The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[DCJonah]

Serious link with uninformed people and being angry about immigration 

[Follyfoot]

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

If we don’t have the figures why did you say

But to answer your question, the home office has the data. Unsurprisingly perhaps they have been reluctant to advertise it

Those are the figures for the registered official people seeking asylum I assumed quoting those figures that the figure of lost people in the system would be higher. I don’t think that’s an unfair assumption.

[bickster]

13 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

I'm unsure why you are now agreeing with @blandy, most of his comments are opposite to yours, like the immigrants coming over by small boat are not illegals. You’re losing the battle here aren't you. 

These posts where I’ ve changed my mind completely and am now agreeing with Pete, care to point them out?

[foreveryoung]

8 minutes ago, DCJonah said:

Serious link with uninformed people and being angry about immigration 

So what's your point?

As there's a serious link with uninformed people who are happy with illegal immigration too. Have you been reading. 

 

[foreveryoung]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

These posts where I’ ve changed my mind completely and am now agreeing with Pete, care to point them out?

I'll point the biggy out. Pete agrees they are illegal immigrants crossing the channel on a small boat. You still think they are not illegals.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, foreveryoung said:

I'll point the biggy out. Pete agrees they are illegal immigrants crossing the channel on a small boat. You still think they are not illegals.

Yeah and where did I agree with Pete on that?

[foreveryoung]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yeah and where did I agree with Pete on that?

You liked the whole post. If not, surely you should explain the bits you don't agree with.

[bickster]

1 minute ago, foreveryoung said:

You liked the whole post. If not, surely you should explain the bits you don't agree with.

Which post?

[Jon]

49 minutes ago, blandy said:

 they’re not all crims and terrorists. 

Exactly.  But when someone's starting point is that they're all 'potential' terrorists, then it's difficult to have a sensible debate.  

Too much scaremongering within the conversation.  

[foreveryoung]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

Which post?

 

58 minutes ago, blandy said:

I’m not sure about that. In terms of Asylum seekers, the only legal routes to arrive in the uk are from Ukraine or Hong Kong where you apply from your home nation (maybe I’ve forgotten one other nation). There are no other formal routes. Therefore if you’re from anywhere else you have to turn up and then claim asylum. The last government made it illegal to cross the channel by boat. It changed nothing. There’s no legal way to get here. International law requires asylum seekers and or refugees (same thing) to be granted asylum if they’re genuine.

So these people crossing the channel are a mix of mostly genuine refugees and a smaller number of crims, ne’erdowells and economic hopefuls. The minority therefore are “illegal immigrants”. The majority are valid asylum seekers with a genuine case.

That’s what we’re talking about. We need to filter them much more quickly, hoy out the not rights and help the ones in danger. The best way to do that is to (for the boats) work with France much better, set up something in France to deal with them there and then let the genuine ones come and block the not rights before anyone gets people smuggled in a crappy dingy.

 

[Follyfoot]

14 minutes ago, Jon said:

Exactly.  But when someone's starting point is that they're all 'potential' terrorists, then it's difficult to have a sensible debate.  

Too much scaremongering within the conversation.  

Whatever starting point you want you can arrive at that the fact is these people are here we do not know who they are. The government does not know who they are and they completely invisible. They may well be upstanding members of the community who work for charity alternatively they could be criminals or terrorists planning the next big spectacular against the west . so unless you can tell me that these people are one or the other it is impossible to have a sensible debate  is it not? My mentality is assume the worst hope for the best. . The fact is you do not know I do not know but the fact 17,000 people, probably realistically a load more than that are running around this country completely unaccounted for whatever they are doing is a massive concern.

Edited September 7 by Follyfoot

[PaulC]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Winter fuel payments should always have been means tested. It makes no sense for them not to be, unless of course you're bribing the only proportion of the electorate that actually votes for you.

Yes but there's many pensioners who just fall short of qualifying for pension credit who rely on it to heat their homes. 

[limpid]

49 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

You liked the whole post. If not, surely you should explain the bits you don't agree with.

Please could you share where you got this idea?

I like posts for all kinds of reasons, sometimes because it's well constructed or because someone has responded to moderation. It doesn't imply I agree with the contents.

[blandy]

14 hours ago, Follyfoot said:

The fact is you do not know I do not know but the fact 17,000 people, probably realistically a load more than that are running around this country completely unaccounted for whatever they are doing is a massive concern.

I guess the bit in bold is kind of the thing. For me personally it’s not a massive concern, but it’s definitely not optimal. You and others may be/are much more worried, and that’s fine. For me, those people are likely to be doing crappy jobs or homeless, or being exploited, or living with relatives and basically having a shit time. Some will be petty crims, some more of a menace, some doing good things. Politicians have created, with their media cheerleaders, a load of heat and rage that (IMO) elevates the problem’s position in the league table of “shit to be angry about”.

Labour does need to address the whole immigration situation, as I posted about earlier, but I genuinely don’t have the same level of concern about these missing folk as maybe you do.

[Rolta]

16 hours ago, foreveryoung said:

I'm all for 'legal immigration. But I truely cannot believe anyone would think 17000 illegals in our country, probably mostly living off crime, is a small number. The defence of these seafarers is boardline insane!

This might break your brain but a lot of them are victims of crime forced into sex work or pushed into modern slavery. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/modern-slavery-ring-victims-human-trafficking-uk-poland-a8990151.html

Quote

They were paid as little as 50p an hour for their labour and in one case a worker was given just coffee and a chicken for redecorating a house.

The victims – aged between 17 and 60 – had to use soup kitchens and food banks to eat, while one man was forced to wash in a canal because he had no other access to water.

“I would say some homeless people here in the UK live better than I lived after I arrived over here,” one victim said.

And ...

Quote

Vulnerable men and women were recruited off the streets in Poland with the promise of a better life, only to be cruelly exploited and trapped into a desperate cycle of dependency with nowhere else to go.”

Jurors heard the accounts of 88 victims, but it is believed at least 350 more had passed through the gang’s hands and could either not be traced by UK police or were too scared to come forward.

Also, the way you use illegal immigrants is not the way it's been used. You conflate asylum seekers with illegal immigrants. 

Quote

Both international refugee law and the UK’s immigration and asylum law protect asylum seekers arriving via unofficial routes (again, provided they make their presence known to authorities). Article 31(1) of the 1951 Refugee Convention ensures that State Parties cannot punish refugees and asylum seekers for entering a State via unofficial routes.

https://www.lancaster.ac.uk/law/blog/the-myth-of-the-illegal-asylum-seeker

But yes, the Tories made people fleeing war, murder, illegal in 2023 in the illegal migration act, which...hasn't yet fully come into law and goes against international law and our commitments under the European convention of human rights. 

Quote

Section 5 of the act provides that asylum claims will automatically be deemed inadmissible for those who have arrived illegally since 20 July 2023.[6] Section 2 of the act places a duty on the secretary of state to remove such people from the UK. However, at the time of writing, sections 2 and 5 of the act have not yet been commenced. The act has been controversial. Concerns have been raised about its compliance with international law, including the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.[7]

https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/illegal-migration-dealing-with-inadmissible-asylum-applications/

 

I think you'd get a lot less kickback and the conversation would be a lot more realistic if you stopped using illegals as a catch all. The semantics of 'yeah but they're paying smugglers and that is illegal' is extremely basic and ignores the reality of why these people are claiming asylum. Just because the Tories did their best to create a wedge issues out of vastly oversimplifying the issue along with a little demagogue-esque fearmongering (I mean the political Tories and all their aligned press too) doesn't mean we all have to change our language (Big Brother style) into ignoring that vulnerable people at risk of death claim asylum in this country. 

If the country wants a grown up debate about the topic, then it needs to include the why...why these people are claiming asylum (you can find out if you like as there's a lot of information out there that the likes of the Tory press and the Tories don't talk about). You may well disagree, and that is your right, but have a grown up conversation about it, not a over simplified one. 

And they don't 'all come here' either. Look at asylum seeker intakes in other countries and be astounded. And the only reason they're in hotels in the first place is because the Tories made so much credit making people angry about 'illegals' that they stopped processing the claims. So many asylum seekers go on to work very important jobs. From nurses to doctors and so on. If you want a grown up conversation then all that and much more needs to be part of it. This isn't a cartoon. 

[Follyfoot]

7 minutes ago, blandy said:

I guess the bit in bold is kind of the thing. For me personally it’s not a massive concern, but it’s definitely not optimal. You and others may be/are much more worried, and that’s fine. For me, those people are likely to be doing crappy jobs or homeless, or being exploited, or living with relatives and basically having a shit time. Some will be petty crims, some more of a menace, some doing good things. Politicians have created, with their media cheerleaders, a load of heat and rage that (IMO) elevates the problem’s position in the league table of “shit to be angry about”.

Labour does need to address the whole immigration situation, as I posted about earlier, but I genuinely don’t have the same level of concern about these missing folk as maybe you do.

Very well put. That’s the key to this finding a solution ASAP before that level of 17,000 is say 50,000 or more which would merit a highrt level of concern I’m sure

Edited September 8 by Follyfoot

[foreveryoung]

1 hour ago, Rolta said:

This might break your brain but a lot of them are victims of crime forced into sex work or pushed into modern slavery. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/modern-slavery-ring-victims-human-trafficking-uk-poland-a8990151.html

And ...

Also, the way you use illegal immigrants is not the way it's been used. You conflate asylum seekers with illegal immigrants. 

But yes, the Tories made people fleeing war, murder, illegal in 2023 in the illegal migration act, which...hasn't yet fully come into law and goes against international law and our commitments under the European convention of human rights. 

I think you'd get a lot less kickback and the conversation would be a lot more realistic if you stopped using illegals as a catch all. The semantics of 'yeah but they're paying smugglers and that is illegal' is extremely basic and ignores the reality of why these people are claiming asylum. Just because the Tories did their best to create a wedge issues out of vastly oversimplifying the issue along with a little demagogue-esque fearmongering (I mean the political Tories and all their aligned press too) doesn't mean we all have to change our language (Big Brother style) into ignoring that vulnerable people at risk of death claim asylum in this country. 

If the country wants a grown up debate about the topic, then it needs to include the why...why these people are claiming asylum (you can find out if you like as there's a lot of information out there that the likes of the Tory press and the Tories don't talk about). You may well disagree, and that is your right, but have a grown up conversation about it, not a over simplified one. 

And they don't 'all come here' either. Look at asylum seeker intakes in other countries and be astounded. And the only reason they're in hotels in the first place is because the Tories made so much credit making people angry about 'illegals' that they stopped processing the claims. So many asylum seekers go on to work very important jobs. From nurses to doctors and so on. If you want a grown up conversation then all that and much more needs to be part of it. This isn't a cartoon. 

We are all having grown up conversations chap. You have your opinions based on your research, others have there's.

So basically you are worried about about the minority that get exploited, rather than the minority that add to the crime rate.

Since your so informed, as I'm not of the narrative they are only either here for jobs or to be taken advantage of. Could you give me any figures of crime committed by illegal, or even legal asylum seekers. It'll be wrong, as even though you believe the government hated on these people, they do not want to share the true figures ,as it'll upset a few I'm sure.

Edited September 8 by foreveryoung

[bickster]

Just now, foreveryoung said:

We are all having grown up conversations chap. You have your opinions bbased on your research, others have theres.

So basicallyyou are worried about about the minority that get exploited, rather than the minority that add to the crime rate.

Since your so informed, as I'm not of the narrative they are either here for jobs or exploration. Could you give me any figures of crime committed by illegal or even legal asylum seekers. It'll be wrong, as even though you believe the government hated on these people, they do not want to share the true figures as it'll upset a few I'm sure.

Is English your second language?

[foreveryoung]

1 minute ago, bickster said:

Is English your second language?

Even when we try have a sensible conversation...

An get with the times, no one acts like the language police online anymore, especially when we are randomly typing on phones.  Your losing your touch, or showing g your age. 

[bickster]

1 minute ago, foreveryoung said:

Even when we try have a sensible conversation...

A get with the times, no one acts like the language police online anymore, especially when we are randomly typing on phones.  Your losing your touch, or showing g your age. 

 I just figure most people like to be understood, that post is unintelligible. You're also telling us it isn’t an opinion but it’s randomly generated by your fingers.