Election

[caz]

Pot kettle, Jon.

I don't know where you are getting all your misinformation, but almost as soon as you post it, the facts come along to prove you wrong - yet again.

Under the Tories, there was no legal way for a genuine asylum seeker to enter the UK and have their case assessed, so all those arriving in small boats - which was still happening right up until the election, regardless of all the Tory threats and promises - were treated as illegal immigrants and the numbers just kept going up and up. Deterrent, my arse. For too many of these human beings, the only form of hope they had was no hope.

Under Labour, it would merely be a return to the basic humanity we showed before, when new arrivals with a potential claim to asylum were given a lifeline while their cases were assessed, and those with no such claim were deported as illegal immigrants. Failed asylum seekers would face the same outcome if they hadn't already disappeared.

Incidentally, the winter fuel allowance will continue for all those already receiving pension credit in order to make ends meet, while the huge number of us who don't actually need any financial help with our energy bills and didn't ask for it, will be able to feel a warm glow inside just knowing that our allowance can now be used for the greater good. In my case, I got a ludicrous £500 in free money last November and the winter before under the Tories, and you can't just send it back to the DWP and ask for an illegal immigrant instead, so much of my allowance went to support local charities one way or another. I'd much sooner the money went towards pay rises for NHS doctors and nurses, who will hopefully be there for all pensioners, rich and poor, at the point of need.

[Wickerman]

So isn't it rather absurd to claim that such an experiment would be tried in the UK, by this Labour government, with any hope of succeeding where Germany failed?

That's called 'learning from the mistakes of others', you'll probably find governments in general often fail to learn from other's mistakes.
On the other hand, it might not be Starmer's decision, there are those within his party who could make certain demands to force his hand.

At least Labour soon put a stop to the insanely expensive and unworkable Rwanda experiment, which no sane Tory should ever have supported, so credit where it's due.

Thousands of migrants fled to the Republic of Ireland - have you seen the chaos & riots going on over there?
The migrants fled there to avoid being sent to Rwanda - they openly said so themselves. Isn't the BBC reporting this?
Migrants held back in Calais to see the results of the election, they didn't want to go to the UK if they risked being sent to Rwanda. The BBC haven't told you this either?
Other European countries said they were considering signing up to the Rwanda deal just before the election.
The very threat of being sent to Rwanda was having an effect.

You don't seem to know half the story, no wonder you are so blinkered in your opinions.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Wickerman]

So any claim that the whole of the UK will be forced to adopt Sharia law any time soon is absolute rubbish then?

If that were the case, yes. No-one to my knowledge said "soon", but their own Clerics have claimed they will make it happen "eventually".

Presumably the man is reduced to purchasing his own island because he either has no patience, or knows he will not live to see it happen.

You don't appear to know he was kicked out of Qatar for his extreme views, and no other Muslim country would take him in.
He is presently training his own militia in terrorist exercises, something that would not be tolerated if they were British Loyalists.
Why is the govt. so lenient with foreign born radicals who hate the west?

I can't speak for anyone who voted Labour, but the only 'incentive' to take in a migrant would be for people on housing benefit who get less state help towards their rent if they have a spare room. There would be no need to offer any financial incentives to the less well off if it was a legal 'requirement' for everyone with an empty bedroom.

Besides, nobody will be asked, or required, to take in any illegal immigrants, because once someone is identified as being here illegally, they would be breaking the law by staying in anyone's bedroom, empty or not, along with anyone knowingly giving them shelter. The prisons are nearly all full as it is, without expecting everyone to take in an illegal immigrant and then prosecuting them for doing so

Do you ever think before posting other people's contradictions, assuming they are not your own?

You don't seem to be aware that Starmer intends to give all the young male illegal migrants, 'legal' status. Which means when he closes all the govt. housing sites, and stops funding the hotels, he will be leaving migrant care up to the local authorities, which means you and the rest of UK tax payers.

Not that the govt. will be handing out subsidies to all the councils, the govt. is broke, according to Rachel Reeves.
She already plans to end the winter heating subsidy and make pensioners prove through a Means Test, that they should have it.
She told porkies about not knowing of the 20 Billion deficit, it was published information before the election, and she knew it.

Labour will be scrambling for money so they are not going to continue dishing out the 64 Billion per year to care for these migrants - you'll be on your own. You wait and see if your local taxes don't go up to subsidize your new Migrant neighbors.
Then you'll be asking yourself "who wasn't thinking?"

[caz]

Germany experimented with assigning a migrant to private households back in the 90's. The homeowner was given no choice, it caused an uproar, the plan had to be withdrawn.

So isn't it rather absurd to claim that such an experiment would be tried in the UK, by this Labour government, with any hope of succeeding where Germany failed?

At least Labour soon put a stop to the insanely expensive and unworkable Rwanda experiment, which no sane Tory should ever have supported, so credit where it's due.

[caz]

Muslim Hate Cleric to buy Scottish Island to set up Sharia (Law).

So any claim that the whole of the UK will be forced to adopt Sharia law any time soon is absolute rubbish then?

Presumably the man is reduced to purchasing his own island because he either has no patience, or knows he will not live to see it happen.

Haven't heard of any Labour voters stepping up to take in an illegal migrant yet...
The silence is deafening.

I can't speak for anyone who voted Labour, but the only 'incentive' to take in a migrant would be for people on housing benefit who get less state help towards their rent if they have a spare room. There would be no need to offer any financial incentives to the less well off if it was a legal 'requirement' for everyone with an empty bedroom.

Besides, nobody will be asked, or required, to take in any illegal immigrants, because once someone is identified as being here illegally, they would be breaking the law by staying in anyone's bedroom, empty or not, along with anyone knowingly giving them shelter. The prisons are nearly all full as it is, without expecting everyone to take in an illegal immigrant and then prosecuting them for doing so.

Do you ever think before posting other people's contradictions, assuming they are not your own?

[Wickerman]

Because it's an absurd argument.

You don't remember how governments asked private citizen to take in boat people who escaped Vietnam back in the 70-80-90's?
It wasn't thought to be absurd back then.

Why should it be absurd now?

[Wickerman]

"Haven't heard of any Labour voters stepping up to take in an illegal migrant yet...
The silence is deafening."

Because it's an absurd argument. You want more oil refineries, well then why haven't you voluntered to have one in your backyard? You wanna have more nulear powerplants? Well then why aren't you working in one? You wanna have more tax on Tobacco and lacohol? Well then why aren't you sending HMRC a cheque for the difference every month?

I get your point, but I have never voted for any of those things you listed.
I don't want more oil refineries - I do believe Climate Change is real, so more refineries, or coal mines is not the answer.
Nuclear plants are the better option, but we still have nowhere to put nuclear waste - and I'm retired so couldn't work at one anyway.
I don't smoke or drink so tax on tobacco & alcohol makes no difference to me.
I do buy an occasional 6-pack of 0% alcohol Guinness, that's about the extent of my indulgences along that line.

We are not going to solve ANY problem by individual action. We are solving problems by voting for parties that we think have the best plan to resolve the issue and then hold them to account if they DON'T act on thier plan.

We have the same scenario over here .
Trudeau has brought about 500,000 into the country, but expects the provinces (counties) to accept them, and out of provincial tax dollars provide them with food, shelter & income.
Starmer is no different, he's passing his burden on to the people of the UK. They will be either paying for their food & shelter, or taking them in themselves. There is no third option.
Those who voted for Labour knowing what he intended to do bear some responsibility for the housing of these migrants, either directly or at arm's length.
Germany experimented with assigning a migrant to private households back in the 90's. The homeowner was given no choice, it caused an uproar, the plan had to be withdrawn.

And I can't comment on the videos because, as mentioned before, I don't watch them. Just don't go to that Island

It's more than just a choice of where to visit. It is a national security risk to have such people making a base on Britain's doorstep.
You can't tell me you don't see that.

[Svensson]

"Haven't heard of any Labour voters stepping up to take in an illegal migrant yet...
The silence is deafening."

Because it's an absurd argument. You want more oil refineries, well then why haven't you voluntered to have one in your backyard? You wanna have more nulear powerplants? Well then why aren't you working in one? You wanna have more tax on Tobacco and lacohol? Well then why aren't you sending HMRC a cheque for the difference every month?

We are not going to solve ANY problem by individual action. We are solving problems by voting for parties that we think have the best plan to resolve the issue and then hold them to account if they DON'T act on thier plan.

And I can't comment on the videos because, as mentioned before, I don't watch them. Just don't go to that Island

[Wickerman]

Who said there is nowhere the UK can do off-shore processing?
Plenty of islands for sale....even the Muslim nation know about them.


Muslim Hate Cleric to buy Scottish Island to set up Sharia (Law).

https://youtu.be/6IAVp320S_M

https://youtu.be/3dARAHRjwAM

And another attempt near Canada.

https://youtu.be/SKjSP3H5XmI

Haven't heard of any Labour voters stepping up to take in an illegal migrant yet...
The silence is deafening.

[Wickerman]

You know that "banning a muslim group" is a completely different thing from "destroying a mosque". You do know that right?

When you take a mosque out of circulation, it is destroyed. The mosque is now a mere building of no special character. There was never an intent to demolish the building, there are numerous mosque in all countries that are not used to conduct hate speech and sedition.

The other thing I would say is that I might be inclined to read the odd article that people of other views post, but I am not going to watch a video. Videos by Joe Blogs evade the usual scrutiny that an article from an organisation with editorial rules has. In other words, videos are often full of sh*t. Also, I can not quote and discuss a particular statement from a video using copy-paste. So for a grown-up discusion about anything, please bring articles, not videos.

Unless you think the view of police entering a mosque is part of a movie, then I doubt you can suggest with any credibility that the activity is fake, regardless of who's video shows the news reel.
I'm not interested in what Joe Blogs thinks (or any Youtuber for that matter), what does matter is we see genuine footage of events recorded by individuals who are present that are not covered by British media.

Those who dismiss recorded events just because they are shown by a Youtuber are in denial, which is no different to suggesting 'if it wasn't on the BBC then it didn't happen'.
I know it's easier to find some excuse to dismiss what is going on across Europe, Ireland & within the UK. It could be a symptom of guilt because they refuse to face reality, and can't deal with the potential consequences.

You wanna have a meaningful discussion about asylum seekers in Germany, here is a good starting point: https://www.politico.eu/article/germ...ration-crisis/, not a crank-video by some bloke stating that Germany have begun destroying mosques and that this is a good thing. We did have the Germans destroying synagogues in November 1937 and many people then argued that this was a good thing.

Venting disdain at Youtubers is your way of deflecting from the real situation, why don't you try to justify the recordings of thousands of migrants attacking border guards, setting fires & smashing windows in town centers. Mainstream news across Europe are recording such events on a weekly basis, so now Germany has put its foot down against 53 identified places across Germany as known points of assembly by radical Muslims where hate speech is conducted.
But,...because one Youtuber repeats a few of those recording, in your mind it didn't happen?, and your objection to the activity is based on mistaking a euphemism (destruction) as a physical act?

When a mosque is taken out of service, it has been destroyed as a place of worship. It is now just another building.

[Tab]

You know that "banning a muslim group" is a completely different thing from "destroying a mosque". You do know that right?

He knows exactly what he is doing, it's wilful. Best to just leave him to it. Don't feed the trolls.

All the best,
Tab

[Svensson]

It's widely reported across Germany, numerous video's from several sources, it is a fact - wake up!

Germany bans Muslim group citing ‘extremism’, ties to Iran and Hezbollah

https://youtu.be/TxRm2X9THr0

When Al Jazeera are reporting it, you know it is true.

You know that "banning a muslim group" is a completely different thing from "destroying a mosque". You do know that right?

The other thing I would say is that I might be inclined to read the odd article that people of other views post, but I am not going to watch a video. Videos by Joe Blogs evade the usual scrutiny that an article from an organisation with editorial rules has. In other words, videos are often full of sh*t. Also, I can not quote and discuss a particular statement from a video using copy-paste. So for a grown-up discusion about anything, please bring articles, not videos.

You wanna have a meaningful discussion about asylum seekers in Germany, here is a good starting point: https://www.politico.eu/article/germ...ration-crisis/, not a crank-video by some bloke stating that Germany have begun destroying mosques and that this is a good thing. We did have the Germans destroying synagogues in November 1937 and many people then argued that this was a good thing.

Cheers.

[Wickerman]

For the benefit of Karl.

Death toll in Gaza, most reliable figure 28,185.

Any body count above that number is mostly guesswork & assumption.

https://youtu.be/IlWkHH4OU4g

[Wickerman]

this part is fake news, even without watching the video

It's widely reported across Germany, numerous video's from several sources, it is a fact - wake up!

Germany bans Muslim group citing ‘extremism’, ties to Iran and Hezbollah

https://youtu.be/TxRm2X9THr0

When Al Jazeera are reporting it, you know it is true.

[Wickerman]

Defecation on Wasaga Beach prompts progressives to label critics 'racist'

https://youtu.be/GDbT4w2bcYI
This is another example of importing a third world culture, tents on beaches will have to be banned.