Nat Locke: applying for a Turkish visa has led to frustration, anguished wailing and a loss of faith in tech
Let me explain.
I'm heading off on holidays in just a couple of weeks' time and my first stop is Turkey. Or Turkiye if we're going to be absolutely correct about it. And seeing as I'm trying to get them to like me, Turkiye it is.
So, as an Australian visiting Turkiye, I'm eligible to apply for an e-visa prior to my arrival. It's a relatively simple process, that in a perfect world, goes like this:
Step 1: Fill out an online form with your passport and contact details.
Step 2: Wait for an email.
Step 3: Activate the link in the email within 60 minutes.
Step 4: Pay.
Step 5: Admire your new Turkish e-visa.
What could possibly go wrong, I hear you ask.
Well. I completed Step 1 on a Thursday evening a couple of weeks ago and checked my email. No email that night. No email all Friday. Then an email from the Republic of Turkiye turned up at 5:28am on Saturday. Unfortunately I didn't wake up until 7:15am, so the 60 minutes had elapsed and I had missed my window. So I went back to Step 1 again on Saturday at about midday. No email arrived on Saturday. No email arrived on Sunday.
I started to take it personally. After all, I have been nothing but supportive of Turkiye. I'm a big fan of Turkish Delight, for starters, and sometimes I get mocked for my choices. But I digress.
The much-awaited email turned up at 5:22am on Monday. Luckily, I was already at work, so I asked for silence and clicked on the link. And what appeared was a message indicating that my 60 minutes had already elapsed and I would have to go back to Step 1 again.
At this point, I declared that the system was basically impenetrable. If the email didn't arrive in time, how was I supposed to activate the link? I was literally at a stalemate, but I love a challenge.
So I utilised the strategy that has helped just about everyone to subscribe for something twice. Yes, I used my work email address. Back to Step 1 I went, laboriously filling in my passport details yet again. On the upside, I now know when my passport expires. It is seared into my brain.
And guys, THIS TIME IT WORKED. The email appeared in my inbox immediately. I eagerly clicked on it, ready to activate the link and finally make my way to Step 3. And the email disappeared. It just ceased to be. It wasn't in my junk file or my deleted items folders. There wasn't even a tiny puff of smoke. So, I did what any tech-savvy human being would do. I asked the Turkish government to resend the email. And it appeared immediately. And then as soon as I clicked to open it again, it disappeared forever.
At this point you may have heard some anguished wailing emanating from the greater Fremantle area. Yeah, that was me.
The next day, I enlisted the assistance of one of our technical dudes at work, hoping he might be able to identify why these official government emails kept disappearing in front of my eyes. Being an expert in such things, he peered at my monitor for a while, then shrugged. Eventually, he asked someone in our Melbourne office to do something about it, presuming it's some sort of spam filter that prevents employees from applying for e-visas on company time. Or something like that.
If I'm trying to find a positive in this scenario, it's that I've determined I'm not actually an enemy of the Turkish state. I'm just an enemy of technology in general.
What a relief.
As it stands, though, I still don't have a visa for Turkiye. If my research has served me well, it is possible to get a visa on arrival, but that would involve joining a queue at Istanbul airport after a 21-hour journey, which is what I would quaintly refer to as the 'worst case scenario'.
In addition, I have lost my faith in technology, which might be problematic in the future.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sydney Morning Herald
3 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem
London: Fury swept across Britain's social media five days ago when residents of a wealthy part of London heard of government plans to move hundreds of asylum seekers into a hotel in their neighbourhood. Within hours, activists were posting videos from outside the hotel to call on politicians to send the outsiders away. The hotel in Canary Wharf, where luxury apartments tower over old docklands, was soon surrounded by protesters and police – turning it into the latest flashpoint in Britain's ferocious argument about refugees and migration. 'I can now confirm that the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf has been handed over for use by asylum seekers and refugees,' posted Lee Nallalingham, a resident of Tower Hamlets, the council area that includes Canary Wharf, in London's east. 'That hotel is a five-minute walk from my daughter's nursery. It's surrounded by other nurseries and primary schools. And yet nobody asked local parents what we thought. Why are they being placed in one of the most expensive areas of London, next to schools, while locals can't get housing, safety, or basic services? 'Where's the consultation? Where's the protection for local families? Once again – no answers. Just secrecy and silence.' There was just one problem. Nallalingham wrongly asserted that people were being moved to Canary Wharf from an asylum seeker hotel in the town of Epping Forest, the scene of riots on Sunday night when protesters hurled flares, eggs and rocks at police. This was inflammatory because of the fury over the hotel in Epping, just outside London. But it was not true. Nallalingham was not caught up in the details. He is the chairman of the Reform UK branch in the Tower Hamlets area and was spreading the word for a purpose. Reform UK, the party led by right-wing politician Nigel Farage, is making big gains by tapping into grievances over the economy, gender politics, migration and refugees. So the outrage over asylum hotels is turning into another powerful campaign for Farage and Reform – and a disaster for Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who once promised to shut them down. The Australian parallels are inescapable when Farage uses a simple rallying cry – 'stop the boats' – to build support. Another Reform UK politician, Lee Anderson, stood outside the Canary Wharf hotel to do a video for the X social media site about the imminent arrival of asylum seekers. Farage reposted this to his 2.2 million followers. The message helped to foment a street protest within hours. So what was really happening? Yes, the hotel was being prepared to house asylum seekers. No, they were not coming from Epping Forest. The British department charged with border security, the Home Office, made it clear there were no asylum seekers actually in the Canary Wharf hotel while the protesters stood outside. But it confirmed it had reserved more than 400 beds at the hotel to prepare for further asylum seeker arrivals in the weeks ahead. And the deeper truth? Britain is struggling with the weekly arrival of people on inflatable boats who cross the English Channel in the hope of gaining refugee status and finding work in a wealthy country. There were 60 people last Sunday, for instance, and 132 on Wednesday. On some days, there are none. Over the first six months of this year there were 19,982, according to a tally by Reuters based on public data. That was a 50 per cent increase from the same period last year. Starmer blames the previous government for the problem – with good cause, given the Conservatives ruled from 2010 to 2024 without stopping the boats. But Starmer has been in power for a full year. There are no signs that his policies are slowing the arrivals. The wealthy have been mostly shielded from this reality, especially in the finer neighbourhoods of London. Those on the lower rungs of the British class structure, however, have seen it up close when the asylum seekers are housed in their communities. With no end to the arrivals, more hotels are set up – and wealthier neighbourhoods like Canary Wharf take notice. At the same time, the community depends on migrants for essential services: cleaning the London Underground, staffing the supermarket, delivering food, serving at the takeaway. Citizens turn against migrants at the very moment they seem to rely on them more than ever. Inflammatory rhetoric fuels the discontent. Laila Cunningham, a Reform UK councillor on Westminster City Council in the heart of London, berated Labour and the Tories on Wednesday for losing control of the border. 'The Tories let in 6.5 million people over 14 years,' she said. The result, she added: 'Waves of unvetted young men, many of whom do not share our values and show no respect for British women.' Cunningham appeared to be exaggerating. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has tracked the annual intake, based on public data, and its chart shows net migration of about 5 million from June 2012 to June 2024. Even so, the inflow has been running ahead of what the community wants. Public polling highlights the concern. The Migration Observatory reported results from 2023 showing that 52 per cent of British adults want migration to be reduced, while 14 per cent want it increased. Another 22 per cent want it to stay the same, while the remainder were undecided. The concern is not new because objections to migration helped shape the referendum in favour of Brexit. What has changed is the sense of urgency some voters feel about the challenge. In June 2016, when the voting public chose Brexit, 48 per cent of respondents said migration was an important issue. It fell away for years in public polling, but now it's back. It climbed to 38 per cent last October. Starmer is feeling the pressure to find a fix. 'We will stop at nothing to tackle illegal migration,' he said on Wednesday. In fact, there is a shortage of ideas to discourage the arrivals. Australia sent asylum seekers to remote islands and turned boats around in the Indian Ocean. The UK has not copied the Australian approach in the narrow confines of the English Channel, so it has to devise its own solution. The asylum hotels are part of a broader 'dispersal' policy for asylum seekers to spread them across the country. There were 38,000 asylum seekers in hotels at the end of last year, with another 65,000 in 'dispersal' housing such as private flats or hostels run by companies for the government. This is very different to the Australian policy, with so much attention on Manus Island and Nauru. In Britain, the experience is intensely local. The Epping Forest riots took place after the community reacted to an incident between an asylum seeker and a local girl. The man, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, from Ethiopia, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. He denied all the offences when he appeared in court on July 10. Another case led to a conviction five days ago. Moffat Konofilia, 48, an asylum seeker from Solomon Islands, approached a girl, 17, on the beach at Weymouth in southern England in December 2023. A magistrate found him guilty of one count of sexual assault. When these cases make headlines, the community reacts. And Farage can turn that reaction into a mushroom cloud. Starmer and his ministers are trying to find new ways to slow the arrivals. They have a deal with French President Emmanuel Macron to return some people to France. They have announced sanctions on those in the asylum seeker trade. Individuals face financial sanctions, and the Chinese company that advertises its inflatable boats to people smugglers will be banned from doing business in the UK. Loading The riots over the past week have put a public face on the immense strain on Britain. It is an angry face, sometimes covered in a balaclava, unleashing rage at those in authority. The rioters do not speak for Britain because the data shows that many people want mercy shown to those who cross the Channel. But the public mood has turned against welcoming asylum seekers. Times are tough for many communities, and voters have reason to feel aggrieved. Every asylum seeker arrival can add to the sense that the system is broken. Every crime can add to the pressure. Even a tweet might set off a riot.
The Age
3 hours ago
- The Age
The wealthy have been shielded from Britain's big problem
London: Fury swept across Britain's social media five days ago when residents of a wealthy part of London heard of government plans to move hundreds of asylum seekers into a hotel in their neighbourhood. Within hours, activists were posting videos from outside the hotel to call on politicians to send the outsiders away. The hotel in Canary Wharf, where luxury apartments tower over old docklands, was soon surrounded by protesters and police – turning it into the latest flashpoint in Britain's ferocious argument about refugees and migration. 'I can now confirm that the Britannia International Hotel in Canary Wharf has been handed over for use by asylum seekers and refugees,' posted Lee Nallalingham, a resident of Tower Hamlets, the council area that includes Canary Wharf, in London's east. 'That hotel is a five-minute walk from my daughter's nursery. It's surrounded by other nurseries and primary schools. And yet nobody asked local parents what we thought. Why are they being placed in one of the most expensive areas of London, next to schools, while locals can't get housing, safety, or basic services? 'Where's the consultation? Where's the protection for local families? Once again – no answers. Just secrecy and silence.' There was just one problem. Nallalingham wrongly asserted that people were being moved to Canary Wharf from an asylum seeker hotel in the town of Epping Forest, the scene of riots on Sunday night when protesters hurled flares, eggs and rocks at police. This was inflammatory because of the fury over the hotel in Epping, just outside London. But it was not true. Nallalingham was not caught up in the details. He is the chairman of the Reform UK branch in the Tower Hamlets area and was spreading the word for a purpose. Reform UK, the party led by right-wing politician Nigel Farage, is making big gains by tapping into grievances over the economy, gender politics, migration and refugees. So the outrage over asylum hotels is turning into another powerful campaign for Farage and Reform – and a disaster for Labour Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, who once promised to shut them down. The Australian parallels are inescapable when Farage uses a simple rallying cry – 'stop the boats' – to build support. Another Reform UK politician, Lee Anderson, stood outside the Canary Wharf hotel to do a video for the X social media site about the imminent arrival of asylum seekers. Farage reposted this to his 2.2 million followers. The message helped to foment a street protest within hours. So what was really happening? Yes, the hotel was being prepared to house asylum seekers. No, they were not coming from Epping Forest. The British department charged with border security, the Home Office, made it clear there were no asylum seekers actually in the Canary Wharf hotel while the protesters stood outside. But it confirmed it had reserved more than 400 beds at the hotel to prepare for further asylum seeker arrivals in the weeks ahead. And the deeper truth? Britain is struggling with the weekly arrival of people on inflatable boats who cross the English Channel in the hope of gaining refugee status and finding work in a wealthy country. There were 60 people last Sunday, for instance, and 132 on Wednesday. On some days, there are none. Over the first six months of this year there were 19,982, according to a tally by Reuters based on public data. That was a 50 per cent increase from the same period last year. Starmer blames the previous government for the problem – with good cause, given the Conservatives ruled from 2010 to 2024 without stopping the boats. But Starmer has been in power for a full year. There are no signs that his policies are slowing the arrivals. The wealthy have been mostly shielded from this reality, especially in the finer neighbourhoods of London. Those on the lower rungs of the British class structure, however, have seen it up close when the asylum seekers are housed in their communities. With no end to the arrivals, more hotels are set up – and wealthier neighbourhoods like Canary Wharf take notice. At the same time, the community depends on migrants for essential services: cleaning the London Underground, staffing the supermarket, delivering food, serving at the takeaway. Citizens turn against migrants at the very moment they seem to rely on them more than ever. Inflammatory rhetoric fuels the discontent. Laila Cunningham, a Reform UK councillor on Westminster City Council in the heart of London, berated Labour and the Tories on Wednesday for losing control of the border. 'The Tories let in 6.5 million people over 14 years,' she said. The result, she added: 'Waves of unvetted young men, many of whom do not share our values and show no respect for British women.' Cunningham appeared to be exaggerating. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has tracked the annual intake, based on public data, and its chart shows net migration of about 5 million from June 2012 to June 2024. Even so, the inflow has been running ahead of what the community wants. Public polling highlights the concern. The Migration Observatory reported results from 2023 showing that 52 per cent of British adults want migration to be reduced, while 14 per cent want it increased. Another 22 per cent want it to stay the same, while the remainder were undecided. The concern is not new because objections to migration helped shape the referendum in favour of Brexit. What has changed is the sense of urgency some voters feel about the challenge. In June 2016, when the voting public chose Brexit, 48 per cent of respondents said migration was an important issue. It fell away for years in public polling, but now it's back. It climbed to 38 per cent last October. Starmer is feeling the pressure to find a fix. 'We will stop at nothing to tackle illegal migration,' he said on Wednesday. In fact, there is a shortage of ideas to discourage the arrivals. Australia sent asylum seekers to remote islands and turned boats around in the Indian Ocean. The UK has not copied the Australian approach in the narrow confines of the English Channel, so it has to devise its own solution. The asylum hotels are part of a broader 'dispersal' policy for asylum seekers to spread them across the country. There were 38,000 asylum seekers in hotels at the end of last year, with another 65,000 in 'dispersal' housing such as private flats or hostels run by companies for the government. This is very different to the Australian policy, with so much attention on Manus Island and Nauru. In Britain, the experience is intensely local. The Epping Forest riots took place after the community reacted to an incident between an asylum seeker and a local girl. The man, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, 38, from Ethiopia, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence. He denied all the offences when he appeared in court on July 10. Another case led to a conviction five days ago. Moffat Konofilia, 48, an asylum seeker from Solomon Islands, approached a girl, 17, on the beach at Weymouth in southern England in December 2023. A magistrate found him guilty of one count of sexual assault. When these cases make headlines, the community reacts. And Farage can turn that reaction into a mushroom cloud. Starmer and his ministers are trying to find new ways to slow the arrivals. They have a deal with French President Emmanuel Macron to return some people to France. They have announced sanctions on those in the asylum seeker trade. Individuals face financial sanctions, and the Chinese company that advertises its inflatable boats to people smugglers will be banned from doing business in the UK. Loading The riots over the past week have put a public face on the immense strain on Britain. It is an angry face, sometimes covered in a balaclava, unleashing rage at those in authority. The rioters do not speak for Britain because the data shows that many people want mercy shown to those who cross the Channel. But the public mood has turned against welcoming asylum seekers. Times are tough for many communities, and voters have reason to feel aggrieved. Every asylum seeker arrival can add to the sense that the system is broken. Every crime can add to the pressure. Even a tweet might set off a riot.
The Age
4 hours ago
- The Age
Trump stumbled on Epstein, and Rupert Murdoch has pounced
Trump needs these viewers to help him stay in power – aided by the fawning Fox talent who are so attuned to his cause that many have been recruited to senior roles at the White House, including Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth. Murdoch also needs these viewers if he wants to remain such a rich and powerful political force in the US. It means Murdoch has had to draw careful battle lines between his own media fiefdoms. News Corp offered the full-throated defence of the WSJ story: 'We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit,' it said. The WSJ doubled down, reporting that Attorney General Pam Bondi informed President Donald Trump in May that his name appeared multiple times in the government's files on Epstein. The message from inside News Corp is Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch are determined not to cave in to Trump and will go to court if necessary. Loading The Washington Post quoted Rupert telling associates: 'I'm 94 years old, and I will not be intimidated.' Meanwhile at Fox, the lawsuit and allegations have warranted a tepid mention at best. Australian columnist Miranda Divine, now at News Corp's Republican mouthpiece, the New York Post, described the WSJ reports as a 'nothingburger'. And if this delicate dance can be maintained, it will be lucrative for Murdoch. Both News Corp and Fox shares hit record highs in February, just weeks after Trump's inauguration. And there was no hiding Trump's role in the success of Fox News – the most profitable Fox Corp business – when Lachlan presented its most recent quarterly results in May. 'Nowhere is Fox's leadership more evident than Fox News,' he told analysts and investors. Ratings were up 30 per cent for the network in April, and it clinched top spot on prime-time ratings last week over mainstream networks such as CBS and ABC. This is a feat unheard of for a cable news network. 'The momentum that we're seeing within Fox News, obviously driven first by really sort of record-setting audience and share, that's flown through nicely to the revenue line,' Lachlan said. The problem for Rupert is that pandering to his Fox audience means pandering to Trump, and he has never been a fan of Trump's political aspirations. Murdoch publicly supported other candidates during the 2016 campaign before embracing Trump when his candidacy became inevitable. He has tolerated Trump's White House, and maintained close ties, but quickly tried to move the Republican base on to fresh leadership after the 2020 election loss. Murdoch said at the time: 'We want to make Trump a non-person.' That manoeuvre ended badly when Fox's acceptance of the result led to viewers defecting in droves to channels more loyal to Trump's claims that the election was stolen. It promised to be a financial disaster and Fox scrambled back into favour with an about-face supporting the stolen election theory. It is still counting the cost. In 2023, Fox paid Dominion Voting Systems $US787 million to settle claims the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. It still faces a multibillion-dollar lawsuit from another voting systems provider, Smartmatic, which will go to court next year if Fox does not make an offer to settle. For Murdoch, the Epstein scandal serves as another opportunity to test Trump's hold on the Republican Party, and it should not prove as costly as the $US10 billion Trump headline suggests. A quick look at the details of his case reveals problems, starting with the fact that it appears to fall over at the first hurdle of failing to notify the WSJ of the lawsuit at least five days before filing it. Loading But that is the least of Trump's issues. 'The complaint is full of sound and fury but lacks legal merit,' Leonard M. Niehoff, a University of Michigan law professor who specialises in media law, told The Washington Post. 'It shouldn't intimidate a news organisation with good lawyers. The Wall Street Journal has those.' The high hurdles for Trump include having to meet the 'actual malice' standard which means proving the WSJ knew the information they published was false. Ironically, this is what Fox was accused of doing in promoting Trump's stolen election claim in 2020. That legal battle taught Murdoch a lesson on the damage that can be done by the legal discovery process, which produced embarrassing and costly revelations – including the contempt both Murdoch and Fox held for Trump's stolen election claims and the man himself. A text surfaced from Tucker Carlson – a Fox network star at that time – referring to Trump saying, 'I hate him passionately'. If Trump continues to pursue this case, the legal discovery process on his relationship with Epstein could further inflame his support base. A clear opportunity to fatally damage Trump's political standing with the Epstein scandal could be the avenue Murdoch is looking to exploit. And if it doesn't damage Trump? Both men are ruthlessly transactional and have made up before. 'We don't want to antagonise Trump further,' Murdoch said in a memo uncovered by the Dominion case. Murdoch explained in a later deposition relating to that matter: 'He had a very large following, and they were probably mostly viewers of Fox, so it would have been stupid.' And we know Trump's proven ability to chicken out and distract. Loading As he posted to Truth Social followers this week, survival comes first. 'Winning is important, but survival is even more important. If you don't survive, you don't get to fight the next battle.' Wise words for both sides as his latest battle with Murdoch gathers a head of steam.
