Election

[Tab]

So, to reiterate, foreign migrants are receiving a weekly paycheck, plus benefits many British citizens cannot afford.
They are also receiving mobile phones from both govt. & private sources.
Also via govt. grants are receiving bicycles for transportation.

That is what I originally said, and it is proven correct, contrary to those who claim otherwise.

I've not looked into these various claims regarding bikes etc... But in the interest of being factual and "saying what you mean, and meaning what you say" - This is, in fact, not what you said.

You said illegal immigrants receive these things. Ms. Diddles then explained they don't. You said they do. Ms. Diddles then went to the trouble of explaining the different migrant statuses which you ignored. Your then went on to post several messages that continue to show Ms. Diddles was right, but somehow you think that you have been 'proven correct'?

All the best,
Tab

[Tab]

Great Post Herlock!

There is a lot here that we can all agree on.

Absolutely!

[Ms Diddles]

I can see you don't trouble yourself to find these details out for yourself.

An extraordinary number of used bicycles behind a Migrant Hotel in Hull.
Those migrants who will speak to reporters say they were given the bicycles.



Regardless who paid for them, one of the problems homeless Brits have in finding work is lack of transportation.
Where are their bikes?
Who is prepared to buy, rent, donate, any bicycles for the British Homeless who need them?

These guys in Glasgow renovate old donated bikes and donate them to this homeless project:

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/gP2zRzzALwuxPzf9/

Edinburgh City Council run this brilliant scheme too, where offenders repair and renovate bikes as part of their Payback Scheme then donate them to the community.

[Ms Diddles]

As Tab has correctly pointed out your original charge was that illegal immigrants were the lucky recipients of these donations.

The examples which you provided related to refugees and asylum seekers.

[Wickerman]

I've not looked into these various claims regarding bikes etc... But in the interest of being factual and "saying what you mean, and meaning what you say" - This is, in fact, not what you said.

You said illegal immigrants receive these things. Ms. Diddles then explained they don't. You said they do. Ms. Diddles then went to the trouble of explaining the different migrant statuses which you ignored. Your then went on to post several messages that continue to show Ms. Diddles was right, but somehow you think that you have been 'proven correct'?

All the best,
Tab

Ms Diddles said "they get nothing".
We have posted govt. forms that show all the benefits illegal migrants DO get.
Some try to dodge the argument by separating Asylum Seekers from Illegal Migrants.
Those entering by boat are all illegal before they have been accepted, even though some have made applications to become citizens. And, coming from a safe country, like France, disqualifies them from being legal migrants.

[Wickerman]

One of the news media attended a protest march in Toronto, Can. earlier this year. The whole report is on video on You Tube. The march was in favor of mass-migration like you have there in the UK. The reporter carried a clipboard and approached well over 50 of the marchers, a mixed multitude of teenagers, young adults, older people, etc. and asked every one if they would sign up to take a migrant into their own home, that this was a govt. assisted program.

Every single one declined to sign up, all of them offered a variety of excuses; like my place is too small, or I live in shared accommodation, or I can't I'm in a rental.
Not one showed any interest in being involved in what they were protesting for, they all expect someone else to take foreigners in.

They did a lot of shouting and sign waving, protesting for the rights of others, but when it comes to action beyond just words, they all came up with some excuse to not get involved. This, unfortunately is typical of most loud mouthed protestors.

It is fair to point out that 10-12 years ago when these asylum programs were first announced by the govt. there were a few affluent families who did volunteer to take some migrants in. There's always a few who will, and they are often wealthy, so have a house or premises that can be sectioned off, we're clearly talking about a minority here.

However, the novelty does wear off.

What some critics seem to misunderstand is all the 4+ million British (Reform) voters want is a genuine Conservative Party, like what existed over a half century ago.
They are not asking for anything else, it isn't racist to want controlled borders, or to want genuine human biology to be respected, not only in schools but in the workplace
.
I wouldn't be surprised if Wokist's will eventually call all people who have a front door, a racist.
What is happening on the south coast is a home invasion on a majestic scale.
Would the Wokist's out there leave their own front door open so anyone can walk into their homes without permission?
Will there come a day when anyone who has a closed front door will be called Racist?

I hope the above, as silly as it sounds, serves to demonstrate the stupidity of the Wokist agenda toward open migration.

None of you Leftist/Wokist voters out there would even think of leaving your own front door open to strangers, so why promote the same scenario for the country?
The real reason behind their position is they want to project an image of benevolence, but only at arms length. They hope someone else will take the migrants in, or we can stick them in some building, preferably in some village out of sight, just like the Toronto protestors - who also want to look benevolent offering an open door to strangers, but do not want to get involved themselves, or open their own front door to let anyone pass through, night or day.

Double standards - Welcome all - but "Not in my back yard", is their true message.

[Tab]

Ms Diddles said "they get nothing".

In the context of explaining the different statuses of migrants in the UK. This was said in relation to 'illegal immigrants' access to public money, tax payer money. No recourse to public funds. Which is correct.

We have posted govt. forms that show all the benefits illegal migrants DO get.

Asylum Seekers.

Some try to dodge the argument by separating Asylum Seekers from Illegal Migrants.

If you mean the British Government when you say "some try to dodge the argument", then I guess you are correct. Because they are different things.

Those entering by boat are all illegal before they have been accepted ...

This is not true. If they are in the process they are Asylum Seekers.

And, coming from a safe country, like France, disqualifies them from being legal migrants.

It clearly doesn't.

If moving the goal posts and gaslighting was an Olympic sport, you could have a stunning career.

All the best,
Tab

[Geddy2112]

If moving the goal posts and gaslighting was an Olympic sport, you could have a stunning career.

I'm not sure Wickerman deliberately moved the goal posts, I find his last bit 'And, coming from a safe country, like France, disqualifies them from being legal migrants,' slightly untrue as I believe he means 'legal asylum seekers.'

However as regards to gaslighting - Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse where a person causes someone to question their sanity, memories, or perception of reality.

I think his posts are far from that. He is not trying to psychologically abuse anyone. Another 'woke' phrase often misused?

[Ms Diddles]

Ms Diddles said "they get nothing".
We have posted govt. forms that show all the benefits illegal migrants DO get.

No, you have posted evidence of what asylum seekers and refugees get.

Some try to dodge the argument by separating Asylum Seekers from Illegal Migrants.

This is not dodging any argument. They are different and have completely different legal status and consequently entitlements.


Those entering by boat are all illegal before they have been accepted, even though some have made applications to become citizens. And, coming from a safe country, like France, disqualifies them from being legal migrants.

No as soon as they arrive and enter the asylum process they are asylum seekers and entitled to the relevant statutory support.

[Ms Diddles]

One of the news media attended a protest march in Toronto, Can. earlier this year. The whole report is on video on You Tube. The march was in favor of mass-migration like you have there in the UK. The reporter carried a clipboard and approached well over 50 of the marchers, a mixed multitude of teenagers, young adults, older people, etc. and asked every one if they would sign up to take a migrant into their own home, that this was a govt. assisted program.

Every single one declined to sign up, all of them offered a variety of excuses; like my place is too small, or I live in shared accommodation, or I can't I'm in a rental.
Not one showed any interest in being involved in what they were protesting for, they all expect someone else to take foreigners in.

They did a lot of shouting and sign waving, protesting for the rights of others, but when it comes to action beyond just words, they all came up with some excuse to not get involved. This, unfortunately is typical of most loud mouthed protestors.

It is fair to point out that 10-12 years ago when these asylum programs were first announced by the govt. there were a few affluent families who did volunteer to take some migrants in. There's always a few who will, and they are often wealthy, so have a house or premises that can be sectioned off, we're clearly talking about a minority here.

However, the novelty does wear off.

What some critics seem to misunderstand is all the 4+ million British (Reform) voters want is a genuine Conservative Party, like what existed over a half century ago.
They are not asking for anything else, it isn't racist to want controlled borders, or to want genuine human biology to be respected, not only in schools but in the workplace

I am unsure of exactly what you mean by "it isn't racist to want genuine human biology to be respected" but unless I am misunderstanding you (which may be the case) it certainly sounds it.
.
I wouldn't be surprised if Wokist's will eventually call all people who have a front door, a racist.
What is happening on the south coast is a home invasion on a majestic scale.
Would the Wokist's out there leave their own front door open so anyone can walk into their homes without permission?
Will there come a day when anyone who has a closed front door will be called Racist?

I hope the above, as silly as it sounds, serves to demonstrate the stupidity of the Wokist agenda toward open migration.

None of you Leftist/Wokist voters out there would even think of leaving your own front door open to strangers, so why promote the same scenario for the country?
The real reason behind their position is they want to project an image of benevolence, but only at arms length. They hope someone else will take the migrants in, or we can stick them in some building, preferably in some village out of sight, just like the Toronto protestors - who also want to look benevolent offering an open door to strangers, but do not want to get involved themselves, or open their own front door to let anyone pass through, night or day.

Double standards - Welcome all - but "Not in my back yard", is their true message.

Funny, the Homes For Ukraine and Scottish Super Sponsor Scheme had a really good uptake of people offering accommodation to Ukrainian refugees here.

Some were wealthy, others absolutely were not.

[caz]

A few years back, I experienced something that has stayed with me.
I had just returned to my car which was parked in a hospital carpark; having just visited a relative who was in a ward.
I got into my car and rather than drive straight off, I decided to check my phone before intending to drive. I sat for a few minutes in my car in the dark checking my phone, when a young couple in their 20's/30's approached the car parked directly in front of mine (our cars were facing each other)
I could tell by the woman's hijab that she was a Muslim.

Initially I thought they were getting into their car, but rather than get in, they each took something out of their car...namely a pair of prayer mats

Before I could initiate driving off (my car engine was off) the couple took their prayer mats and hurriedly placed them on the ground in the relatively small space between both our cars, just slightly off to my drivers side.

They both began to prayer on their prayer mats, both facing away from me.

I could see them both from my position.

In that moment I thought....ah, I need to go and leave them to pray, but then realised that It would be physically impossible to navigate reversing out of my parking space without having to move forward again at an angle due to minimal space behind me.

In other words, despite having started praying, they were going to have to move so that I could go.

I then felt slightly awkward because I wanted to go, not just because I was finished with my phone, but also because I felt I was intruding by being able to observe them praying.

I then considered starting my car so that they could both be aware of my presence; a bit like when you cough to get someone's attention.
But I then felt a sense of panic, because I was concerned that by starting my car, it may offend them because it would no doubt interrupt their praying.

I then took a beat and thought about just doing nothing and simply waiting for them to finish so I could go after they had finished.

I had no idea how long they were going to be.

Then, oddly enough, over the next few minutes I must admit that I watched them intently; memerized by their efforts and involvement in their own prayers.
Although I did feel I was intruding somewhat, I also felt compelled to remain as an observer and thus refrain from doing anything to disturb them.

Within a few minutes they had finished and they both stood up in unison and had a brief moment together as they replaced their prayer mats back into their car.

I then took the opportunity to start my car, and at that moment they both looked over to me.
As I maneuvered out of my space, I felt compelled to explain to them why I had clearly been sitting there in my car watching them as they prayed. I wound down the window and engaged with the man.

I was worried that he would be offended.


But to my surprise, he seemed very apologetic, because he appeared to have realised that he had stopped me from being able to physically drive off.
I then told him that I hoped I hadn't disturbed him.
He seemed very grateful and thanked me and I naturally reciprocated by wishing him a good evening. It was all very amicable.

There was an overding feeling and sense of mutual respect.

I drove off feeling like I had done the right thing, and what had it cost me?

I got home 5 minutes later than planned... and that was it.

No issue whatsoever.


At NO point whatsoever in the deepest depths of my mind did it ever occur to me to feel aggrieved that there were "2 Muslims who had the audacity to whip out their prayer mats and block my car in."

Neither of the couple saw me in my car

I was sitting in the dark on my phone

They had just come out of the hospital, perhaps having seen a poorly relative and perhaps they had hurriedly left to go and pray; as a means of necessity and commitment to their God.

The fact this occurred in London, also makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

Who was I to deliberately interrupt their personal prayers by starting my car before they had finished?

Now of course if I was in a desperate hurry myself, then I would have started my car and very politely told them that I needed to go urgently.
Based on their reaction to me, I am certain that they would have kindly waited for me to drive away before commencing their prayers.

But because their praying had no negative impact on me whatsoever, I chose to let them pray and simply wait for them to finish.

Ultimately I guess it comes down to normal human decency, respect, compassion and understanding.

I left the car park with a sense of fulfillment and pride, because I had observed something new and rather beautiful.
I felt humbled to have witnessed what I saw.


I also felt enlightened and a belief that I had learned something new.


So when you're voting, consider the actual human side to all of this rhetoric propaganda that is peddled by these politicians


You may just open your mind and experience something wonderful and new; free from prejudice and segregating populist conformity.


Choose to be a sheep if you like

Choose to be a wolf if you dare


Or simply choose to be a kind humble shepherd who shows care and compassion for all.



RD

Post of the year for me, Rookie D.

Magnificent.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thats more Woke nonsense.
Real men bring their families, women, wives & children out of harms way. They don't run away and leave them to face the troubles undefended.
Take Ukraine, they sent women & children out of harms way, many came to the UK, the MEN stay & fight the oppression.
Open your eyes!



Good grief, it is the govnt. that are providing the hotels. They are the ones offering millions of your tax dollars to house the migrants.
Thats it, throw down the racist card when you run out of arguments.
Your ignorance betrays the fact you do not know the Reform party is multi-ethnic; comprised of Jews, Muslims, Blacks, Asians & whites.
If you can't Reform yourself, at least Inform yourself.

I'd rather be woke than a massive tosser.

[caz]

The result is in, not unexpected but stunning in its scale nevertheless. The big Portillo-moment came right at the end when Liz Truss was defeated, losing 43 percent of her vote share compared to 4 years ago. Amongest the big scalps, I am actually disappointed that Penny Mordaunt lost her seat scuppering any realistic ambition for a leadership challenge. Not becasue I'm a big fan of hers but I thought she was clearly sane and it opens the door to the toxic survivors like Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch

I thought Penny was clearly insane when she ordered everyone to stand up and fight. STAND UP AND FIGHT. STAND UP AND FIGHT!!

How did that go? She can jolly well pipe down and fume now.

Love,

Caz
X

[mpriestnall]

https://iaindavis.substack.com/p/the-british-government

[Wickerman]

Funny, the Homes For Ukraine and Scottish Super Sponsor Scheme had a really good uptake of people offering accommodation to Ukrainian refugees here.

Some were wealthy, others absolutely were not.

You're confusing apples with oranges.
Ukrainian mothers with children are already westernized, they know right from wrong, they follow western customs, they obey the laws of their new host country.
They have manners.
They don't go around slandering Jews, threatening Christians, carrying on like the UK is their country.
You can't hope to address the problems if you do not understand what 4 million +, voters have voted for.

There's another govt. document I turned up yesterday that listed Migrants applying for Asylum who have a polygamous relationship (more than one wife), can receive about £350, and £114 for each additional wife, per month. Muslims, I think, are allowed 4 wives. At least those I spoke to in Egypt said that was the case.

I don't know if you are old enough to remember the Conservative party of the 50' - 70's, this Reform party are only promoting the same values. Sunak's Conservatives are not Conservative any more, they have shifted to a Left-wing party, which is why a lot of Brit's say they have two parties on the left, but nothing on the right.
Both the Labor & Cons. are basically the same, no significant difference.
Reform have taken up the banner of the old Conservatives; Secure Borders, Reduce Immigration, Lower Taxes, Scrap Net Zero, Reform the NHS to be fit for purpose, bolster police, Leave the ECHR, and so on.
A return to a basic Conservative platform.
This is what over 4 million voters preferred.

Why this is related to your post is, once the adults (Reform) do get in to power the laws covering immigration will be tightened so that any applicant must:
- Prove who they are.
- Show proof of education.
- Prove they have an adequate grasp of the English language.
- Swear to follow & acknowledge all laws & customs.
and so on.

Every country must have the ability to decide who enters their country, and how many.