory authorities hadn't been gutted in the name of 'efficiency' (e.g. tax inspection & enforcement too) there would be a tighter grip on these things, and it wouldn't just be the major employers looking over their shoulders.
0 -
Labour are in charge now so who else can do anything about it?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It is the other way around, 60% or so are approved at initial stage. This number actually rises though as many appeal and are subsequently granted.
I still think there is a huge amount of misunderstanding around what most people (talking about UK citizens in general, not this forum) mean by immigration. I think for ease of purpose I am going to refer directly to Refugee and Asylum claimants as this seems to be what the majority of people are really thinking of when it comes to immigration.
If we are going to have a genuinely sensible argument about it then a lot of myths need to be addressed but also some genuine discussion around financial implications do need to be considered.
The idea that you can discourage people from coming fails to grasp the motivation. Asylum seekers are not coming for jobs, the majority are fleeing persecution and in many cases genuine threat to life. Telling people there is no work or they will be sent home if they have come from a safe country simply does not stop people travelling to the UK.
As MM says, the biggest issue is the length of time it takes to process applications, 20 years ago, 90% were processed in 6 months, it is under 10% (the total number of claims back in the early 2000's was similar to today so you can't make the argument that there were far less claims to process). This is an issue because it leads to the biggest financial burden, housing and supporting people whilst their claims are assessed. We have gone from a cost of circa £500 million 10 years ago to close to £4 billion today. The number of claimants is larger but only just slightly double, it is the processing delays that causes the cost.
If people have legitimate concerns around Asylum and Refugees placing additional strain on the public purse and the lack of adequate public services to support them, the only real argument one can make is to propose far better resourcing of the Asylum process. We are not going to stop people who are determined to arrive to the UK, so are far better served by making that process as quick and as cost effective as possible.
2 -
Where do they go if their claim is rejected? The gov.uk site says they have to leave or can be deported.
You’ll be asked to leave the UK if you do not qualify for refugee status and your caseworker decides there’s no other reason for you to stay.
You may be able to appeal against the decision.
You’ll have to leave if you do not appeal in the time allowed, or if your appeal is unsuccessful. You can:
leave by yourself - you can get help with returning home
be forced to leave - you’ll get a letter before this happens, then you may be detained without warning at an immigration removal centre and then removed from the UK
0 -
Which brings us back to the notion that the Tories actually wanted the system to fail so they could demonise those applying and the protocols for asylum seekers, if the far cheaper option is to process them promptly.
0
