Tommy Robinson Appreciation Thread

[Guided Missile]

I know, petrol on a burning fire, but...

If you believe in "What can be, unburdened by what has been" and are able to watch Jordan Peterson's interview with Tommy Robinson, like me, you may completely change your mind about the guy. 

Pretty much everything he was seeing in Luton from the eyes of a working class football hooligan, who loved his neighbourhood, has come to pass. He now has some powerful supporters, like Jordan and most of all, that well known cretin, Elon Musk.

[Stripey McStripe Shirt]

Hey mods, you can probably go ahead and just combine these threads now.

 

[badgerx16]

Yaxley-Lennon is a rabble rousing, racist thug.

No wonder GM likes him.

Edited August 9 by badgerx16

[hypochondriac]

Oh god soggy is going to get a stiffy when he sees this thread. 

[east-stand-nic]

1 hour ago, Guided Missile said:

I know, petrol on a burning fire, but...

If you believe in "What can be, unburdened by what has been" and are able to watch Jordan Peterson's interview with Tommy Robinson, like me, you may completely change your mind about the guy. 

Pretty much everything he was seeing in Luton from the eyes of a working class football hooligan, who loved his neighbourhood, has come to pass. He now has some powerful supporters, like Jordan and most of all, that well known cretin, Elon Musk.

A very divisive character if ever there was one. Some of what he says is true and accurate. However, luvvies and do-gooders refuse to accept this no matter what. His part and his ways have messed him up from being one I can follow. Yeah I hear what he says and agree with some of it. But he is violent by default and that turns me away from supporting him. However, maybe a good time for me to post this to get the luvvies and do-gooders going, plus sogmickey's two user names of course.

OK, let us talk sensible and not silly myopic BS like 90% do here with their predictable labeling of anyone who wants immigration lowered as a right wing Nazi.

First of all, I suspect I am just about the most traveled person on this forum, though odds on there has to be at least one more like me. I have worked overseas over 22 years or so. I have worked in many countries and cities in many regions. Most relevant to my points below, would be The Far East/SE Asia and the Middle East.

I can speak from experience on what it is like to live in these places and what their rules are like on immigrants. Saudi for example, very strict (at least it used to be). Working foreigners only. University educated only. NO Carrying of a bible of any religious material other than Islam. What do you think of that? Personally I did not care as I am not religious at all. But the hypocrisy smacks loud and clear. We have zero rights in most Middle East countries, but they have as much rights as me and you in the UK.

Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia. Similar on working rules and Visas. Not bothered about religion. They have something in these countries called restricted jobs. That means ONLY a national of these countries can do work such as taxi driver, labor, accountant, lawyer and many others. They put their own first. I agree with them and respect that. No, it is not racist or archaic. It is helping their own people first and why not; it is their country not mine.

Now, for the simpletons here who can only see labels and black and white etc., no, people like me are not against immigration if controlled and of value. But here are some of the main issues we have in the UK they do NOT have in these countries (because they do not tolerate it).

1. Many immigrants do not integrate and want to turn their homes and areas into their style homes and areas. This has, in some cities created almost no go areas for white English people. Good?

2. The NHS, local surgeries and dentists are rammed and appointment booking is weeks ahead. This is NO QUESTION IN PART to uncontrolled immigration. Read it again, IN PART.

3. What Irks many people is that a soon as they wash ashore they get hotel rooms, and funding FACT. If I washed ashore in any of the countries I worked in, I would be deported within 3 weeks after being in holding cells.

4. I have had literally zero rights in most of the countries I have lived in and have to prove a certain level of income and savings and have insurances. Good idea. I should not be entitled to bugger all free.

Just a few points to get the loons raging. I say again in clear English, some immigration in any country is a good thing. Most people who have issues with immigration as is, are NOT racist or against brown people, as our resident well known poster calls them, they are against our towns and systems being ruined and ravaged and against these people having no respect for their hosts.

A lot of the do-gooders on here go on about loutish expats in places like Spain, the types that drink beer all day and want a full English brekky with tomato sauce or else. I agree, these people are an embarrassment. So why do you do-gooders not criticise the immigrants/expats that come to the UK and demand their ways, their foods and religious rights and laws? You know exactly what I am saying. Some of the UK immigrants that come in from Muslim countries and Eastern Europe are as bad in every way as the UK expats who beer swill and fight. They are just as bad in different ways.

So why do you not see the issues? You can see it when English behave badly abroad, but REFUSE to see it when they do it in the UK to us? Why can you not see there are issues and these issues need to be fixed and England needs to be cleaned up?

 

[badgerx16]

Nic, your last 6 words are disgraceful.

[iansums]

13 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

A very divisive character if ever there was one. Some of what he says is true and accurate. However, luvvies and do-gooders refuse to accept this no matter what. His part and his ways have messed him up from being one I can follow. Yeah I hear what he says and agree with some of it. But he is violent by default and that turns me away from supporting him. However, maybe a good time for me to post this to get the luvvies and do-gooders going, plus sogmickey's two user names of course.

OK, let us talk sensible and not silly myopic BS like 90% do here with their predictable labeling of anyone who wants immigration lowered as a right wing Nazi.

First of all, I suspect I am just about the most traveled person on this forum, though odds on there has to be at least one more like me. I have worked overseas over 22 years or so. I have worked in many countries and cities in many regions. Most relevant to my points below, would be The Far East/SE Asia and the Middle East.

I can speak from experience on what it is like to live in these places and what their rules are like on immigrants. Saudi for example, very strict (at least it used to be). Working foreigners only. University educated only. NO Carrying of a bible of any religious material other than Islam. What do you think of that? Personally I did not care as I am not religious at all. But the hypocrisy smacks loud and clear. We have zero rights in most Middle East countries, but they have as much rights as me and you in the UK.

Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia. Similar on working rules and Visas. Not bothered about religion. They have something in these countries called restricted jobs. That means ONLY a national of these countries can do work such as taxi driver, labor, accountant, lawyer and many others. They put their own first. I agree with them and respect that. No, it is not racist or archaic. It is helping their own people first and why not; it is their country not mine.

Now, for the simpletons here who can only see labels and black and white etc., no, people like me are not against immigration if controlled and of value. But here are some of the main issues we have in the UK they do NOT have in these countries (because they do not tolerate it).

1. Many immigrants do not integrate and want to turn their homes and areas into their style homes and areas. This has, in some cities created almost no go areas for white English people. Good?

2. The NHS, local surgeries and dentists are rammed and appointment booking is weeks ahead. This is NO QUESTION IN PART to uncontrolled immigration. Read it again, IN PART.

3. What Irks many people is that a soon as they wash ashore they get hotel rooms, and funding FACT. If I washed ashore in any of the countries I worked in, I would be deported within 3 weeks after being in holding cells.

4. I have had literally zero rights in most of the countries I have lived in and have to prove a certain level of income and savings and have insurances. Good idea. I should not be entitled to bugger all free.

Just a few points to get the loons raging. I say again in clear English, some immigration in any country is a good thing. Most people who have issues with immigration as is, are NOT racist or against brown people, as our resident well known poster calls them, they are against our towns and systems being ruined and ravaged and against these people having no respect for their hosts.

A lot of the do-gooders on here go on about loutish expats in places like Spain, the types that drink beer all day and want a full English brekky with tomato sauce or else. I agree, these people are an embarrassment. So why do you do-gooders not criticise the immigrants/expats that come to the UK and demand their ways, their foods and religious rights and laws? You know exactly what I am saying. Some of the UK immigrants that come in from Muslim countries and Eastern Europe are as bad in every way as the UK expats who beer swill and fight. They are just as bad in different ways.

So why do you not see the issues? You can see it when English behave badly abroad, but REFUSE to see it when they do it in the UK to us? Why can you not see there are issues and these issues need to be fixed and England needs to be cleaned up?

 

Probably the best post I have ever read on this forum. Nothing wrong with the last six words IMO.

[Turkish]

Some conspiracy theorists believe he is a paid actor by the government to cause division. Some people think he's a right wing racist. Whatever you think of him he has a lot of supporters. Im not talking about the idiots who go around getting sniffed up and smashing things up, but the 100,000 or so who attended the protest a few weekends ago. They were people of all races, sexes and backgrounds. The narrative that everyone is part of the EDL (which even Robinsons says hasn't existed for over a decade) and football hooligans is putting a label on it to cause division. The biggest problem is that working class people, the type of people that used to be described as salt of the earth and the country was built on want change. They voted for it in 2016 and didn't get it and if people get ignored then it stirs up resentment which is happening now.

Things will die down now you'd think, the thugs have got it out of their system, there will be lots of arrests, prison sentences etc but Robinson has got a lot of support for a reason and people are blaming the symptom not the cause of it.

[iansums]

21 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Nic, your last 6 words are disgraceful.

I can't help getting the impression you read the whole post and got more and more frustrated as you couldn't find anything to disagree with. Eventually you got to the final six word and couldn't believe your luck that you had at last found something to get offended about.

[badgerx16]

18 minutes ago, iansums said:

I can't help getting the impression you read the whole post and got more and more frustrated as you couldn't find anything to disagree with. Eventually you got to the final six word and couldn't believe your luck that you had at last found something to get offended about.

More fool you, then.

[Turkish]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

More fool you, then.

can you explain why they are a disgrace? Like it or not there are issues and he's right, they do need cleaning up. It was a very well reasoned post and i cant see what's wrong with the last 6 words.

[Farmer Saint]

There is a lot to unpack in that post @east-stand-nic, but am in holiday and need time to go through it. What I would say is though, why would we want our treatment of foreigners to be on a par with those countries you mentioned? Are we not better than that as a tolerant society? 

[saint francis]

I watched that interview a few weeks ago.  What on earth is he talking to Tommy Robinson for? was my first reaction.  It was an interesting listen though and TR comes across as quite genuine.  I came away from it thinking that we only have his word for much of what he had to say though. 

Also a good part of the interview hinges around a film that he made about an attack on a Syrian refugee boy which was big news at the time - a British judge prohibited him from screening it.  TR states in the interview that he regretted not showing the film at the time despite what consequences the judge would throw at him.  So why not show the film now and let it be judged?  I doubt he fears the legal consequences.  

[hypochondriac]

16 minutes ago, saint francis said:

I watched that interview a few weeks ago.  What on earth is he talking to Tommy Robinson for? was my first reaction.  It was an interesting listen though and TR comes across as quite genuine.  I came away from it thinking that we only have his word for much of what he had to say though. 

Also a good part of the interview hinges around a film that he made about an attack on a Syrian refugee boy which was big news at the time - a British judge prohibited him from screening it.  TR states in the interview that he regretted not showing the film at the time despite what consequences the judge would throw at him.  So why not show the film now and let it be judged?  I doubt he fears the legal consequences.  

He has been showing it online and at his rallys. That's why he's due in court to answer the changes for showing it. 

[iansums]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

He has been showing it online and at his rallys. That's why he's due in court to answer the changes for showing it. 

…and according to some, ‘on the run’ in Cyprus. He maintains he is on holiday with his kids.

[saint francis]

Oh ok, cheers, I'll look it up.  I'd be interested to see if it's been sensibly reviewed or fact checked.  

[hypochondriac]

4 hours ago, Guided Missile said:

I know, petrol on a burning fire, but...

If you believe in "What can be, unburdened by what has been" and are able to watch Jordan Peterson's interview with Tommy Robinson, like me, you may completely change your mind about the guy. 

Pretty much everything he was seeing in Luton from the eyes of a working class football hooligan, who loved his neighbourhood, has come to pass. He now has some powerful supporters, like Jordan and most of all, that well known cretin, Elon Musk.

It's funny you should mention Tommy Robinson. Yesterday I was having a decaff latte and avocado sourdough breakfast down the local ethnic not for profit dining collective and you'll never believe it but my dining companion was my wife's cousin who works for MI5 and has just completed an operation in Cyprus. 

As you can imagine the conversation led onto Mr yaxley-lennon and of course he backed up all the reports of him being a swivel-eyed goosestepping thug. 

I'd never have believed it but it's basically impossible to argue with someone like my wife's cousin who works for MI5 and has just completed an operation in Cyprus. 

[The Kraken]

20 minutes ago, saint francis said:

Oh ok, cheers, I'll look it up.  I'd be interested to see if it's been sensibly reviewed or fact checked.  

I mean, I think it’s already been fact checked by a high court judge who deemed accusations made within it by SYL to be libellous.

But yeah, best off get someone else sensible to do it too I suppose.

[Turkish]

44 minutes ago, saint francis said:

Oh ok, cheers, I'll look it up.  I'd be interested to see if it's been sensibly reviewed or fact checked.  

I've watched his video about the Syrian boy it was shared on twitter recently and viewed by about 20 million people i think. I'll let you make your own mind up about it. It's certainly interesting. I watched it as i wanted to see what the hype was about. It certainly isn't anything worse than other stuff i've seen on line and didn't se anything libellous.

Edited August 9 by Turkish

[Saint Fan CaM]

18 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

There is a lot to unpack in that post @east-stand-nic, but am in holiday and need time to go through it. What I would say is though, why would we want our treatment of foreigners to be on a par with those countries you mentioned? Are we not better than that as a tolerant society? 

I don’t usually visit the Lounge but this thread I found interesting.

To answer the above, yes, we are a tolerant society - just look at the diversity that has existed for decades, but surely that means accepting LEGAL immigrants who can fully integrate and add value to our society. Apart from the fact that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay (with zero tolerance), there should be no expectation that immigrants can settle into their own ‘ghetto’ without working for the rights we’ve come to expect (and that applies to ANY colour/race/ethnicity/religion).

The question is, why do illegal immigrants want to risk their lives in a dingy to come and live in a culture that is very different to the one they’ve come from? The evidence suggests they’re not really interested in integrating into Great Britain…they might have friends or relatives already here, but they could be anywhere…they know they can enjoy THEIR home nation/society here, but also happily take the free benefits on offer from day one.

The genie is well and truly out of the bottle - with politicians promises of taxes being cut, Brexit and Ukraine effects, our public services and finances are being stretched to breaking point. It’s no wonder that there’s growing division across the country.

[pingpong]

I'm curious as to where these no-go areas for white English people are? Sounds like bs hyperbole. 

Also can't agree with the sentiment that the country needs to be "cleaned" as if immigrants are dirty, racism doesn't get much more clear than that.

I think the attempted legitimising of the likes of robinson is emboldening what was taboo a few months ago, which is probably a positive in terms of exposing a lot of the racism that the political right have been pretending does not exist, but hugely negative in that now a lot of nonwhite people don't feel safe in their homes. (Regardless of their immigration status)

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, pingpong said:

I'm curious as to where these no-go areas for white English people are? Sounds like bs hyperbole. 

Also can't agree with the sentiment that the country needs to be "cleaned" as if immigrants are dirty, racism doesn't get much more clear than that.

I think the attempted legitimising of the likes of robinson is emboldening what was taboo a few months ago, which is probably a positive in terms of exposing a lot of the racism that the political right have been pretending does not exist, but hugely negative in that now a lot of nonwhite people don't feel safe in their homes. (Regardless of their immigration status)

I hate the term no-go areas. I've never visited any area in the uk that I am physically unable to go to. It's really badly phrased. I expect it means there may be areas of the country where there is a higher likelihood of intimidation or confrontation if you are a particular skin colour or religion. 

Obviously I don't agree with you about England being a racist country but talking about no go areas is silly. 

Edited August 9 by hypochondriac

[badgerx16]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

can you explain why they are a disgrace? Like it or not there are issues and he's right, they do need cleaning up. It was a very well reasoned post and i cant see what's wrong with the last 6 words.

Because he did not say "parts of England" or "issues that need to be addressed". Whatever valid discussion points he may have raised are wiped out by the last 6 words.

[ecuk268]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

The evidence suggests they’re not really interested in integrating into Great Britain…they might have friends or relatives already here, but they could be anywhere…they know they can enjoy THEIR home nation/society here, but also happily take the free benefits on offer from day one.

 

Can you provide us with this "evidence"?

[Saint Fan CaM]

57 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

Can you provide us with this "evidence"?

Yep. Probably most important of all is they’ve decided to break British law by attempting entry by illegal means. Often there’s little or no attempt to integrate into a mixed community, preferring instead to settle into a ‘ghetto’ of their choosing. There’s little or no attempt to learn the English language - preference is to stick with friends or family that continue to speak the language of their origins. There’s no giving up on certain beliefs in relation to human rights, for example holding women in low regard with no equality or voice or worse still continuing to practice body mutilations which are illegal in the UK.  

To be clear these issues are not about the colour of someone’s skin etc., it’s about how far does a nation go in being tolerant of immigration diluting the fabric of the society that represented the very reasons the immigrants had in wanting to come here. Unless of course they had no particular interest in Britain or its cultural values in the first place.

[Farmer Saint]

3 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

It's funny you should mention Tommy Robinson. Yesterday I was having a decaff latte and avocado sourdough breakfast down the local ethnic not for profit dining collective and you'll never believe it but my dining companion was my wife's cousin who works for MI5 and has just completed an operation in Cyprus. 

As you can imagine the conversation led onto Mr yaxley-lennon and of course he backed up all the reports of him being a swivel-eyed goosestepping thug. 

I'd never have believed it but it's basically impossible to argue with someone like my wife's cousin who works for MI5 and has just completed an operation in Cyprus. 

See now Hypo, THAT is funny. 

[badgerx16]

16 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Yep. Probably most important of all is they’ve decided to break British law by attempting entry by illegal means. Often there’s little or no attempt to integrate into a mixed community, preferring instead to settle into a ‘ghetto’ of their choosing. There’s little or no attempt to learn the English language - preference is to stick with friends or family that continue to speak the language of their origins. There’s no giving up on certain beliefs in relation to human rights, for example holding women in low regard with no equality or voice or worse still continuing to practice body mutilations which are illegal in the UK.  

To be clear these issues are not about the colour of someone’s skin etc., it’s about how far does a nation go in being tolerant of immigration diluting the fabric of the society that represented the very reasons the immigrants had in wanting to come here. Unless of course they had no particular interest in Britain or its cultural values in the first place.

What proportion of over 1 million immigrants annually attempt entry by illegal means ?

There is a debate to be had over the level of immigration, but it needs to be held based on facts rather than social media rumours and shit stirring.

Edited August 9 by badgerx16

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

I don’t usually visit the Lounge but this thread I found interesting.

To answer the above, yes, we are a tolerant society - just look at the diversity that has existed for decades, but surely that means accepting LEGAL immigrants who can fully integrate and add value to our society. Apart from the fact that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to stay (with zero tolerance), there should be no expectation that immigrants can settle into their own ‘ghetto’ without working for the rights we’ve come to expect (and that applies to ANY colour/race/ethnicity/religion).

The question is, why do illegal immigrants want to risk their lives in a dingy to come and live in a culture that is very different to the one they’ve come from? The evidence suggests they’re not really interested in integrating into Great Britain…they might have friends or relatives already here, but they could be anywhere…they know they can enjoy THEIR home nation/society here, but also happily take the free benefits on offer from day one.

The genie is well and truly out of the bottle - with politicians promises of taxes being cut, Brexit and Ukraine effects, our public services and finances are being stretched to breaking point. It’s no wonder that there’s growing division across the country.

Illegal immigrants don't stay though. They are asylum seekers until they are processed and either accepted or rejected - this is a very stringent process now. However, about 70-80% are accepted as genuine asylum seekers. Those that are rejected are returned to country of origin (illegal immigrants are deported).

The reason asylum seekers have been building up so much is due to the following reasons.

1. The removal by the Tories of a legal way to apply for asylum - this used to be done online, but this was shut down to increase the boat crossings. At the moment there is no legal way to apply for asylum from outside the UK, which is fucking mental.

2. Tories making huge cuts to the department that processes the applications as a way to build up the number of AS that have to be housed in the UK, and to build up hatred in the hope it would keep them in power. However, they didn't reckon on the BNP, sorry, Reform coming back in such a strong guise. 

To solve this we need to re-open the legal routes to apply for asylum, and decrease the backlog, freeing up the accommodation and thus the money being spent. 

[Farmer Saint]

I said I'd come back to you on this, so... 

6 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

 

1. Many immigrants do not integrate and want to turn their homes and areas into their style homes and areas. This has, in some cities created almost no go areas for white English people. Good?

No go areas isn't a thing, this isn't Jo'burg. Some ethnicities may not want to go to some areas as they feel threatened, but that's the same for same British Asians going to parts of Leeds, Birmingham and the East end of London. Integration is difficult - but most educated people try to find a way to do it. The issues you're talking about have built up over generations, so many of the people in these areas are British now. I'd be interested to see howany people think they can't integrate due to the colour of their skin/background, or can't due to lack of opportunity. People also have their own ways of living, borne through years of tradition. Why by being here do they have to live the way an English person lives? Why can't they live according to their heritage as long as its not breaking any laws of the land? 

6 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

 

2. The NHS, local surgeries and dentists are rammed and appointment booking is weeks ahead. This is NO QUESTION IN PART to uncontrolled immigration. Read it again, IN PART.

If people are allowed into the country, the infrastructure should already be there. We should be proactive instead of reactive. And you say uncontrolled immigration - since Brexit we have controlled immigration do we not? 

6 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

 

3. What Irks many people is that a soon as they wash ashore they get hotel rooms, and funding FACT. If I washed ashore in any of the countries I worked in, I would be deported within 3 weeks after being in holding cells.

But why are we comparing ourselves to countries where gay people are executed, women are treated as 3rd class citizens and people are scared into living a certain way. Why aren't we comparing ourselves to other, similar first world countries? 

6 hours ago, east-stand-nic said:

 

4. I have had literally zero rights in most of the countries I have lived in and have to prove a certain level of income and savings and have insurances. Good idea. I should not be entitled to bugger all free

You know you have to do that here, don't you, as an immigrant and going through the immigration process. If you're an asylum seeker that is different, as you are fleeing war, persecution etc (probably from similar countries you see to hold as the benchmark of how the UK should be). 

I'm not interested in the UK becoming an authoritarian, non-inclusive state, sorry. I really don't see it as the utopia you seem to think it is. 

Edited August 9 by Farmer Saint

[moonraker]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Yep. Probably most important of all is they’ve decided to break British law by attempting entry by illegal means. Often there’s little or no attempt to integrate into a mixed community, preferring instead to settle into a ‘ghetto’ of their choosing. There’s little or no attempt to learn the English language - preference is to stick with friends or family that continue to speak the language of their origins. There’s no giving up on certain beliefs in relation to human rights, for example holding women in low regard with no equality or voice or worse still continuing to practice body mutilations which are illegal in the UK.  

To be clear these issues are not about the colour of someone’s skin etc., it’s about how far does a nation go in being tolerant of immigration diluting the fabric of the society that represented the very reasons the immigrants had in wanting to come here. Unless of course they had no particular interest in Britain or its cultural values in the first place.

Sounds like a description of many so called “expats” in Spain. 

Edited August 9 by moonraker

[ecuk268]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

Yep. Probably most important of all is they’ve decided to break British law by attempting entry by illegal means. Often there’s little or no attempt to integrate into a mixed community, preferring instead to settle into a ‘ghetto’ of their choosing. There’s little or no attempt to learn the English language - preference is to stick with friends or family that continue to speak the language of their origins. There’s no giving up on certain beliefs in relation to human rights, for example holding women in low regard with no equality or voice or worse still continuing to practice body mutilations which are illegal in the UK.  

To be clear these issues are not about the colour of someone’s skin etc., it’s about how far does a nation go in being tolerant of immigration diluting the fabric of the society that represented the very reasons the immigrants had in wanting to come here. Unless of course they had no particular interest in Britain or its cultural values in the first place.

52% of asylum seekers have English as their main language and 38% have another main language but speak English well or very well. 

This is what evidence is, not your random statements with nothing to back them up.

For your information the data came from the Migration Observatory which is based at Oxford University. 

[Mixedkebab]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

I said I'd come back to you on this, so... 

No go areas isn't a thing, this isn't Jo'burg. Some ethnicities may not want to go to some areas as they feel threatened, but that's the same for same British Asians going to parts of Leeds, Birmingham and the East end of London. Integration is difficult - but most educated people try to find a way to do it. The issues you're talking about have built up over generations, so many of the people in these areas are British now. I'd be interested to see howany people think they can't integrate due to the colour of their skin/background, or can't due to lack of opportunity. People also have their own ways of living, borne through years of tradition. Why by being here do they have to live the way an English person lives? Why can't they live according to their heritage as long as its not breaking any laws of the land? 

If people are allowed into the country, the infrastructure should already be there. We should be proactive instead of reactive. And you say uncontrolled immigration - since Brexit we have controlled immigration do we not? 

But why are we comparing ourselves to countries where gay people are executed, women are treated as 3rd class citizens and people are scared into living a certain way. Why aren't we comparing ourselves to other, similar first world countries? 

You know you have to do that here, don't you, as an immigrant and going through the immigration process. If you're an asylum seeker that is different, as you are fleeing war, persecution etc (probably from similar countries you see to hold as the benchmark of how the UK should be). 

I'm not interested in the UK becoming an authoritarian, non-inclusive state, sorry. I really don't see it as the utopia you seem to think it is. 

The East End of London? Come on, every single area of the east end has a large Asian population, probably on a par with whites all told?

And I agree no go zones are bollocks both sides, some areas are dodgy as fuck no matter what the racial make up but you can still go there. All the council workers etc do for a start.

[Saint Fan CaM]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

What proportion of over 1 million immigrants annually attempt entry by illegal means ?

There is a debate to be had over the level of immigration, but it needs to be held based on facts rather than social media rumours and shit stirring.

It’s completely irrelevant whether an immigrant is legal or illegal - social cohesion, housing and public services will increasingly suffer if immigration is not controlled. The facts are readily available - every day every news outlet reports on these issues and it doesn’t take a masters in math to know that cutting taxes is certainly not going to solve the problem.  The Tories failed at controlling immigration and so far it would appear Labour don't have a credible plan of action either.

[Saint Fan CaM]

3 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Illegal immigrants don't stay though. They are asylum seekers until they are processed and either accepted or rejected - this is a very stringent process now. However, about 70-80% are accepted as genuine asylum seekers. Those that are rejected are returned to country of origin (illegal immigrants are deported).

The reason asylum seekers have been building up so much is due to the following reasons.

1. The removal by the Tories of a legal way to apply for asylum - this used to be done online, but this was shut down to increase the boat crossings. At the moment there is no legal way to apply for asylum from outside the UK, which is fucking mental.

2. Tories making huge cuts to the department that processes the applications as a way to build up the number of AS that have to be housed in the UK, and to build up hatred in the hope it would keep them in power. However, they didn't reckon on the BNP, sorry, Reform coming back in such a strong guise. 

To solve this we need to re-open the legal routes to apply for asylum, and decrease the backlog, freeing up the accommodation and thus the money being spent. 

There’s a lot of sense in what you’ve said, however those being accepted into our country have been done so under what rules and conditions? And what happens to them after they’ve been ‘released’ into the general community? Where’s the coherent plan to get them working and integrating?

And as far as Reform is concerned, the party had an increase in support because the Tories lost so much support…largely not because they attracted new voters and with any chance of them forming a Government.

Yes, there’s a need for a robust process that works, but that doesn’t stop the boats does it?

[Saint Fan CaM]

2 hours ago, ecuk268 said:

52% of asylum seekers have English as their main language and 38% have another main language but speak English well or very well. 

This is what evidence is, not your random statements with nothing to back them up.

For your information the data came from the Migration Observatory which is based at Oxford University. 

So what - that’s not valid evidence… they may well speak two languages, but if you walk through certain areas of many major UK cities you will often hear foreign languages spoken by supposed UK residents. It’s their right to do so of course, but does that indicate social integration?

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

So what - that’s not valid evidence… they may well speak two languages, but if you walk through certain areas of many major UK cities you will often hear foreign languages spoken by supposed UK residents. It’s their right to do so of course, but does that indicate social integration?

Not sure that is a barometer. Do you expect two Romanian friends to speak to each other in English? Some of the Asian older generations struggle with English but the following generation won’t 

[badgerx16]

29 minutes ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

It’s completely irrelevant whether an immigrant is legal or illegal - social cohesion, housing and public services will increasingly suffer if immigration is not controlled. The facts are readily available - every day every news outlet reports on these issues and it doesn’t take a masters in math to know that cutting taxes is certainly not going to solve the problem.  The Tories failed at controlling immigration and so far it would appear Labour don't have a credible plan of action either.

I'm not denying the issues with overall immigration, and accept that arguably it is too high. The point that is constantly being pushed is that 'illegal' immigration is driving this, which is absolute nonsense. Stopping the channel boats completely will still leave us with over a million a year on current figures.

[ecuk268]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

So what - that’s not valid evidence… they may well speak two languages, but if you walk through certain areas of many major UK cities you will often hear foreign languages spoken by supposed UK residents. It’s their right to do so of course, but does that indicate social integration?

You said that there's little or no attempt to learn English. 

If 90% of them can speak it well or very well that is evidence that they have learnt it.

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

So what - that’s not valid evidence… they may well speak two languages, but if you walk through certain areas of many major UK cities you will often hear foreign languages spoken by supposed UK residents. It’s their right to do so of course, but does that indicate social integration?

Walk round many Welsh towns and villages and you won't hear English being spoken. Why can't Poles speak to each other in Polish ? Why can't Chinsse speak Chinese ?

 

Edited August 9 by badgerx16

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I've only caught a few minutes of the OPs video link. Within that there were some worrying claims.

The link below is for the judgement, and offers a counter to some of those claims. Quite easy to jump to relevant bits Again, I've only caught a small part, but it offers the balance of a judge.

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Hijazi-v-Yaxley-Lennon-judgment-220721.pdf

[Farmer Saint]

2 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

There’s a lot of sense in what you’ve said, however those being accepted into our country have been done so under what rules and conditions? And what happens to them after they’ve been ‘released’ into the general community? Where’s the coherent plan to get them working and integrating?

And as far as Reform is concerned, the party had an increase in support because the Tories lost so much support…largely not because they attracted new voters and with any chance of them forming a Government.

Yes, there’s a need for a robust process that works, but that doesn’t stop the boats does it?

The issue is not the process, the issue is the rules that have been presided over by the Tories for the last 14 years. 

And yes, if there is a legal way to apply for asylum from overseas, that reduces the boats hugely as applications can be done from outside the country (currently you can only apply for asylum from inside the UK - hence the boats). 

[Saint Fan CaM]

3 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Walk round many Welsh towns and villages and you won't hear English being spoken. Why can't Poles speak to each other in Polish ? Why can't Chinsse speak Chinese ?

 

RE Wales, that’s because the Welsh are very protective of their national identity - do you not support that? If you do, then why do you deny the English the same courtesy? Anyone can speak any language they want - that’s the beauty of living in a free society such as exists in the UK - however the point is that it is indicative of a lack of social integration and could be seen as contributing to the dilution of national identity and the divisions that can cause, whether we like or not.

[Saint Fan CaM]

2 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

The issue is not the process, the issue is the rules that have been presided over by the Tories for the last 14 years. 

And yes, if there is a legal way to apply for asylum from overseas, that reduces the boats hugely as applications can be done from outside the country (currently you can only apply for asylum from inside the UK - hence the boats). 

I’m not quite sure what your point is. Every stage of seeking asylum is a part of a process. The problem is there is no robust and effective process and that has been the case for more than 14 years. Where outside the country are these applications being made? The French don’t want it on their land - Brexit did for that. Even if a processing centre was set-up, I’d wager that the boats would still come with little impact on reducing numbers - why do you think Starmer’s strategy is to employ more border force officials…to process asylum claims? There’s only one effective way to fairly control immigration and that’s to take control of the tap - not mop up the flood.

[east-stand-nic]

20 hours ago, badgerx16 said:

Nic, your last 6 words are disgraceful.

No, they are a turn of phrase and you know it. You are just reeling from the fact i made sense and you hate that. Fact is, if i said that 'Turn of Phrase' when referring to cleaning up our country of right wing scum, you would not have commented. You are an into and inverted racist and a massive part of why the UK is going to shit.

20 hours ago, iansums said:

I can't help getting the impression you read the whole post and got more and more frustrated as you couldn't find anything to disagree with. Eventually you got to the final six word and couldn't believe your luck that you had at last found something to get offended about.

As I have said above matey, he is one of those who has the issues, not us. If i used that turn of phrase to slag of Tommy Robinson and others like him, he would not have batted an eyelid. He is just an inverted racist which likely means he hates Muslims and the likes and hides it by virtual signalling.

 

17 hours ago, pingpong said:

I'm curious as to where these no-go areas for white English people are? Sounds like bs hyperbole. 

Also can't agree with the sentiment that the country needs to be "cleaned" as if immigrants are dirty, racism doesn't get much more clear than that.

I think the attempted legitimising of the likes of robinson is emboldening what was taboo a few months ago, which is probably a positive in terms of exposing a lot of the racism that the political right have been pretending does not exist, but hugely negative in that now a lot of nonwhite people don't feel safe in their homes. (Regardless of their immigration status)

20 hours ago, Turkish said:

can you explain why they are a disgrace? Like it or not there are issues and he's right, they do need cleaning up. It was a very well reasoned post and i cant see what's wrong with the last 6 words.

@pingpongI see you are another virtue signaler trying to mask your own hatred of outsiders. It is you sir who is racist no I, quite clearly. To even think those 6 words means what you think they mean comes from inside your head, not mine. It is a simple turn of phrase as i said above. For you to assume it meant dirty people, means you thought of that yourself, which means factually you are deep down harboring racist thoughts.

@Turkishindeed, cleaning up things is a common turn of phrase. For people to assume it means a racist slur about being dirty says much more about their thought processes than it does about mine. I could have said cleaning up our club, no one would bat an eyelid. Too many inverted racists on here who try to mask their own feelings of doubt and distrusts of foreigners by virtue signaling.

[badgerx16]

7 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

RE Wales, that’s because the Welsh are very protective of their national identity - do you not support that? If you do, then why do you deny the English the same courtesy? Anyone can speak any language they want - that’s the beauty of living in a free society such as exists in the UK - however the point is that it is indicative of a lack of social integration and could be seen as contributing to the dilution of national identity and the divisions that can cause, whether we like or not.

Who is denying the English their identity ?

[badgerx16]

1 hour ago, east-stand-nic said:

No, they are a turn of phrase and you know it. You are just reeling from the fact i made sense and you hate that. Fact is, if i said that 'Turn of Phrase' when referring to cleaning up our country of right wing scum, you would not have commented. You are an into and inverted racist and a massive part of why the UK is going to shit.

As I have said above matey, he is one of those who has the issues, not us. If i used that turn of phrase to slag of Tommy Robinson and others like him, he would not have batted an eyelid. He is just an inverted racist which likely means he hates Muslims and the likes and hides it by virtual signalling.

 

@pingpongI see you are another virtue signaler trying to mask your own hatred of outsiders. It is you sir who is racist no I, quite clearly. To even think those 6 words means what you think they mean comes from inside your head, not mine. It is a simple turn of phrase as i said above. For you to assume it meant dirty people, means you thought of that yourself, which means factually you are deep down harboring racist thoughts.

@Turkishindeed, cleaning up things is a common turn of phrase. For people to assume it means a racist slur about being dirty says much more about their thought processes than it does about mine. I could have said cleaning up our club, no one would bat an eyelid. Too many inverted racists on here who try to mask their own feelings of doubt and distrusts of foreigners by virtue signaling.

Stop trying to be sensible, your conspiracy nut version is much more believable.

[Tamesaint]

56 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

No, they are a turn of phrase and you know it. You are just reeling from the fact i made sense and you hate that. Fact is, if i said that 'Turn of Phrase' when referring to cleaning up our country of right wing scum, you would not have commented. You are an into and inverted racist and a massive part of why the UK is going to shit.

As I have said above matey, he is one of those who has the issues, not us. If i used that turn of phrase to slag of Tommy Robinson and others like him, he would not have batted an eyelid. He is just an inverted racist which likely means he hates Muslims and the likes and hides it by virtual signalling.

 

@pingpongI see you are another virtue signaler trying to mask your own hatred of outsiders. It is you sir who is racist no I, quite clearly. To even think those 6 words means what you think they mean comes from inside your head, not mine. It is a simple turn of phrase as i said above. For you to assume it meant dirty people, means you thought of that yourself, which means factually you are deep down harboring racist thoughts.

@Turkishindeed, cleaning up things is a common turn of phrase. For people to assume it means a racist slur about being dirty says much more about their thought processes than it does about mine. I could have said cleaning up our club, no one would bat an eyelid. Too many inverted racists on here who try to mask their own feelings of doubt and distrusts of foreigners by virtue signaling.

You write well but your aggressive, confrontational style does you no favours. Insulting people with whom you disagree does not enhance your opinions. 

You have clearly travelled extensively and lived in interesting places. They are not however bastions of democracy and free thought and imo we should not try to copy them. We have a different outlook on human rights and long may we do so. 

A genuine question with no implied criticism.... When you lived abroad what attempt to integrate into local society did you make? Are you now fluent in Arabic, Thai and Vietnamese? Did you live in "Western style" places or in neighbourhoods populated by local inhabitants? Intergration into a new society is not easy. 

 

[whelk]

Nothing duller than meeting a travel bore

like an old person thinking they have more wisdom because they have lived longer. Some may, many absolutely don’t 

Edited August 10 by whelk

[whelk]

See worldly wise Nic is back to giggling at posts. Couldn’t answer TameSaint’s point I guess as clearly lives in ex-pat communities thinking he is experiencing life from the far corners of the world (an expression Nic - the world isn’t actually flat)

[Farmer Saint]

8 hours ago, Saint Fan CaM said:

I’m not quite sure what your point is. Every stage of seeking asylum is a part of a process. The problem is there is no robust and effective process and that has been the case for more than 14 years. Where outside the country are these applications being made? The French don’t want it on their land - Brexit did for that. Even if a processing centre was set-up, I’d wager that the boats would still come with little impact on reducing numbers - why do you think Starmer’s strategy is to employ more border force officials…to process asylum claims? There’s only one effective way to fairly control immigration and that’s to take control of the tap - not mop up the flood.

No, you're not understanding what happens. 

The whole asylum claim should be done outside of the UK, online, either in the country of origin or close to that. They then have the right to come here legally if accepted, so instead of paying the people smugglers thousands they take legal routes over. 

When you say turn off the tap, I'm not sure I get what you mean. Are you talking legal migration or asylum seekers? If legal migration (around 1 million people a year), we have control of that tap and there are certain measures you have to adhere to for being able to enter the country - these do not come over on boats and this is where we need to ensure we are taking the correct people - this is where the problem currently is.

If asylum seekers, again there are certain rules they have to prove to obtain asylum (around 25k people per year that HAVE to come over on boats as we shut down the legal routes for claiming asylum from outside the country) - if these aren't passed then they are turned down (around 80% are accepted) and removed to their country of origin. Asylum is a human right. 

Edited August 10 by Farmer Saint