@Treelinius

I exist. No tick.

UK
Joined April 2010
Replying to @MrMetacognition
If our summers keep getting hotter, as is likely the uk will need to change the question it asks. Not: "why did schools close because of the heat"? But "why did schools get so hot that head teachers felt the need to close"? This is an infrastructure problem.
4
549
I'm going to say this again in clear, simple terms so there can be no equivocation: Prior to Brexit, immigrants very rarely came to the UK in small boats because it is an extremely dangerous mode of transport. They came in lorries. Organised smuggling gangs knew that because there was free movement of goods between EU countries that there was a high chance that a lorry concealing immigrants would not be searched. I am sure you all remember that terrible case of a lorry-load of migrants from China and Vietnam that was abandoned in Essex. 31 men and 8 women died. The onset of Brexit meant that gradually, from approx 2018 onwards, more and more stringent checks began being carried out on lorries, as well as increased security at ferry ports - even Newhaven-Dieppe are surrounded with high barbed wire security fences, and every vehicle leaving Dieppe is opened and checked, so I imagine it must be pretty much the same at Calais and Boulogne as well. We have no idea how many people a year arrived in the UK unlawfully by lorry. The reason for this is because they were literally untrackable. Occasionally you would see a lorry stopped by the M2 or the M25 with a handful of people standing behind the safety barrier while the police had the blue lights on. But they certainly could not track what they didn't know about. The likelihood is that there were a great many more people getting into the country. The overwhelming majority of them would disappear into the undergrowth, never to be seen again until either a) they committed an offence b) they were caught in raids working illegally c) they either walked into a police station to claim asylum almost immediately or d) they popped over the parapet several years later because they wanted to regularise their status, either by marrying, or because they had children, or under the Long Residence rules - it used to be 15 years but is now 20 years. If you can prove you have been in the UK continuously for 20 years and have otherwise kept your nose clean, you are entitled to limited leave to remain. Eventually you might get settlement after 30 years - again, if you can prove you have always been in the country in that time. You will not get nationality if you entered the country illegally these days, though, unless you can show that there is something exceptional about your contribution to society. The small boats are different. The small boats are highly visible. The small boats - and their passengers - are very easy to spot, and very easy for the Coastguard and Border Force to track. A man from the BBC used to spend all his time stood on a cliff counting them post-Brexit. Yes, there will be the occasional one that slips through undetected. But that is the opposite of the way it was with lorry smuggling, where it was the occasional one that was actually detected, and the majority slipping through un-noticed. The irony of Farage, Lowe, Robinson, Tommo and all the other far-right screechers claiming we are unsafe because of "fighting age men" arriving on these boats is hilarious if it wasn't so desperate. When the boats arrive, every person is fingerprinted, screened and vetted as best we can, although another irony of Brexit is we no longer have automatic access to Europol except if we have grounds to suspect someone is a criminal rather than just an asylum seeker, so well done Brexit for that as well. Also, as we are no longer party to what's called the Dublin Agreement, whereas before we could make an application to France to take them back, and take responsibility for the asylum claim, now we are out of the EU we can't do that either. But at least we know who is here, we have their fingerprints, and we know who they are. In short, we are arguably safer from the "fighting age men" now that at any time in the past 30-odd years. The numbers are reducing. The numbers of crossings are reducing. I hold no candle for Labour these days, but at least they are processing the backlog the Tories (deliberately?) built up and those who don't have the right here are being deported as well. Boris Johnson is as full of shit as he always was. Feel free to share this.
65
479
29
1,273
86,725
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Britain's economy is being held back by low wages, underinvestment, rip-off pricing, the housing crisis, lack of affordable childcare and an NHS on the point of collapse. Not because there isn't a third runway at Heathrow.
10
116
3
403
3,974
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Reform has shut 10 Public Nurseries to replace them with Private ones. They have stopped Public Catering to schools to replace them with Private Catering They have shut Public Care Homes to replace them with Private ones Reform serves billionaires, more even than everyone else
60
1,195
15
3,567
44,490
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Let me show you how it is Billionaire "I'm not rich enough, what we need is even more money" Hired 'Economist' "No, remember you need to use the codewords" Billionaire "We need more 'Growth' for the 'Economy', because that will err... ('economist' whispers in ear) help you!"
5
21
108
6,064
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Only 10% of the UK's richest 0.01% paid close to the top 47% (45% income tax rate + 2% NIC) rate on earnings. 25% of that group paid effective tax rate of 20% or less. Tax system appears to be progressive for some but is frequently not so at the very top bmmagazine.co.uk/finance/cap…
16
254
6
401
6,754
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
This pretty much nails it.
505
4,311
160
17,461
195,789
I was alive and using the internet in 1996. Apparently that internet can entirely fit into a 2TB thumbdrive. FFS.
5
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
The 'welfare bill' is *lower* as a percentage of GDP than it was in 2012 (12% GDP) (OBR).
Conservative Helen Whately, "Our welfare bill is out of control.. We can't afford it.. We have a problem of long term unemployed.. Living a life on welfare" #BBCQT My view: Whately wrongly bundles pensions, disability support and unemployment together as “welfare”. Over half of the £323bn total goes to pensioners, including £146bn for the state pension. Much of the rise is due to an ageing population and the triple lock—not people choosing benefits over work. PIP is not an out-of-work benefit: it covers the extra costs of disability, and around one in six claimants works. In fact, 5.6 million disabled people are already in work. The real issue is why disabled people face a 29-point employment gap: NHS delays, poor mental-health support, long-term illness and employers failing to make workplaces accessible. Cutting support will not cure illness or create jobs.
59
396
9
1,010
18,135
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Let's be very clear on this one point. The President mocking a former President in front of the communist leader of China is the most un-American thing an American president has ever done.
"This is the autopen... it's Biden." 🤣 President Trump shows off the legendary Presidential Walk of Fame to President Xi.
13,227
7,603
780
65,120
3,191,632
After 18 years of full time work and reaching a senior level position, I had to go on benefits for a period due to serious burnout from ADHD and bipolar disorder. If I didn't get those benefits, I would have lost everything and could have ended up homeless. I am sick to the teeth of people treating benefits like everyone is a scrounger. It's a literal lifeline. The GPD % spend of benefits in 2026 is exactly the same as as it was in 2009. The politicians are lying to us. There is no crisis. It's the tax avoiders where the big money is to be found, but that would likely include the politicians friends and family, so they leave that well alone.
249
719
16
2,862
62,662
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Lady in green, "With Canada and the EU forging closer ties. Is now the time for the Uk to rejoin the EU within the next ten years?" #BBCQT My view: On the economy, the OBR estimates Brexit will leave UK trade around 15% lower in the long run than if we had remained in the EU. Less trade and lower productivity mean a smaller economy than otherwise - less income, less tax revenue and less money for households and public services. On trade, the EU is still our biggest nearby market. Fewer barriers would make it easier and cheaper to buy, sell and invest across Europe. On politics, Britain is affected by EU decisions whether inside or outside. Membership would mean having a vote in shaping them. On security and defence, the UK and EU already cooperate on Ukraine, sanctions, cyber threats and defence. Closer integration could deepen that. On people, freedom of movement would restore easier opportunities to live, work, study and retire across Europe. That 15% trade hit is not abstract: a weaker economy means less money to spend, invest and fund services.
10
98
4
276
10,230
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Given the regularity with which Zack Polanski is asked about his boob enlargement hypnotherapy episode, I expect interviewers will soon start grilling Kemi Badenoch about the time she illegally hacked a Labour MP's website
21
704
4
3,201
24,149
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Benefit/Pension/NHS Spending in the UK isn't high. In fact it is pretty low, just not low enough for the billonaires.
18
360
6
551
10,356
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Chris, we can have a serious debate about controlling our borders, but we should also be honest about what you are proposing. The ECHR is NOT an immigration treaty, and leaving it would not affect only people arriving in small boats. It protects ALL of us. Yes, migrants use ECHR protections. Between 2015 and 2024, immigration judges allowed more than 60,000 appeals against removal on ECHR grounds. But that figure covers the entire immigration system. It does NOT mean 60,000 people arriving illegally by small boat. Look more closely at foreign national offenders. Between April 2008 and June 2021, 21,521 deportation appeals were lodged. 6,042 were allowed, of which 2,392 were allowed on human-rights grounds. And the supposedly all-powerful Strasbourg emergency injunction? Between 2019 and 2021 there were 180 Rule 39 applications against the UK. Just SEVEN were granted. In 2023 there were 61 requests. ONE was granted. There is no comparable statistic saying “X British citizens used the ECHR”, because British people routinely rely on Convention rights through our own courts and public authorities under the Human Rights Act. Those cases are not centrally classified according to nationality. And they matter. The victims of serial rapist John Worboys used Article 3 and the Human Rights Act to hold the Metropolitan Police accountable for serious failures in investigating his crimes. These rights protect your right to life, your liberty, your right to a fair trial, your privacy, your freedom of expression, your freedom of religion, your property and your protection from torture, slavery and degrading treatment. There is another problem with your argument. Leaving the ECHR does NOT automatically mean “no asylum claim”. Refugee status comes primarily from the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, not the ECHR. Nor are asylum seekers generally receiving the ordinary benefits available to British citizens. While their claims are being considered they cannot normally claim mainstream benefits such as Universal Credit. Destitute asylum seekers receive a separate, limited asylum-support system. So let us debate immigration policy, deportation and border control on their merits. But please do not pretend that withdrawing from the ECHR simply takes rights away from illegal migrants. It does not. It would withdraw the UK's external Convention guarantee, and access to Strasbourg, from every one of us. And there is a certain historical irony here. The ECHR grew out of the horrors Europe had witnessed during the Second World War. Winston Churchill championed a European Charter of Human Rights. British Conservative lawyer Sir David Maxwell Fyfe played a central role in drafting the Convention. Britain was the FIRST country to ratify it, in 1951. Our forebears fought against regimes that demonstrated what can happen when the State has enormous power and the individual has too little protection. The generation that followed did something about it. They put fundamental rights into law. By all means strengthen our borders. But if Parliament is being asked to surrender protections that belong to 68 million people in order to deal with a fraction of that number crossing the Channel, then we deserve a far more honest debate about exactly what we are giving up.
Labour has lost control of our borders A radically different approach is needed We need to leave the ECHR so anyone entering Britain illegally can be rapidly deported No hotels. No benefits. No lengthy court process. No asylum claim. Just rapid removal. Then the crossings will soon stop That’s the Conservative BORDERS plan
10
73
4
184
6,668
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
148
1,019
51
5,024
42,818
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
14 yrs of doing that didn't work, and the Tories left a documented national debt of £2.8 trillion. Our defences were cut, public services cut, welfare cut, support for disabled people cut. Now they want to do that again. No. Tax the rich, they gained enough in tax cuts for 14 yrs
We can’t afford to keep living so far beyond our means. We need spending cuts and tax cuts to drive growth.
14
172
2
519
5,055
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
If you find comedy offensive, then DON'T FUCKING WATCH IT. But stop treating the rest of us like children who must be carefully protected from anything remotely controversial.
258
1,618
25
24,178
364,939
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Crazy that we hear about Train Drivers who get £60,000 a year for driving a train. But we never hear about the boss of Tesco who gets £30,000 a day and doesn't even pay tax in the UK. Or the £250m a day that the likes of Amazon, Vodafone, BP and Shell don't pay in tax.
77
2,095
11
7,738
84,337
Benjamin Treeline retweeted
Here's some benefits claimants we need to crackdown on. £17.5bn Shell/BP £2bn Amazon £500m Glaxosmithkline £700m Tesco/Sainsbury's/Asda Nobody ever says these ridiculous benefits to billionaires are unaffordable, because they never even mention them. Lets cut THEIR benefits.
109
1,935
15
5,071
46,605
Replying to @DarrenBar88
No singers ever opposed the Vietnam War, sang about poverty, oppression, exploitation, war, strikes, deportations, racism, false imprisonment. Guthrie, Dylan, Baez, Scott-Heron, the Specials, Tracy Chapman , Billie Holliday…don’t exist.
106
497
11
2,816
42,087