I am voting Labour next ....talk me out of it.

[lust overlord]

The law. What is happening, or has happened, is that the government deliberately announces policy that they believe will court the opinion of their hard-core support (immigration issues are very popular) without prior legal consideration. When the action fails, as they knew it would, their media friends heap the blame on the woke snowflakes and lefty lawyers, whipping their support into yet another frenzy of hate. Only recently, in the Select Committee meeting, Suella was forced to admit that there are no safe and legal routes to arrive in the UK. This is deliberate. Therefore, everyone arriving is illegal and up for demonising. Just open the safe and legal routes and properly process asylum claims - it isn't that difficult - unless you fear the golf club captains and ladies of the institutes.

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.

 

[oldius]

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 treatment

www.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.

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.

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.

 

[BrianW]

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.

 

[The blue phantom]

Two words: Angela Rayner (your first observation was the correct one).

Kier Starmer should have moved her aside.... he tried, but somehow she ended up with more jobs & more power! I don't know how. But it made him look weak and that is not a good characteristic for a so-called 'leader'.

That recording of her calling people who support the Tories 'scum' will come back to haunt the Labour Party in the future - a bit like how Gordon Brown got caught out calling a member of the public a bigot, just because she wasn't quite as 'liberal' as he wanted.

Hi George can you find me this recording or quote even of her labelling all folk who Vote Tories Scum? Cheers.

 

[El_george]

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]

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 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"

 

[El_george]

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.

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?

 

[El_george]

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"

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]

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?

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]

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?

I'd put money in to a kitty to send you to Rwanda on the condition you can never come back.