lust overlord
Well-Known Member
Spot on.
Though, until some people start actually scrutinising what the reality is,and not what some of the media,and this government would have us believe,people like George will continue to buy into their bullshit.
I am voting Labour next ....talk me out of it.
- Thread starter ColinBellsjockstrap
- Start date
Though, until some people start actually scrutinising what the reality is,and not what some of the media,and this government would have us believe,people like George will continue to buy into their bullshit.
Though I understand the worry that a case like this must cause, there is difficulty in using one case to justify the whole. It is unfortunate that some of our media will seize upon a case like this and use it to demonise immigrants, or to create a fear of immigration, when, in fact, countries with net migration tend to have the greatest opportunity for economic growth. You are right that we should have balance in our news output, but what is it that makes you use phrases like lefty lawyers, or in this case, an onslaught of PC news? It is also sad that immigration seems to be of such immense importance to some, ignoring all other issues in favour of it.Read this and get back to me.....
"In the early hours of March 12, 2022, Thomas Roberts had his beautiful young life taken from him. Aged just 21, Thomas, a part-time DJ with aspirations to join the Royal Marines, intervened to try and calm down a fight in Bournemouth town centre over an e-scooter. He was stabbed in the heart and the stomach by Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai. The asylum seeker was convicted this week of Thomas’s murder and, although Abdulrahimzai did indeed deliver the fatal wounds, it was the Home Office which was and is responsible for Tom Roberts’s appalling and unnecessary death, I believe.
The Home Office and the militantly-compassionate cadre of refugee charities and lawyers who think that the human rights of Lawangeen Abdulrahimzai are far more important than, say, the safety of British citizens like Thomas Roberts.
When he arrived in Dorset on a ferry from Cherbourg on Boxing Day 2019, Abdulrahimzai told the authorities that he was a 14-year-old orphan from Afghanistan. In fact, the drug dealer was well over 18 and had already been sentenced to 20 years in a Serbian jail (in his absence) for murdering two fellow migrants with a Kalashnikov. A few weeks before this charming fellow came to the UK, an asylum claim he made in Norway had been very sensibly rejected by the authorities there.
No such good sense was to be found among our own hapless Border Force. They waved the convicted murderer into the country as a “child”. Immigration officials don’t appear to have believed that Abdulrahimzai was a young teenager but, under Home Office rules, they had to give him the benefit of the doubt. He could only be treated as an adult if his physical appearance and demeanour “strongly suggested” he was 25 or over. He was admitted to the care of a foster mother who soon noticed a propensity for violence and a worrying fondness for knives, which he seemed to believe he had the right to carry. Never mind that scary detail, he would officially be regarded as a child until a thorough “Merton” test of his age could be carried out by expert social workers.
You can guess what happened next. This deeply dangerous individual, supported by do-gooding immigration lawyers, “messed around” officials and failed to attend interviews. There was a considerable delay in the submission of Abdulrahimzai’s statement of evidence to support his asylum claim.
A test to evaluate his true age was only carried out in February 2022, more than two years after Abdulrahimzai’s arrival in England and just a month before he killed poor Thomas. Meanwhile, he was given a place at a secondary school in Bournemouth where the kids were said to be terrified of him.
How many more are there in this country like Abdulrahimzai, ticking timebombs who could so easily destroy the lives of innocent people? With the surge in small boats arriving on the Kent coast (65,000 migrants are predicted to cross the Channel in 2023), and the almost inevitable destruction of personal documents, there has been a big rise in the number of unaccompanied “child” refugees. Home Office data shows there were 1,696 cases where the age of the child migrant was called into question in the year to September 2021. Of those, 1,118 – or 66 per cent – were found to be 18 or older. According to the Home Office, between 2012 and 2021 some 52 asylum seekers claiming to be children were later found to be 30 years old or more. Thirty! Bearded and balding kids, welcome to the United Kingdom; please step this way!"
The Home Office must stop wringing its hands and start protecting its own citizens
Yet again, the wishes of the silent majority are overruled by the claims of a vocal minority cynically commanding preferential treatmentwww.telegraph.co.uk
There is 'protecting the rights of fellow human beings' and it's a laudable aim, but the first and most important job of a Government is to protect the country and the people within it. That isn't happening. Norway rejected this person and so should we have.
P.S. It is good we now have GB News and indeed TalkTV as there needed to be some balance to the onslaught of 'PC' news from the BBC and Channel 4.
You may not know that the UK exports more arms to the Middle East than any other region. As it so happens, migration from the Middle East is one of the issues under discussion, and we may be better off if we didn't help the destruction of cities and towns in the region, and others.
Last edited:
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 6,584
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
The problem is - it's complex.
Unless you are literally going to be like North Korea, a pariah state, you are going to have to admit some refugees. We, the UK, accept fewer than our share if you look at the European picture. The main problem is, we are really shit at processing them. Really shit. Either we don't put enough resources into it (probable) or else we employ wankers to do it (fairly probable) or both. The ostrich approach of burying our heads in the sand and hoping the problem will go away just does not work. The Rwanda idea is ludicrously expensive, even ignoring moral aspects. Anyone who has read the detail knows this. The trouble is most just read the superficial headline and think - great!
We have created many of these refugees by bombing the fuck out of their countries, and maybe, just maybe, we need to rethink our foreign policy and our tendency to serve as unquestioning running dogs to the Yanks. Just a thought.
Then there are economic immigrants. Well, (1) we need them, as we have a labour shortage, made worse by leaving the EU. (2) We are attractive because of the English language, and there's not a lot we can do about that, unless we all adopt Polish or Welsh and start using that instead. (3) We are almost unique in the civilised world in not having mandatory ID cards. This makes it easy to live 'under the radar'. (4) We have an unfortunate 'cash-in-hand' culture that again makes us attractive to 'unofficial' immigrants. However many natives would resist abolishing this culture as it helps them to fiddle tax.
Unless you are literally going to be like North Korea, a pariah state, you are going to have to admit some refugees. We, the UK, accept fewer than our share if you look at the European picture. The main problem is, we are really shit at processing them. Really shit. Either we don't put enough resources into it (probable) or else we employ wankers to do it (fairly probable) or both. The ostrich approach of burying our heads in the sand and hoping the problem will go away just does not work. The Rwanda idea is ludicrously expensive, even ignoring moral aspects. Anyone who has read the detail knows this. The trouble is most just read the superficial headline and think - great!
We have created many of these refugees by bombing the fuck out of their countries, and maybe, just maybe, we need to rethink our foreign policy and our tendency to serve as unquestioning running dogs to the Yanks. Just a thought.
Then there are economic immigrants. Well, (1) we need them, as we have a labour shortage, made worse by leaving the EU. (2) We are attractive because of the English language, and there's not a lot we can do about that, unless we all adopt Polish or Welsh and start using that instead. (3) We are almost unique in the civilised world in not having mandatory ID cards. This makes it easy to live 'under the radar'. (4) We have an unfortunate 'cash-in-hand' culture that again makes us attractive to 'unofficial' immigrants. However many natives would resist abolishing this culture as it helps them to fiddle tax.
Last edited:
The blue phantom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 9,596
Hi George can you find me this recording or quote even of her labelling all folk who Vote Tories Scum? Cheers.
Hi The blue phantom,
From https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/26/angela-rayner-stands-by-remarks-calling-tories-scum
"Angela Rayner has stood by her description of the Conservatives as “homophobic, racist, misogynistic … scum” after the Labour leader distanced himself from her words."
Interestingly, as regards a recording, well the intro to the BBC podcast Newscast (last year) featured a clip of her saying she had apologised for using 'scum', which goes against this article. Did she genuinely apologise or was it a forced apology to try to reverse her poor choice of words?
Now, I anticipate that you will come back to me and say she was calling Tory MPs scum, whereas in my post I said she was "calling people who support the Tories 'scum'..." but that is a minor point because I bet most people who are tory supporters felt she was aiming the remark at them, not just the MPs they voted for.
As I have said earlier, I am totally disappointed with all sides right now. But not so my parents - and they are hopping mad that this women, who used this language, is anywhere near getting into power as deputy-PM to Kier Starmer. I think if he can't quieten her down (unlikely) as they did with Diane Abbott (in 2019) she will cost Labour votes and seats and maybe even an overall majority, which given the state of the country would be ridiculous. Labour have to get in in 2024 or they may never ever. I read yesterday that by 2034 25% of people in the UK will be over-65 and its older people who mostly vote for the Conservatives even if when they were younger, they didn't.
The blue phantom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 9,596
The only thing Angela Rayner did wrong was take back her apology.
Angela Rayner 'unreservedly' apologises for Conservative 'scum' comments
Labour's deputy leader says she has reflected and will be "more careful" with her words in future.
www.bbc.com
Scum' remarks
Last month Ms Rayner was reported to have called Conservative ministers "a bunch of scum" and described the prime minister as a "racist, homophobic misogynist"
I accept most of what you say, especially (3) mandatory ID cards which is linked to (4) the cash-in-hand culture. But I don't think it would be that complex to implement ID cards and see if it helps. Interestingly, Tony Blair is for I.D. cards and yet Nigel Farage is against them, which is odd really, you would think it would be the other way around.
Talking of 'seeing if something helps' this is my issue with the Rwanda plan. The government got voted in (in 2019) quite clearly on a promise to get control of our borders, our laws and our money. The failure to fly not even one plane of 200 people shows they have failed on - well all three! I don't care about the cost of it*, I don't care about the moral issues and I certainly don't care that we take fewer migrants than our European neighbours - that is their choice. What I do care about is who is actually running things here. Is it the people we voted for based on various committments or is it charities like 'care4calais' whom we didn't vote for and lawyers - I wont say lefty - who back them up?
The Rwanda plan has passed all the necessary legal hurdles, except at the very end a new one was brought in giving those picked to go the chance to oppose it and then no-doubt appeal it, if it didn't go their way. I very much doubt even one plane will go to Rwanda before the next G.E. and it will cost the torys millions of votes, but there is something wrong with the system if the government can't actually govern which is how it looks to me, especially on this issue.
*Having said I don't care about the cost of it - if nobody ever goes to Rwanda, do we get our £120 million back, does anyone know?
The only thing Angela Rayner did wrong was take back her apology.
Angela Rayner 'unreservedly' apologises for Conservative 'scum' comments
Labour's deputy leader says she has reflected and will be "more careful" with her words in future.
Scum' remarks
Last month Ms Rayner was reported to have called Conservative ministers "a bunch of scum" and described the prime minister as a "racist, homophobic misogynist"
So you agree with her that Johnson (in particular) and Tory ministers, in general, are 'scum'? What about people who have voted for them in the past, are they 'scum' too?
The blue phantom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 9,596
But Rayner never said people who voted for Tories are Scum, You keep telling everyone she did, It doesn't make it any more truer the more times you say it either. As for do I agree with her that they are Scum, Tbh no to lenient. They are utter worthless pieces of human shit with a big cherry **** on top.
Mr Kobayashi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 17,873
I'd put money in to a kitty to send you to Rwanda on the condition you can never come back.
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 6,584
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
Like I said - it's complex.
Our society is built on law, and law is very, very complicated. For example, remember Alex Ferguson getting off the road traffic ticket? Most of us wouldn't, but he employed an expensive lawyer and a loophole was found. No matter how carefully Parliament attempts to frame a law, they are subject to judicial review and to lawyers questioning particular cases in court. It's the nature of the beast. The alternative is an arbitrary system where the Fuhrer makes decrees and they are unquestioningly implemented. None of us would like that in practice, trust me.
Politicians try to attract votes. Our shitty voting system and the low education standards of the population lead to them tending to offer slogans rather than well-thought-through policies. Ban this. Slash that. All are very simplistic, but when you come to implement them, it is much, much more complicated.
It is simply inconceivable to me that if there was a simple, straightforward solution to this problem the government would not have implemented it. Ergo, there isn't. And if it's complicated by a whole host of issues - which I strongly suspect it is - a solution, if one exists, will take time and cost money. Probably plenty of both.
For what it's worth, I doubt that issue can be sorted in any way without close cooperation with the EU. This is anathema to the Tories and to many of their supporters, but it's a reality that will have to be faced. 'Taking back control' was an illusion, indeed a con. You can only ever control one side of a border, at best. To control two, you need the help and cooperation of the neighbours. To a point the Tories have tacitly accepted this, which is why they are paying £££££££s to France. But a more grown-up and comprehensive package is needed. And, shock horror, we may have to enter a sort of partnership, and as part of the deal accept that a proportion of these people will have to come here.
Our society is built on law, and law is very, very complicated. For example, remember Alex Ferguson getting off the road traffic ticket? Most of us wouldn't, but he employed an expensive lawyer and a loophole was found. No matter how carefully Parliament attempts to frame a law, they are subject to judicial review and to lawyers questioning particular cases in court. It's the nature of the beast. The alternative is an arbitrary system where the Fuhrer makes decrees and they are unquestioningly implemented. None of us would like that in practice, trust me.
Politicians try to attract votes. Our shitty voting system and the low education standards of the population lead to them tending to offer slogans rather than well-thought-through policies. Ban this. Slash that. All are very simplistic, but when you come to implement them, it is much, much more complicated.
It is simply inconceivable to me that if there was a simple, straightforward solution to this problem the government would not have implemented it. Ergo, there isn't. And if it's complicated by a whole host of issues - which I strongly suspect it is - a solution, if one exists, will take time and cost money. Probably plenty of both.
For what it's worth, I doubt that issue can be sorted in any way without close cooperation with the EU. This is anathema to the Tories and to many of their supporters, but it's a reality that will have to be faced. 'Taking back control' was an illusion, indeed a con. You can only ever control one side of a border, at best. To control two, you need the help and cooperation of the neighbours. To a point the Tories have tacitly accepted this, which is why they are paying £££££££s to France. But a more grown-up and comprehensive package is needed. And, shock horror, we may have to enter a sort of partnership, and as part of the deal accept that a proportion of these people will have to come here.
I think they want to, the trouble is one simple, straighforward solution would be to 'push-back' the boats. But Border Force (when it was their job) refused to and got the Union involved:
"The Public and Commercial Services union (PCS) has joined Care4Calais and one other charity in their legal fight to prevent the pushback plans from going ahead. PCS says it has not ruled out taking steps to disrupt the policy if the home secretary insists on proceeding with it."
from - https://www.theguardian.com/politic...fight-to-block-to-priti-patels-pushback-plans
Then - and this is what I really don't understand, in 2022 the Navy was given the job, but the Ministry of Defence said (to Priti Patel) "...the Royal Navy and Marines will not be turning back migrants who had crossed the Channel and sending them back to France when they take over the operational control of crossings this month.
The MoD said they would not be enforcing the Home Secretary's push back policy - to turn migrant boats back towards France - after Ms Patel said one of its ministers was wrong to rule out the Navy's involvement in the policy."
from - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...Marines-NOT-send-Channel-migrants-France.html
So basically, different government departments are fighting against each other and the end result: almost 46,000 people made it across the channel in 2022. That is not achieving the promise they made: "control of our borders".
Now in relation to this actual thread, this abject failure (and the Rwanda flight too) would suggest I am not talking the person who wrote the op out of voting Labour, but the problem is: what is their policy on migration?
Last edited:
I find Rayner to be a breath of fresh air, willing to call out the government on a whole host of issues that others dare not speak of. In actual fact, that makes her a very valuable asset and, I suspect, a vote winner: she is now saying what the majority of the country think, whereas she may well have once been decried as a loony.
BTW, immigration is not the only issue. Personally, I hope Labour's policy on migration is to re-open the safe and legal routes of entry and to then properly process claims.
BTW, immigration is not the only issue. Personally, I hope Labour's policy on migration is to re-open the safe and legal routes of entry and to then properly process claims.
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 13,516
- Team supported
- City
I like them.
BrianW
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 Mar 2006
- Messages
- 6,584
- Team supported
- There's Only One City
A simple, straightforward solution to crime would be to shoot all criminals dead.
However, it would be unlawful, lead to gross injustices and abuse, and after a short time the public would be outraged. We would also become a pariah state and sooner or later our leaders would be in jail for crimes against humanity.
That's why simple, straightforward solutions rarely work out in practice, especially when deployed against complex issues.
However, it would be unlawful, lead to gross injustices and abuse, and after a short time the public would be outraged. We would also become a pariah state and sooner or later our leaders would be in jail for crimes against humanity.
That's why simple, straightforward solutions rarely work out in practice, especially when deployed against complex issues.
bluethrunthru
Well-Known Member
even Rod Stewart is switching allegience
Rascal
El Presidente
First off take a good look at yourself and then think for all those years you voted Tory what have they ever done for the working class in this country, Thanks to you and your ilk voting for these people we now have a country that is an absolute shit show. The NHS is failing, the national infrastructure is falling to bits, the education system is not fit for purpose, inequality is growing, we have foodbanks, warm banks and record numbers of homeless. Our armed forces have been decimated, we no longer manufacture things, our towns are like wastelands, the welfare state is no longer a safety net.OK,
Since 1971 I have always voted for the Conservative party, a Margaret Thatcher fan (Although she did have her faults), but I am now totally disillusioned with this shower of st who go from crisis to crisis,( I do have a certain amount of sympathy with them because they did have covid19 to deal with, which must have been a nightmare)...but now I have had enough.
Liz Truss and that idiotic chancellor was the last straw.
Now I know Starmer is rather bland and doesn't seem to come up with any policies. just criticise the Tories all the time and I used to hate Angela Rayner but I am coming round to thinking she is OK, talks a lot of sense, even though she lets her mouth get carried away a bit, but time for a new broom?
Thoughts?
If you value any of the above then you can not vote Tory.
I will not however talk you out of voting for Labour even if I can not vote for Labour. Labour is now a right wing party, not right wing in terms of the Tories but right wing run in terms of the Left wing spectrum. Starmer and his acolytes stopped the UK from having a Socialist Government and I will never forgive that. The question then becomes is the right wing of the Labour party more suitable to run the country than the right wing of the Tory party? Because each of the main two parties have historically been broad churches that encompass many view points on the left and the right. That of course means the left wings of both traditions are marginalised. Where are the One Nation Tories?, the Socialists have been exterminated in the Labour party.
The Overton window has moved ever rightwards since the Thatcher years, the Social consensus developed after WW2 has been destroyed and we have a vacuum. That vacuum has been filled with Libertarian nonsense which thankfully was exposed when the disastrous Truss made a complete bollox of the economy.
Labour has not learnt though, it still believes that centrism is the way forward, it is still in awe of Blair and is still in thrall to Capitalism, the very system that has all but destroyed our country over the last 50 years. That is why leaving the EU was so important, we had to escape from the Neo Liberal club, not to become the ERG fantasy of a Singapore on Thames but to become a Social Democracy. Very few people who voted for Brexit voted for the ERG fantasy, they voted for a return of the nation state. A nation state that does look after a person from cradle to grave. Labour are missing this maybe by accident but probably by design because they are now a party of Capital not of Labour.
By all means vote Labour, just pray they are not as bad as this Tory shit show. Do not be surprised if little changes though as Starmer is a known liar, Reeves is a charlatan and what is left of the Socialists have been marginalised.
Gray
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 30 May 2004
- Messages
- 28,764
- Team supported
- ABU & The Bus Wreckers
I am all for giving Labour a chance, they will cock it up as they always do, and the merry-go-round will continue.OK,
Since 1971 I have always voted for the Conservative party, a Margaret Thatcher fan (Although she did have her faults), but I am now totally disillusioned with this shower of st who go from crisis to crisis,( I do have a certain amount of sympathy with them because they did have covid19 to deal with, which must have been a nightmare)...but now I have had enough.Liz Truss and that idiotic chancellor was the last straw.
Now I know Starmer is rather bland and doesn't seem to come up with any policies. just criticise the Tories all the time and I used to hate Angela Rayner but I am coming round to thinking she is OK, talks a lot of sense, even though she lets her mouth get carried away a bit, but time for a new broom?
Thoughts?
Blair was only a pink Labour leader in fact probably purple.
A Corbyn type leader of the Labour Party is doomed to failure.
Kirkstall Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Dec 2008
- Messages
- 8,249
- Location
- St Helens. Formally Manchester
- Team supported
- Manchester City
It’s not going to happen the EU will not let us rejoin without a large cash injection dwarfing the amount we were paying before if we are finding it tough now then the EU would make us reapply and we would lose the 10 billion rebate we used to get.Yes it’s not going to happen , was just throwing it out there that they should be considered by many more simply for being the most pro EU party at the moment and I’m sure that’s the number 1 priority for many voters
Lib Dems set out roadmap to rejoin EU single market and ‘end petty Brexit squabbles’
The proposed policy would ultimately reinstate free movement and tradewww.independent.co.uk
In the meantime how would we ever get back the privatisation of our industries that the Tories have damaged the only thing that matters is to get the thieving politicians out and avoid splitting the vote.
It maybe a long term aim but only when Labour are a couple of years in Government then maybe, probably to late to have a common market deal it’s a closed shop
BlueMoonAcrossThePond
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 27 Oct 2020
- Messages
- 7,537
- Team supported
- Manchester City
I'm from the USA - as I understand it from my precursory reading of Wikipedia - Labour is centrist left. Sounds good to me. Vote for them.
If there's some downside that I'm unaware of - please feel free to educate this Yank.
If there's some downside that I'm unaware of - please feel free to educate this Yank.