UK universities report drop in international students amid visa doubts

Problems and more problems and by endeavouring to try to solve one problem exacerbates others.

Immigration is deemed to be a major problem and one that both government and a sizable section of the public believes is a major problem but is it. The UK is a county mainly created by immigration throughout its history.

Some immigration by invasion of apparent hostile nature, some economic, some required due to necessity and others.

We have been invaded by Normans, Vikings, Romans, Celts, Angles, Saxons, French, Dutch and others, https://listverse.com/2019/03/25/10-times-britain-was-successfully-invaded.

Then those that were invited, West Indians in the 50s with others from Asia, the economic with overseas students, health and care workers, hospitality workers and others and many more.

The culture of the UK has changed many times and made the UK more diverse and in many ways tolerant and more open, but still a very long way to go.

With universities they rely on non-UK students for much of their income and an array of talent to complement that already in the UK.

But to reduce the levels of immigration for political reasons student visas are being somewhat restricted, thereby causing universities to lose some needed income. Some universities may due to this have some survival problems and eventually the UK is suffering more from a lack of resources in many ways.

The right immigration is and always will be good for the UK as to a large degree the UK population is misinformed and perhaps deliberately by the government.

We know not to trust the government, but in many aspects end up doing so for there is no choice or we become more discontent with the government.

In many ways the government will totally deserve being not trusted, but that is never good for the UK.

We have had the wrong governments at the wrong times more often than not, and the UK has suffered accordingly and will continue to do so.

The right mix of immigration needs to occur and for this the attitudes of both the government and the UK population have to change.

Immigration is good and should be seen as such.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/article/2024/may/13/uk-universities-drop-international-students-visa-doubts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Natalie Elphicke’s anti-strike stance ‘incompatible’ with Labour, says TUC president

Perhaps, the unions should be listened to as the Natalie Elphickep MP defection to Labour is in many respects unbelievable. How can such a right wing MP be so compatible with the Labour Party principles.

What would make more sense is a Tory ploy to infiltrate the Labour Party  by having a Tory plant within Labour.

Some may say that would be farfetched but it happens often in areas of espionage so why not in politics. It would be a new approach but the Tories are currently so dysfunctional they may be using dysfunction as a strength and be placing a Tory into Labour.

Elphicke has already stated she won’t be standing at the next election so won’t have any influence after the next election when a Labour win is almost inevitable. But a rightwing Tory in Labour could be some aspect to bring some dysfunction into Labour, not the heart of Labour but some way in.

It could lead to infighting in Labour to some extent to be a mask to the seen dysfunction within the Tory party. The Tories are desperate and this could be seen as an unexpected act.

We all know that politics is a very dirty game, so,  has it become even dirtier, perhaps so and to some extent so unexpected, especially from a so dysfunctional Tory party.

All is possible in today’s climate.

Has Sir Kier Starmer MP been wrong footed by a dysfunctional Tory Party maybe or maybe not.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/12/natalie-elphicke-anti-strike-stance-incompatible-with-labour-tuc-boss?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Kier Starmer should listen to Robert Jendrick

Easier said than done for who in government listens to anyone certainly not those who know more than them

Then who is to say that those who know more actually do know more is it the right know more.

The NHS is quoted as being an area which has been subjected to much change, but again it is debatable if it was the right change at the wrong time or the right time but the wrong change or any variations and whether sufficient finance was made available and many other aspects.

Yes, the Home Office is too large with cumbersome processes and are those who will need to manage change onboard with the need for change, if not, would they create barriers to hinder change.

In fact, are they creating barriers to delay processes to manage the delays already within the Home Office. As the ones needed to manage the current processes would be the same who would manage change.

Can you trust Civil Servants as I’m the days of the TV programmes Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister it was clear you couldn’t. But they were TV programmes for entertainment so they couldn’t be true to life could they.

Currently with immigration it is believed there is too much and not just illegal immigration, but legal immigration, but is that true . For with an insufficiency of a required workforce is not more immigration required, but the required immigration.

If more legal routes were available and the assessment process was done before immigrants came over to the UK the process would be better.

But it is not just immigration but all areas of the Home Office for are any areas working efficiently and effectively.

I believe the Home Office systems need a drastic overall. Ideally scrap what  there is and change them for the better, but for goodness sake don’t rely on Fujitsu as we only need to look at the Post Office to know that.

Jendrick may know change is required but that is different to knowing if it is the right change or changes.

https://inews.co.uk/opinion/keir-starmer-should-listen-to-robert-jenrick-3050649?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Sunday_Opinion%202024-05-12&utm_term=editorial_opinion_active_users

Revealed: people with cancer, arthritis and amputations among 40% denied disability benefits

This is far from surprising as the government no matter what they say has no wish to pay disability benefits so make it as difficult as possible to claim. They say they do this to restrict fraud claims, but that is not so as those who generally commit fraud know what they are doing and are very experienced in claiming which the general claimant is not.

The government in their actions are penalising genuine claimants and not the experienced claimants who commit fraud on a large scale.

The process is there not to help claimants but to catch them out by requesting similar information in numerous ways.

Many genuine claimants are inexperienced in claiming and so find the forms confusing especially when requesting the same information in different ways.

Many claimants won’t fully answer each individual question but state,  please see the answer to the other question or questions.

You need to understand fully what is being asked and that is what you can’t do, why and when for how long and the degree of pain and discomfort and much more.

We see this with Paralympians who are pleased with what they can achieve and not what they can’t.

It may take them a considerable time to achieve while in considerable and constant pain, when in effect this means they are not effectively achieving but feel they are.

It also doesn’t relate to having good and bad days or parts of days, for on a good day more could be achieved while on a bad day perhaps nothing would be achieved. But because they are pleased to have achieved eventually they fail to state the barriers they need to overcome and how often they can’t overcome them.

For example can you walk 20 metres well many would be able to do so eventually but it could take them hours not minutes or seconds and be in constant unbearable pain. Then when they have done they have to have considerable rest to recover. That is not achieving the task, especially if the next day they can’t do anything as they are exhausted from the previous day.

All is relevant but most likely never mentioned by the genuine claimants, this is why on appeal the claims are usually granted. Each appeal increases costs, so on a cost analyst it would be cheaper to grant the original claim rather than pay the costs related to an appeal and then have to pay the claim often backdated to when the original claim was made.

It is a system which is illogical as it is a system to not allow claims rather than allow claims in which the latter would be cheaper and therefore reduce costs.

This is similar with motability vehicles where to achieve a motability vehicle is required, but when achieved the government on reassessment believes the disability benefit is no longer required, especially if there is an income restriction. But not having the benefit then disqualifies having the motability vehicle so it has to be  returned. When done do the claimant is unable to do what having the motability vehicle allowed them to do. In which case the claimant now can’t achieve so has to start eventually to restart to claim by starting the process again, thus more avoidable costs involved. If the benefit hadn’t been stopped another claim wouldn’t have been required so the additional costs of having to claim again wouldn’t have been incurred, so further increasing costs.

Governments never consider long-term actions only short-term, hence a more costly process and much more pain and discomfort to the claimant. It could mean that the extent of and degree of the disabilities could be much worse and in this a higher claim may need to be awarded.

A benefit system should be there to help people who may need benefits and not hinder them as hindering can and more likely does increase costs in many ways in the long-term. But in the long-term it may be another government and therefore the original government won’t be bothered as they are no longer there.

That, is not a good government but it is a very bad government and bad governments we have had plenty of over the years.

Perhaps it is government policy to increase the death rate and in doing so save on some welfare costs, would they, you can bet they would.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/12/claims-conditions-personal-independence-payments-disability-benefits-cancer-arthritis-amputees?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Israel’s Eurovision entry takes 5th place and 12 points from UK

Eurovision is and is supposed to be entertainment and a music competition in which there is no room for politics.

It should be but politics these days such a large part in life and so effectively is part of life in all aspects. To say an event should be politics free is unrealistic, when it should not be.

It is one thing to say Eurovision is none political, but these days it is impossible to be.

It should be solely on the entertainment value and musical content which was and still should be Eurovision. However, it is clear for years that there has always been a political element with which countries are included and those not. The political element of the respective entries and voting.

Music has for years been political and been part of life.  In many aspects life includes politics, especially in these days when there is a range of news covered and more easily covered, so people are more easily able to become more politically influenced.  To deny this is not facing reality and life is reality in all its facets, rightly or wrongly. To believe or assume otherwise is akin to ‘King Canute’ and masking reality.

Music for years has been a voice of protest as in many respects it is a media of youth and other age ranges, of Society and life in general. It is also a means to enact change for it is a ready process available to the masses in which other forms of media are not so readily inclusive or open to be inclusive. The ‘protest’ songs are not only songs of old, but of the present and maybe the future.

For Eurovision to not respect and understand this is a failure although most likely done with the best of intentions, but in reality flying in the face of life. Whether we like it or not political influence is in every one of us to varying degrees.

Eurovision banned Russia and Belarus for politics to be not included, but by not being included it was politically influenced as it would have been if included. This is because whatever what is hoped for others will bring in politics and the organisers are also by deciding who can be included or not.

This is the eligibility rules for Eurovision inclusion

“Participation in the contest is primarily open to all broadcasters with active EBU membership. To become an active member of the EBU, a broadcaster has to be from a country which is covered by the European Broadcasting Area or a member state of the Council of Europe.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_the_Eurovision_Song_Contest#:~:text=Participation%20in%20the%20contest%20is,of%20the%20Council%20of%20Europe. 

So to believe it is only open to countries geographically in Europe is wrong as with the internet could not the EBA coverage be Worldwide.

So the not being political is incorrect no matter the wish to be nonpolitical.

Events in the world matter as policies of isolation are being unrealistic as any major events are bound to affect all countries eventually no matter whether the countries wish it to or not.

But it is generally not the countries to be blamed for how they are seen to be,  but the leaders of countries. So to ban some countries and not others is not how it should be and a more equal ruling needs to be applied.

To some extent it is not fully what the leaders of countries are doing but how it is perceived by other countries so perceived opinions are a factor. So if x country is allowed to enter would this stop a to z countries from entering.

This means it is not just politics but to a large extent financial and commercial factors. Any event is costly to arrange and plan and all the costs should be more than covered by income received and the large part of the income is from advertising, distribution and viewing rights. To make a loss would mean future events would not be viable and the future is as important as the current, with the past used as a guide.

It is about opinions and views but more importantly money for without money nothing is possible.

Don’t we all know that with all the high inflation factors which have been around for a few years and will continue to be in some ways well into the future.

Life is far from free as we all know within our costs incurred in our means to live.

So it would be ideal for Eurovision to be nonpolitical but in reality it is impossible and Eurovision needs to be more honest and realistic.

Not just Eurovision but everyone of us.

Years ago we could hide ourselves away but no longer for life is life and we all live it to varying degrees.

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/israels-eurovision-entry-takes-5th-place-and-12-points-from-the-uk-wp3g1lve?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Email%2005112024&utm_content=Daily%20Email%2005112024+CID_4fd6e5ef4654e9196ed7e2cd04c392c0&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=Israels%20Eurovision%20entry%20takes%205th%20place%20and%2012%20points%20from%20the%20UK

The Netherlands’ Joost Klein is kicked out of Eurovision, but the Dutch can still vote | Euronews

So much intrigue in the Eurovision event this year and before a vote has been cast.

The Netherlands entry Joost Klein has been kicked out of the contest pending an investigation.

Should the investigation not prove any guilt how and what would be the compensation to the Netherlands and Joost Klein.

Or is it assumed guilty until proven innocent in Eurovision. Surely to provide equality should the Eurovision event be postponed until the investigation has been concluded.

https://www.euronews.com/culture/2024/05/11/the-netherlands-joost-klein-is-kicked-out-of-eurovision

Sue Gray faces questions over role in Natalie Elphicke defection

Oh, what a tangled web we weave and nothing more tangled than politics.

A move there to get this and a move to another to get further.

Is it who you know more than what you know, who knows.

Perhaps, Sue Gray, but then perhaps not.

A tangled web and it is politics which is very tangled.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/10/sue-gray-faces-questions-role-natalie-elphicke/

E-gate border chaos sparked when Home Office failed to tell BT it was updating software

Utter chaos with the Home Office again, but they do say working from home is not effective or efficient.

Perhaps working from the office would be better so rename it Office Office and there could be improvements, not much but some, for anything is better than none.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/10/e-gate-border-chaos-sparked-home-office-failed-bt-software/

Revealed: thousands of ‘innocent and abandoned’ migrant care workers told to leave UK

Another abuse from the Home Office as these migrants care workers have been scammed by their supposed sponsors, which while being a crime is also abuse. But the Home Office is not content with all that for they have stayed that the abuse migrant Care Workers should find another sponsor themselves, which would never be easy for them and when they are unable to do so within the specified timescale they are threatened with deportation by the Home Office which is further abuse.

One would believe we are over subscribed with care workers which we aren’t and need as many as we can get, but the Home Office rather than help make matters worse. The Home Office should be doing everything to keep these willing migrant care workers to help reduce the numbers required. But of course keeping these many migrant care workers in the UK does not reduce the figures with regards to immigration. So it appears the Home Office is more concerned in reducing the immigration numbers than ensuring there are care workers available to look after people in desperate need of care.

So not only is the Home Office abusing the innocent migrant care workers but continuing the abuse of persons in need of care.

If there was a chart for the amount of abuse being caused then the Home Office would win every time. Not something they should be proud of.

But the Home Office needs to be good at something for they are not in progressing claims for asylum, dealing with illegal immigration, failure to process Afghanistan’s who helped the UK forces in Afghanistan when the Taliban was approaching and then left these Afghans to be dealt with by the Taliban. There are other areas where the Home Office is not good, but far too many to mention.

Now we have Sir Kier Starmer believing his so-called plans for when Labour win the next general election and he becomes Prime Minister that the Home Office will be efficient and deal with his plans accordingly. The same Home Office who in the past and currently got both nothing right, but will do for him.

If they do then it will prove that Civil Servants are political which they say they are not.

Yes, the Tories are a shambles but so are the Home Office and I wonder how many other goverment departments are also shambolic, perhaps every one of them.  It would explain why many UK governments don’t do what they promise to do.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/may/11/migrant-care-workers-told-to-leave-uk?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Olly Alexander dealt a crushing blow hours before the Eurovision final as fans plead to ‘do the right thing’

It is said that politics should be kept out of sport and entertainment.

Russia and Belarus have been banned from Eurovision and their sports people can’t be part of the Olympics under the name of Russia and Belarus, but can partake by not mentioning coming from Russia and Belarus.

The reason for Russia and Belarus is the actions of President Vladimir Putin and the respective President of Belarus in the invasion of Ukraine.

While with Israel they are in the conflict in Gaza which is a reprisal for the Hamas attack of 7 October in Israel

So with Russia and Belarus the respective persons are being held responsible for the actions of their Presidents but with Israel their persons are not being held responsible  for the actions of their Prime Minister.

Both are conflicts but with Ukraine, the Presidents are the aggressors, while with Israel in Gaza the initial aggressor was Hamas, but their Prime Minister is not the original aggressor, is acting aggressively in his reprisal actions.

Similarities but some differences, but if it is down to aggression then Israel participants should be treated similarly to those of Russia and Belarus, but are not being. However, if down to initial aggressors, it may be being treated as then the Israeli participant should be allowed to continue.

But whether the initial aggressor or not avoidable deaths are being caused by the actions of the Presidents of Russia and Belarus and the Prime Minister of Israel so in this context the Israeli participant should be similarly banned as are those of Russia and Belarus.

What a situation to consider as neither the populations of Russia, Belarus and Israel can influence their respective Presidents or Prime Minister.

There are many demonstrations in Malmö, Sweden where the Eurovision event is taking place and the Israeli contestant is needing much additional protection to keep her safe.

To ban or not to ban well no matter which way there would be problems, major problems so this Eurovision event will be remembered for the problems and not for the entertainment taking place, so it has already lost its meaning for taking place.

While it is right to keep politics out of sport and entertainment it is really impossible to do so, therefore the political outcomes should be addressed but aren’t being.

If Israel does win Eurovision which they may do, then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will take it as a win for his actions when it should never be.

A reprisal response had to be expected, but the degree of the reprisal response is too great and needs to be curtailed if only to secure the release of the Israeli hostages who Netanyahu is failing to consider. But the deaths of many innocent Palestinians needs to be acknowledged but Netanyahu has no wish too and in this he is so wrong but then so are Hamas.

In reflection it would have been much better to ban Israel and in doing so not give Netanyahu the satisfaction he does not deserve but will take it.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/celebrity-news/olly-alexander-dealt-crushing-blow-32785496?utm_source=mirror_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mirror+-+Daily+Newsletter_newsletter&utm_content=&utm_term=&ruid=ddec2f3b-a42b-4fe8-83fc-abb1006ffff7#comments-wrapper