BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

[Stevo 666]

FFS!

Its a bit naive really...

 

[Stevo 666]

You are right. That was a gross underestimate on my part. I apologise.


https://fullfact.org/europe/online-...pWzQ8Va7AE-f15624sSyG52_5X3LaiKYaAphKEALw_wcB

That is from 2020 though, so could be completely wrong.

Let's check - now trigger warning this article mentions Sadiq Khan and is about London's economy but Cambridge Econometrics survey estimate the cost of Brexit to the UK economy is £140bn rising to £300bn by 2035.
https://www.london.gov.uk/new-report-reveals-uk-economy-almost-ps140billion-smaller-because-brexit

The first sentence stays it all: "There’s no definitive figure for the economic impact of Brexit." They are all estimates based on assumptions and extrapolation. The scenario where we stay in the EU obviously never happened so we will never know.

Sadiq Khan isn't a trigger but most people know to take most things he says with a pinch of salt.

 

[icowden]

The first sentence stays it all: "There’s no definitive figure for the economic impact of Brexit." They are all estimates based on assumptions and extrapolation. The scenario where we stay in the EU obviously never happened so we will never know.

So you mean all that guff that Andy posts about Reform polling well ahead of the Conservatives is just made up. After all, it's just based on assumptions and extrapolation therefore it's meaning less.

Also, I think you should let Rachel Reeves know that the Office for Budget Responsibility is a waste of money. All of their output is based on assumptions and extrapolations.

In fact, we should stop planning anything as planning is based on assumptions and extrapolation. Complete waste of time.

 

[briantrumpet]

This could be so... from The Economist:

 

[icowden]

This could be so... from The Economist:

I understand not *everyone* is happy though.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Thing is, we won't get early access to the e-gates. We won't get access until the EU eventually brings in the EES which has seen big delays, and we were getting access to them at that point anyway.....

 

[briantrumpet]

Thing is, we won't get early access to the e-gates. We won't get access until the EU eventually brings in the EES which has seen big delays, and we were getting access to them at that point anyway.....

That's what I was half assuming - I go through e-gates at CdG, but the passport still has to be stamped.

 

[Dorset Boy]

That's what I was half assuming - I go through e-gates at CdG, but the passport still has to be stamped.

Some border points into Schengen currently allow us to use e-gates, but the vast majority don't and that won't change until EES eventually is implemented. And as you say, in the meantime, you still need your passport stamping anyway.
From the BBC:
While some EU ports and airports already allow UK citizens to use modern e-gates, many do not and queues have become familiar to holidaymakers.

The new agreement provides more clarity on e-gates and sets out that in the future, UK citizens will be able to use them - but the EU Commission says that will not come into force in time for this summer.

However, the UK government has indicated it is hopeful there could be changes in time for the summer, so the timeline still appears to be up for debate.

The EU says there will be no change before a new EU border security scheme comes into force in October, which will see biometric data including fingerprints collected from passengers coming from non-EU countries such as the UK.

It will mean manned desks where people will have to queue in order to enter some EU countries could still be a feature of travel beyond this year, even if e-gate usage becomes more widely available.

In short, that will mean long queues at some destinations could continue during this holiday season and perhaps beyond.

Any decision about UK citizens using e-gates will not be a blanket one across the bloc. Instead, it will be up to individual countries to decide how they manage queues at their borders.

 

[PurplePenguin]

I was always find it odd that countries need to negotiate visa arrangements and entry requirements for their citizens abroad. Tourism is an export - why handicap your country's exports until the buyer asks nicely?

 

[briantrumpet]

Great news - the bastards who bought up a big estate on Dartmoor knowing the established law about wild camping but wanted to stop it have had their appeal rejected by the Supreme Court

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwywwq5zkqwo

The legal right to wild camp on Dartmoor has been upheld by the Supreme Court in a decision that is likely to reignite the debate over public access to land in England.

Judges unanimously rejected an appeal by landowners Alexander and Diana Darwall who said people should not be able to camp without permission from landowners.

In England there is no general right to wild camp on most private land but Dartmoor National Park in Devon is a rare exception.

The judgement centred on the interpretation of the 1985 Dartmoor Commons Act that states "the public shall have a right of access to the commons on foot and horseback for the purpose of open-air recreation" which judges said were "open-ended and unqualified" and "naturally includes camping".

 

[Ian H]

Great news - the bastards who bought up a big estate on Dartmoor knowing the established law about wild camping but wanted to stop it have had their appeal rejected by the Supreme Court

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwywwq5zkqwo

That would appear to be definitive, which is a relief.

 

[First Aspect]

Great news - the bastards who bought up a big estate on Dartmoor knowing the established law about wild camping but wanted to stop it have had their appeal rejected by the Supreme Court

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwywwq5zkqwo

That's good news, but further expansion of the right to roam should be done with great caution. It does not work well in Scotland and is not the panacea people might imagine.

Seems okay for water bodies, but for land access, there should be a clear exclusion within generous boundaries of properties and, importantly, roads. This is to prevent "camping" from including parking up with a camper van, or pitching a tent a few feet from a road. There's even an argument that overnight camping should be excluded, to prevent people from legally essentially living in a place for a prolonger period. I've seen yurts erected and wood burners installed in them for summer long use, for example.

As to Dartmoor specifically, I do hope there is some pent up demand for wild camping and walking on that particular estate.

 

[briantrumpet]

That's good news, but further expansion of the right to roam should be done with great caution. It does not work well in Scotland and is not the panacea people might imagine.

Seems okay for water bodies, but for land access, there should be a clear exclusion within generous boundaries of properties and, importantly, roads. This is to prevent "camping" from including parking up with a camper van, or pitching a tent a few feet from a road. There's even an argument that overnight camping should be excluded, to prevent people from legally essentially living in a place for a prolonger period. I've seen yurts erected and wood burners installed in them for summer long use, for example.

As to Dartmoor specifically, I do hope there is some pent up demand for wild camping and walking on that particular estate.

It was the specificity of this case that made it so egregious: they obviously thought they could overturn something well established and understood, by using clever language games to claim that words didn't mean what they obviously did mean, for financial gain.

OOI, what's not working well in Scotland?

 

[Fab Foodie]

Great news - the bastards who bought up a big estate on Dartmoor knowing the established law about wild camping but wanted to stop it have had their appeal rejected by the Supreme Court

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwywwq5zkqwo

HOOORRRRRAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHH

 

[Fab Foodie]

That's good news, but further expansion of the right to roam should be done with great caution. It does not work well in Scotland and is not the panacea people might imagine.

Seems okay for water bodies, but for land access, there should be a clear exclusion within generous boundaries of properties and, importantly, roads. This is to prevent "camping" from including parking up with a camper van, or pitching a tent a few feet from a road. There's even an argument that overnight camping should be excluded, to prevent people from legally essentially living in a place for a prolonger period. I've seen yurts erected and wood burners installed in them for summer long use, for example.

As to Dartmoor specifically, I do hope there is some pent up demand for wild camping and walking on that particular estate.

It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to come-up with a pretty clear set of guidelines as to what constitutes 'Wild Camping' on Open-access areas/national park.
Wild Camping on Dartmoor (and in fact most other wild spaces and national parks) has been going-on without issue for Donkeys years primarily by low impact backpackers. Covid brought a big change unfortunately, especially in the National Parks -no longer back-packs it was pop-up tents, bbqs etc. at local beauty spots with rubbish left behind. People doing that should be rightly prosecuted.
Most proper wild campers are invisible, there for one night only, and leave no evidence of their having been there. That needs protecting.