Comments by "TruthWarrior" (@Truth-warrior-j3e) on "British Stand"
channel.
-
10
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
@melvinplant8637 Oxo cubes typically cost around £1 to £2 for a pack of 12 cubes in the UK, depending on the store and any ongoing promotions. Prices can vary slightly depending on the type of stock (beef, chicken, vegetable) and where you purchase them.
If you assume the lowest price, £1 then making a nutritious meal for £1 can be challenging, but it’s definitely possible by focusing on simple ingredients. Here’s a basic recipe for a hearty, budget-friendly lentil and vegetable soup that costs around £1 per serving.
Ingredients (serves 2–3):
• Red lentils (100g) - £0.25
• Carrot (1 medium) - £0.10
• Onion (1 medium) - £0.10
• Garlic (1 clove) - £0.05
• Vegetable stock cube (Oxo or similar) - £0.10
• Canned tomatoes (400g) - £0.30
• Salt, pepper, and any spices you have on hand (e.g., paprika, cumin) - £0.05
Total Cost: £0.95 for 2–3 servings (roughly £0.32–0.48 per serving).
Instructions:
1. Prep the vegetables: Peel and chop the carrot and onion, and mince the garlic.
2. Sauté the base: In a pot, add a little oil or water, then sauté the onion and garlic until softened.
3. Add the carrot and lentils: Add the chopped carrot and lentils, and stir everything together for a minute.
4. Add stock and tomatoes: Dissolve the stock cube in 500ml of boiling water, then pour it into the pot along with the canned tomatoes.
5. Simmer: Bring everything to a boil, reduce the heat, and let it simmer for 20–25 minutes until the lentils are tender.
6. Season: Add salt, pepper, and any spices you like for extra flavor.
7. Serve: Enjoy as a warm, filling meal.
You can add a slice of budget bread to make it a more complete meal. This soup is nutritious, filling, and stays within the £1 budget easily!
For a £2 meal, you can expand your ingredients and create a more substantial dish. Here’s a recipe for a vegetable and chickpea curry that can serve 2–3 people for around £2.
Ingredients (serves 2–3):
• Chickpeas (400g canned) - £0.50
• Potato (1 medium) - £0.15
• Carrot (1 medium) - £0.10
• Onion (1 medium) - £0.10
• Garlic (1 clove) - £0.05
• Canned tomatoes (400g) - £0.30
• Curry powder (1 tbsp) - £0.10
• Vegetable stock cube - £0.10
• Rice (150g dry) - £0.40
• Salt, pepper, and optional chili flakes - £0.05
Total Cost: £1.85 for 2–3 servings (roughly £0.62–0.92 per serving).
Instructions:
1. Prep the vegetables: Peel and chop the potato, carrot, and onion. Mince the garlic.
2. Cook the base: In a pan, sauté the onion and garlic in a little oil or water until softened.
3. Add spices: Stir in the curry powder and let it cook for a minute to release its flavor.
4. Add vegetables and chickpeas: Add the chopped potato, carrot, and drained chickpeas to the pan.
5. Add tomatoes and stock: Pour in the canned tomatoes and 200ml of water, dissolving the stock cube in it. Stir well.
6. Simmer: Let the curry simmer for about 20 minutes until the vegetables are tender.
7. Cook the rice: While the curry is simmering, cook the rice according to the package instructions.
8. Season and serve: Once the curry is done, season with salt, pepper, and chili flakes if you like it spicy. Serve the curry over the rice.
This dish is filling, nutritious, and flavorful, with plenty of protein from the chickpeas and a good balance of vegetables. It’s a perfect budget-friendly meal for £2 or less!
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@jasoncdebussy well you can of course do that, but then you have to agree to all these consequences:
Cutting aid to all foreign countries by the UK could lead to several problems, both domestically and internationally:
1. Global Instability
• Humanitarian crises: Many developing nations rely on foreign aid to provide basic services such as healthcare, education, and food. Cutting aid could worsen humanitarian crises, leading to famine, disease outbreaks, and extreme poverty.
• Increased migration: Lack of support in impoverished regions can lead to mass migration, as people seek refuge in more stable countries, including the UK.
• Geopolitical instability: Reducing aid can destabilize regions where the UK has strategic interests, potentially increasing conflict and security threats.
2. Diminished Global Influence
• Loss of soft power: Aid is a crucial tool for exerting influence on the global stage. Cutting it would reduce the UK’s ability to shape international policies, resolve conflicts diplomatically, and build alliances.
• Reduced diplomatic leverage: Aid can help build partnerships, strengthen trade relationships, and foster cooperation in key global issues such as climate change, terrorism, and global security.
3. Economic Consequences
• Impact on UK businesses: Foreign aid often comes with trade agreements that benefit UK companies, creating jobs and boosting the economy. Cutting aid could reduce export opportunities and harm sectors that depend on international trade.
• Loss of investment in long-term growth: Aid is often directed towards building infrastructure, education, and economic growth in developing countries, which in turn helps create future markets for UK goods and services. Withdrawing aid risks slowing this process.
4. National Security Risks
• Terrorism and radicalization: Lack of development aid can leave power vacuums in fragile states, allowing extremist groups to gain influence and recruit members. This could increase the risk of terrorism, some of which could have repercussions for the UK.
• Instability in Commonwealth nations: Several countries in the Commonwealth depend on UK aid for development. Instability in these nations could pose direct risks to the UK’s security and international standing.
5. Reputation Damage
• Loss of international goodwill: The UK has been seen as a leader in providing foreign aid, and cutting it would damage its reputation as a global humanitarian actor. This could reduce trust in UK leadership on global issues.
• International criticism: The UK could face backlash from global organizations like the United Nations and non-governmental organizations, affecting its international standing.
6. Moral and Ethical Concerns
• Failure to meet global commitments: Cutting aid could mean the UK fails to meet international commitments, such as the United Nations’ target of spending 0.7% of gross national income on foreign aid, which could diminish its moral authority.
• Ethical responsibility: Some argue that wealthier countries have a responsibility to help poorer nations combat issues like poverty, inequality, and climate change. Abandoning foreign aid could be seen as neglecting this duty.
These challenges suggest that foreign aid serves not only as a humanitarian tool but also as a strategic asset for the UK, with wide-reaching implications if it were cut entirely.
Of course you can cut all aid to all countries. But anyone who does that needs a lot of good luck!
2
-
2
-
@EgoChip ok my pleasure
who said we want criminals? The reasons why many genuine asylum seekers do not use legal routes is very well documented.
The UK offers very few official legal routes for asylum seekers to apply for protection. For example, resettlement schemes or family reunification programs exist but are often limited in scale, have strict eligibility criteria, and do not cover all types of asylum seekers. As a result, many people cannot access these pathways.
In addition the UK generally requires asylum seekers to be physically present in the country to apply for asylum. Unlike some other countries, the UK does not allow people to apply for asylum from abroad (with some exceptions, such as refugee resettlement). This means that many have no choice but to reach the UK by irregular means in order to seek asylum.
There are other reasons too. Many asylum seekers flee countries with oppressive regimes, war zones, or failed states, where it may be impossible to obtain legal travel documents.
Additionally, it is almost impossible for people fleeing persecution to obtain a UK visa for travel, as they may not meet the requirements of ordinary visa categories such as work, study, or tourism.
Furthermore Asylum seekers often flee life-threatening situations, such as war or persecution, and may have to leave their homes suddenly without time to navigate complex legal systems. Their priority is to find safety quickly, even if it means taking irregular routes, rather than waiting for potentially unavailable legal processes.
Many asylum seekers may not be aware of any legal routes available to them or may lack access to legal advice that could help them understand the options.
Additionally, misinformation or exploitation by traffickers and smugglers can lead them to believe that there are no safe and legal ways to reach the UK.
Finally, the UK is an island nation, which makes it more difficult for people to reach through regular travel means compared to countries accessible by land. This can force individuals to resort to irregular and dangerous routes to make it to the UK.
For these reasons, many genuine asylum seekers are unable to use legal routes and end up risking their lives on dangerous journeys to reach safety in the UK.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
You are right in that the UK’s national debt reached 100% of its GDP in August 2024, marking the first time since the 1960s that this level has been reached. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) provisionally estimated that public sector net debt (excluding public sector banks) had risen to this level, driven by factors such as increased public spending, benefits, and public sector wages, which outpaced government revenue from taxes  .
This rise in debt, while significant, reflects broader economic challenges, including higher borrowing costs and pressures on public services. If the Bank of England’s debt is excluded, the figure stands at 92% of GDP . Managing this debt will be a central issue in the upcoming budget, as the government looks to balance fiscal responsibility with public service demands .
2
-
2
-
Well it’s your opinion and you are welcome to it. Maybe you are right. It is however a complex issue: • Private Ownership: Consumers may face higher prices due to profit margins, but might benefit from greater efficiency.
• Public Ownership: Consumers might enjoy lower prices, but the service could suffer from underinvestment or inefficiencies.
• Foreign Ownership: Pricing and service quality can vary. Consumers might worry about foreign influence, but they could also benefit from better infrastructure or services, depending on the investment strategy of the foreign owner.
Ultimately, the success of any model depends on factors like regulatory oversight, competition, and the specific context of the utility in question. Strong regulation can mitigate some disadvantages, such as monopolistic practices in private or foreign ownership, while weak regulation can amplify them. It’s all a matter of opinion, and how old you are to remember!
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@drewward8522 by “its people” I assume you choose to exclude all those persecuted which were a wide range chosen based on a combination of racist, political, and social ideologies. Including but limited to Jews, Romani people, Disabled, Political dissidents, Homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Slavs, Africans and people of African descent, Freemasons, some Christian clergy who opposed the regime, and individuals deemed "asocial" (such as the homeless and habitual criminals). Oh and I almost forgot, I assume you also exclude the 4.5 to 5.7 million German and Austrian soldiers that died during WW2. And this is your example of a “caring” approach. Do you see perhaps why it’s not such a convincing line of argument?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@williammkydde your comments are again very misleading sorry to say. Here are the real facts: Judges are not political appointments - this isn’t the USA. In the United Kingdom, judges are appointed by the Monarch (the King or Queen) on the advice of the Prime Minister or the Lord Chancellor, depending on the level of the judiciary. However, the process is largely overseen by an independent body called the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC), which was established to ensure the selection of judges is based on merit rather than political influence.
The JAC is responsible for selecting candidates for judicial office, who are then recommended to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor may accept or reject the recommendations, but the process is designed to minimize political interference.
For senior positions such as Justices of the Supreme Court, a separate selection commission is convened to make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor, who then forwards the names to the Prime Minister, who in turn advises the Monarch to make the appointment.
Concerning police superintendent I assume you meant Chief Constable. The PM does not appoint the Chief Constable. In the United Kingdom, the appointment of a Chief Constable is made by the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) of the respective police force area.
Here’s how the process works:
1. Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC): The PCC is an elected official responsible for ensuring that the police force effectively carries out its duties. The PCC is responsible for appointing the Chief Constable.
2. Selection Process: The selection process for a Chief Constable typically involves a competitive recruitment process, which may include interviews, assessments, and sometimes public involvement or consultation. The PCC oversees this process.
3. Confirmation: After the PCC selects a candidate, the appointment must be confirmed by a Police and Crime Panel, which is a body made up of local council members and independent members. The panel has the power to veto the PCC’s choice, but this power is rarely used.
4. Final Appointment: Once the selection is approved by the Police and Crime Panel, the PCC formally appoints the Chief Constable.
For London the process is slightly different: In London, the process for appointing the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (the equivalent of a Chief Constable in other areas) is slightly different from that in other parts of the UK. The appointment process involves the following steps:
1. Home Secretary: The Home Secretary (a senior government minister in charge of the Home Office) is primarily responsible for the appointment of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
2. Mayor of London: The Mayor of London also plays a significant role in the appointment process. The Mayor, through the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC), works in consultation with the Home Secretary to identify and interview candidates.
3. Selection Process: A competitive selection process is conducted, often involving interviews and assessments. The selection panel typically includes representatives from the Home Office, MOPAC, and other senior officials.
4. Approval: The Home Secretary makes the final decision on the appointment, taking into account the views of the Mayor of London.
5. Formal Appointment: Once a candidate is chosen, the Home Secretary formally appoints the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PLeon-kd1yd well, whether train drivers are overpaid or not is a matter of your opinion for which you and I have a right to hold. However, lazy is a very misleading and unfair accusation simply based on the facts: Train drivers are not lazy. Their job requires a high level of responsibility and focus, as they are in charge of operating heavy machinery, ensuring passenger safety, and adhering to strict schedules. They often work long hours, deal with high stress due to safety concerns, and sometimes have to respond to emergencies. Like any profession, there may be individual differences, but train driving as a career demands considerable skill and dedication. Like any profession there will be a minority of lazy workers but you can be thankful that the next time you travel by train the overwhelming probability (based on statistical fact) is that you will have a dedicated, skilled, and professional train driver looking after your safety.
1
-
1
-
1
-
The claim that immigrants to the UK want to change its culture is often made, but the available evidence does not support the idea that this is a widespread or coordinated intention. On the contrary, research and data consistently shows the opposite, for example the British Future Survey (2022), found that a majority of immigrants express a strong desire to integrate into British society, including learning the language and adopting British values. The report highlights that most migrants view Britain positively and respect its traditions.
Likewise the IPPR Report (2020), concluded that migrants generally assimilate into UK culture over time, especially in areas like employment, education, and community engagement.
Immigrants, like all communities, retain aspects of their cultural heritage (e.g., food, language, religious practices), but this does not equate to an effort to “change” British culture.
While some individuals may hold different values or preferences, the overall data suggests that most immigrants integrate into British society rather than seek to change it fundamentally. There is no substantial evidence of a coordinated effort to replace or undermine British culture—rather, cultural exchange and adaptation occur as they have throughout history.
Probably best not to believe everything written in the Daily Mail.
1
-
1
-
@EgoChip who said we want criminals? The reasons why many genuine asylum seekers do not use legal routes is very well documented. The UK offers very few official legal routes for asylum seekers to apply for protection. For example, resettlement schemes or family reunification programs exist but are often limited in scale, have strict eligibility criteria, and do not cover all types of asylum seekers. As a result, many people cannot access these pathways.
In addition the UK generally requires asylum seekers to be physically present in the country to apply for asylum. Unlike some other countries, the UK does not allow people to apply for asylum from abroad (with some exceptions, such as refugee resettlement). This means that many have no choice but to reach the UK by irregular means in order to seek asylum. There are other reasons too. Many asylum seekers flee countries with oppressive regimes, war zones, or failed states, where it may be impossible to obtain legal travel documents. Additionally, it is almost impossible for people fleeing persecution to obtain a UK visa for travel, as they may not meet the requirements of ordinary visa categories such as work, study, or tourism. Furthermore Asylum seekers often flee life-threatening situations, such as war or persecution, and may have to leave their homes suddenly without time to navigate complex legal systems. Their priority is to find safety quickly, even if it means taking irregular routes, rather than waiting for potentially unavailable legal processes. Many asylum seekers may not be aware of any legal routes available to them or may lack access to legal advice that could help them understand the options. Additionally, misinformation or exploitation by traffickers and smugglers can lead them to believe that there are no safe and legal ways to reach the UK.
Finally, the UK is an island nation, which makes it more difficult for people to reach through regular travel means compared to countries accessible by land. This can force individuals to resort to irregular and dangerous routes to make it to the UK. For these reasons, many genuine asylum seekers are unable to use legal routes and end up risking their lives on dangerous journeys to reach safety in the UK.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@PeterWalker-on5kj If you are referring to “turning a blind eye” thats simply not true. It has been admitted and acknowledged as a result of the Jay Report amongst others. This led to many actions to address the valid concerns including:
Legislative and Policy Changes
Criminal Justice Responses: The UK government has strengthened the legal framework for prosecuting grooming gangs. This includes increasing sentences for offenders, making it easier to prosecute multiple offenders involved in grooming, and revising guidelines to ensure better protection for victims.
• Mandatory Reporting: Proposals for mandatory reporting of child abuse by professionals in positions of responsibility have been debated, with ongoing discussions about implementing more stringent requirements.
Increased Funding and Resources
• Specialist Units: Police forces have set up dedicated teams and units specializing in tackling CSE and grooming gangs. These units work closely with social services, schools, and other agencies to identify and prosecute offenders.
• Training and Awareness: Extensive training has been provided to police officers, social workers, and other professionals to improve their understanding of CSE and how to respond effectively. There has been a push to ensure that the lessons from past failures are incorporated into everyday practices.
Community Engagement and Prevention Programs
• Preventative Measures: Programs aimed at educating communities about the dangers of grooming and CSE have been rolled out, particularly in areas where these crimes have been prevalent.
• Support for Victims: The government and local authorities have increased support for victims of grooming gangs, including providing counseling, legal assistance, and other resources to help survivors rebuild their lives.
Accountability and Public Apologies
• Holding Authorities Accountable: Several police officers, council workers, and other officials have faced disciplinary actions, resignations, or dismissals due to their roles in failing to address grooming gang activities adequately.
• Public Apologies: In various instances, police forces and local councils have issued public apologies for their failures to protect victims and for the suffering caused by their inaction.
Public and Media Scrutiny
• Ongoing Investigations: There has been ongoing media coverage and public pressure, which has kept these issues in the public eye and ensured that authorities continue to prioritize CSE cases.
• Parliamentary Debates and Reports: Grooming gangs have been the subject of parliamentary debates, and multiple reports have been published by parliamentary committees, ensuring continuous governmental oversight.
These actions represent a concerted effort by the UK government and police to correct past failures, improve the protection of vulnerable children, and hold those responsible accountable.
1
-
@lisejacquelinerigault2575 well to say the French do zilch is simply not true is it. If you dont believe me then write to your MP and insist that the UK cancels the bilateral agreement it has with France to tackle this problem and good luck with that policy if it ever gets enacted. These are the actual facts: In 2022, French authorities intercepted approximately 33,000 attempts by individuals to cross the English Channel in small boats, which marked a significant increase from around 23,000 interceptions in 2021. This represents a roughly 43% increase year over year. However thats not ‘zilch’. However, while the number of people being stopped has increased, the percentage of attempts that were successfully intercepted has slightly decreased, indicating that more people are attempting to cross, and the task of preventing these crossings is becoming more challenging. Have you seen the length of coastline we are talking about?
To provide a more recent update, by mid-2024, the number of crossings remained high, with French authorities continuing their efforts to prevent as many crossings as possible, though exact figures for the current year are not yet fully consolidated .
These statistics highlight both the scale of the problem and the ongoing efforts by French police to address it. Misleading or totally untrue statements about the efforts of French police in conjunction with British police on French soil is totally unhelpful to the massive task of stopping migrant boats. We need French support. We don’t need to destroy it.
1
-
1
-
@stratoreyener461 by minimum effort I assume you are not referring to the French authorities intercepting approximately 33,000 attempts by individuals to cross the English Channel in small boats in 2022, which marked a significant increase from around 23,000 interceptions in 2021. This represents a roughly 43% increase year over year. However, while the number of people being stopped has increased, the percentage of attempts that were successfully intercepted has slightly decreased, indicating that more people are attempting to cross, and the task of preventing these crossings is becoming more challenging. Have you any idea of the length of the French coastline? Or does that not factor into your elementary thinking ?
To provide a more recent update, by mid-2024, the number of crossings remained high, with French authorities continuing their efforts to prevent as many crossings as possible, though exact figures for the current year are not yet fully consolidated - I am happy to report on these figure but only if you are interested in facts as opposed to fake news.
These statistics highlight both the scale of the problem and the ongoing efforts by French police and British police who I are operating on french soil, to address it.
1
-
@lisejacquelinerigault2575 by ‘zilch’ i assume you exclude the interception of approximately 33,000 attempts by individuals to cross the English Channel in small boats in 2022 (latest verifiable data) which marked a significant increase from around 23,000 interceptions in 2021. This represents a roughly 43% increase year over year. However, while the number of people being stopped has increased, the percentage of attempts that were successfully intercepted has slightly decreased, indicating that more people are attempting to cross, and the task of preventing these crossings is becoming more challenging. Have you seen the length of the French coast?
To provide a more recent update, by mid-2024, the number of crossings remained high, with French authorities continuing their efforts to prevent as many crossings as possible, though exact figures for the current year are not yet fully consolidated
Your comments don’t help. Imagine for a second, without French helps, which they are no longer obliged to do since we left the EU, would mean 23,000 more boats in 2022. Do you think it’s got less in 2024? Since #Brexit we no longer have any EU right to return immigrants to the EU. Think about it. Preferably before you post misleading comments.
1
-
1
-
Well that statement is going a bit too far. The claim about a £22 billion “black hole” in the UK’s public finances is based on findings from a Treasury audit conducted after the Labour government came to power in 2024. This audit revealed an estimated £21.9 billion overspend on government departmental budgets, including extra expenses for the asylum system, transport, and public sector pay.
However, there is debate surrounding this figure. Labour officials argue it represents an unexpected shortfall they inherited from the previous Conservative government, while some experts, like those from the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), point out that much of this overspend was foreseeable. Conservatives have also accused Labour of using this figure to justify potential tax increases.
The term “black hole” is controversial, as the extent to which this gap was truly unforeseen is disputed, and some financial pressures could have been anticipated with better forecasting.
In conclusion, while the figure is not entirely fabricated, its characterization as a “black hole” may be somewhat exaggerated, depending on one’s political perspective   .
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@angelamary9493 And that is why you still have it. It has been a right built up over centuries but has never been an absolute right. There are limitations summarised below. Which of these don’t you like:
1. Hate Speech Laws:
- Public Order Act 1986: This act makes it an offense to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior with the intent to stir up racial hatred. It was later expanded to include hatred based on religion and sexual orientation.
- Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006: This specifically addresses stirring up hatred against persons on religious grounds.
2. Libel and Defamation:
- Defamation Act 2013: Under UK law, defamatory statements can lead to civil lawsuits if they damage someone's reputation. The law requires claimants to show that the statement caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to their reputation. There are defenses such as truth, honest opinion, and publication on a matter of public interest.
3. Contempt of Court:
- Contempt of Court Act 1981: This act restricts speech that might prejudice ongoing legal proceedings. This includes publications that could affect the fairness of a trial, like discussing the guilt or innocence of a defendant before a trial has concluded.
4. National Security:
- Official Secrets Acts (1911, 1989): These laws make it illegal to disclose information considered a threat to national security. This includes espionage, leaking classified information, and publishing sensitive military details.
5. Obscenity and Indecency:
- Obscene Publications Act 1959 and 1964: These acts criminalize the publication of obscene materials, defined as those tending to "deprave and corrupt" those who are likely to read, see, or hear them.
- Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981: This act controls the public display of indecent matter.
6. Anti-Terrorism Legislation:
- Terrorism Act 2000 and 2006: These laws include provisions that criminalize the glorification of terrorism and the dissemination of terrorist publications. Speech that is seen to encourage or incite terrorism can be restricted under these acts.
7. Communications Act 2003:
- Section 127 of this act makes it illegal to send a message that is grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing through a public electronic communications network. This law has been applied to social media and other digital platforms.
8. Harassment and Public Order:
- Protection from Harassment Act 1997: This law criminalizes harassment and can apply to speech that causes someone to fear violence or experience serious distress.
- Public Order Act 1986: This act also criminalizes certain types of speech in public that could lead to violence or disorder, including speech that is likely to provoke a breach of the peace.
9. Regulation of the Media:
- Broadcasting Code (Ofcom): The UK media regulator, Ofcom, enforces standards for broadcast content, ensuring that it does not include harmful or offensive material, incitement to crime, or material that could be harmful to children.
10. Data Protection and Privacy:
- Data Protection Act 2018 (and the GDPR): This legislation restricts the publication of personal data without consent and provides individuals with rights over how their personal information is used and shared.
11. Other Restrictions:
- Blasphemy Laws: Historically, the UK had blasphemy laws, although these were effectively abolished in England and Wales in 2008.
- Speech in the Workplace and Institutions: There are also regulations within workplaces and educational institutions to prevent harassment and discrimination, which can limit certain forms of speech.
These limitations are intended to protect individuals and society from harm while ensuring that freedom of expression does not infringe upon other rights or public safety. The balancing act between free speech and these restrictions is often debated, especially when new laws or interpretations of existing laws come into play.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@liamstrange4939 And what evidence do you have that you are older than me? You are wrong again with your assumptions so perhaps that's an observable pattern that leads you to your incorrect conclusions? That thought might help you in the future hopefully. Everything I have said is verifiable - you can check. But to make it easy for you I will give you some pointers. Fact: UK is a secular state. You can look it up. Fact: the last census results showed circa 6.5% Muslim population in the UK. Facts relating to Muslim integration:
1. Educational Attainment: The educational attainment of British Muslims has been improving, with the percentage of Muslims achieving higher education qualifications.
Graduation Rates: Recent data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) indicates that the proportion of Muslim students achieving undergraduate degrees has steadily increased. In 2020-2021, Muslim students had a graduation rate comparable to the national average, showcasing the community's growing educational success."
This demonstrates increasing integration within the UK’s educational system.
2. Employment: Muslims in the UK have shown significant participation in the workforce, with a growing number of professionals, entrepreneurs, and business leaders contributing to the economy. The Muslim Council of Britain highlights that Muslims are found in all sectors, from medicine and law to media and technology."
— Muslim Council of Britain Report, 201*
3. Political Engagement: The number of Muslim Members of Parliament (MPs) has risen steadily, with 18 Muslim MPs elected in the 2019 general election. This represents a growing political engagement and integration of Muslims within the UK’s democratic processes.
— BBC News, December 2019
4. Social Integration: Surveys indicate that British Muslims feel a strong sense of belonging to the UK. A 2016 study by the Policy Exchange found that 93% of British Muslims agreed that they felt a strong sense of belonging to Britain, higher than the national average of 88%.
— Policy Exchange Report, 2016
These examples collectively suggest that the Muslim population in the UK is increasingly integrated across various facets of society, including education, employment, political participation, and social cohesion.
So once again, specifically, which of this data is factually incorrect and what is your evidence for your claim?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@kevinlinley3273 The cases of Nelson Mandela and Tommy Robinson are vastly different in terms of context, causes, and the circumstances under which they were jailed. This might help you to understand key differences.
Historical and Political Context
Nelson Mandela: He was jailed as part of a systemic apartheid regime in South Africa, which enforced racial segregation and denied basic rights to the majority Black population. Mandela’s activism was aimed at dismantling this oppressive system, and his imprisonment made him a global symbol of the fight for freedom and equality.
Tommy Robinson on the other hand is a far-right activist and former leader of the EDL who has been jailed for contempt of court and other legal violations, including mortgage fraud. To compare his actions with those of Mandela would be utterly absurd and show total ignorance of the facts.
Nature of Actions
Mandelas activism was rooted in principles of equality, justice, and human rights. While he was convicted for sabotage against the apartheid regime, his goal was liberation for an oppressed majority. Many view his imprisonment as a symbol of political suppression.
Robinson’s actions have included breaching court orders (e.g., filming outside trials in a way that could prejudice proceedings), which undermines the rule of law. His imprisonment has been for specific breaches of legal processes, rather than for advocating systemic change.
Public and Global Perception
Mandela is seen as a hero by the majority of the global community, Mandela’s imprisonment galvanized international movements against apartheid, leading to widespread condemnation of the South African government.
Robinson is a polarizing figure. While his supporters claim he is a victim of censorship or persecution, critics view his actions as harmful and disruptive to social cohesion, often pointing to his association with far-right ideologies which aim to undermine democratic institutions - the exact opposite of Mandela.
Broader Impact
Mandela s imprisonment helped to unify people against an unjust system, eventually leading to the dismantling of apartheid and the establishment of a democratic South Africa.
Robinson’s actions and imprisonment have sparked debates around free speech, media coverage, and extremism. However, his impact is more localized and controversial, often deepening societal divides rather than addressing systemic injustice.
Key Difference
Mandela’s imprisonment is widely regarded as unjust because it was tied to his fight against an oppressive regime. In contrast, Robinson’s legal troubles stem from breaches of law within a democratic system, which many argue are legitimate consequences of his own actions rather than political persecution.
1
-
@kevinxxxx Its not about what I want to believe. its simply about facts. All I do is point out when something is simply untrue - whether you like it or not. Since you don't want to research it yourself I will do it for you; here are the facts in more detail:
Immigrants to the UK do not receive "free handouts" in the way the term is often used. However, certain forms of limited support are available, primarily for asylum seekers or refugees, under very specific circumstances. Here’s a breakdown of what different groups of immigrants might receive:
Asylum Seekers
Asylum seekers—people who have applied for refugee status but are waiting for a decision—are eligible for very limited support:
- Accommodation: Asylum seekers may be provided with accommodation, but they cannot choose where they live. The housing provided is usually in basic hostels, shared accommodation, or temporary housing.
- Financial Support: Asylum seekers are given a small weekly allowance to cover basic living expenses like food, clothing, and toiletries. This allowance is £45.00 per person per week (as of 2024), which is meant to cover all their essentials. This is far below the amount provided by mainstream welfare benefits.
- Healthcare: Asylum seekers are entitled to access the National Health Service (NHS) for free, like UK citizens, but this is not unique to them, as all residents of the UK are entitled to healthcare under the NHS.
- No Work Rights: Asylum seekers are generally not allowed to work while their application is being processed, which can take several months or even years.
Refugees
Refugees—those who have been granted asylum—are entitled to work and access public services just like any other UK resident. They do not receive special treatment in terms of financial "handouts."
- Access to Benefits: Once granted refugee status, they can apply for welfare benefits if they are eligible, just like any UK citizen. This includes access to housing benefits, Universal Credit, or other income support if they meet the same criteria as other residents. There is no extra money or benefits solely because they are refugees.
- Housing: Refugees can apply for social housing, but they must join the same waiting list as other UK residents. Housing is allocated based on need and availability, not on refugee status alone.
Economic Migrants
Economic migrants—those who come to the UK for work—do not have access to most public funds, including welfare benefits, housing benefits, or income support.
- No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF): Most immigrants on work visas are subject to the condition of "no recourse to public funds," which means they cannot access welfare benefits such as Universal Credit, housing benefits, or other types of state support. They are expected to support themselves financially.
International Students
International students are another large group of immigrants who do not receive handouts.
- No Access to Public Funds: Like economic migrants, international students are generally barred from accessing welfare benefits and housing support. They are required to prove that they have sufficient funds to cover their tuition fees and living expenses when they apply for a student visa.
EU Migrants
Since Brexit, EU migrants are subject to the same rules as non-EU migrants, meaning they generally do not have automatic access to benefits unless they meet specific requirements.
- Pre-Brexit Arrivals: EU citizens who were living in the UK before the end of the Brexit transition period (December 31, 2020) and who have "settled status" can access welfare benefits in the same way as UK citizens. However, new arrivals from the EU after that date face the same restrictions as other non-EU migrants.
Family Reunion
Migrants coming to the UK under family reunion programs (e.g., joining a spouse or a relative who is already settled in the UK) are also subject to visa conditions that often include "no recourse to public funds."
Misconceptions
- Public Services Access: Like all UK residents, immigrants have access to the NHS for healthcare and can send their children to public schools. These services are not considered "handouts," as they are available to everyone residing in the UK.
- Emergency Support: Some forms of emergency support may be available for people who find themselves in extreme hardship, such as food banks or charitable services, but these are not government "handouts" and are often means-tested or given on a short-term basis.
Summary of Available Support:
- Asylum seekers: Basic accommodation and £45/week allowance.
- Refugees: Access to public funds, but only under the same conditions as UK citizens.
- Economic migrants and students: No access to public funds or benefits.
- EU migrants (post-Brexit): Subject to the same rules as non-EU migrants.
In general, the narrative that immigrants come to the UK for "free handouts" is a myth, as the support they might receive is limited, means-tested, and often restricted to specific groups like asylum seekers or those granted refugee status. Most immigrants are expected to support themselves financially, and many are legally barred from accessing public funds.
happy to go into more detail, especially the strict visa requirements including high salary thresholds required for economic migrants or family migrants but I get the distinct impression you are not interested in reality but instead prefer to perpetuate misleading or fake news.
1
-
@gloria3098 Claims about large amounts of money being spent on immigrants in the UK are often exaggerated or misrepresented. The figure of £9 million per week likely originates from estimates related to the cost of housing asylum seekers and refugees, particularly in temporary accommodations like hotels.
The UK government does spend money to support asylum seekers, covering housing, food, and basic needs while their applications are processed. In some periods, due to an increased number of asylum seekers and insufficient suitable accommodations, the cost has indeed risen significantly. However, the context and breakdown of these costs are important to understand.
Factors contributing to the costs include:
- The asylum application backlog, which results in longer stays in temporary accommodations.
- Limited availability of alternative housing.
- Support services for vulnerable individuals (like families or those with health issues).
It's also worth noting that this spending does not necessarily mean that money is handed directly to individuals but rather covers services, housing, and administrative costs.
Last but not least, many immigrants coming to the UK on work visas, student visas, or other types of visas are generally not allowed access to public funds. This means they cannot claim certain benefits, like housing support or social security payments. These individuals are often required to support themselves financially or have a sponsor, and they usually pay into the system through taxes if working.
In particular Undocumented Immigrants:
People living in the UK without legal immigration status generally do not have access to public benefits and often live in a precarious situation, relying on support from charities or informal work.
So, while some groups, like asylum seekers, receive limited support due to their unique circumstances, most immigrants do not receive “free handouts” and either must support themselves or are entitled to the same social benefits as UK citizens based on eligibility and need.
1
-
@lyntonryan4766 when people start using abuse insterad of facts it tends to suggest the abuser doesnt know what he/she is talking about. You asked for more detail and here it is. By the way, i dont go into opinions, I only talk about actual factual evidence. In answer to your request for more detail then, here it is, and its my pleasure to help. I understand you dont actualy want to see the truth but there might just be someone on here who is interested in the actual facts:
Several pieces of evidence suggest that most immigrants do not come to the UK primarily for "free handouts." Here's a summary of key findings and data that support this perspective:
1. Labor Market Data
Work is the Primary Reason for Migration: According to the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS), work remains the most common reason for immigration to the UK. In recent years, more than half of all immigrants came for employment, often filling gaps in the labor market.
A significant proportion of immigrants enter the UK on skilled worker visas or student visas, which require proof of self-sufficiency and are tied to employment or education, respectively.
2. Limited Access to Benefits
No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF): Many visas have the NRPF condition, meaning that migrants on these visas are not eligible for welfare benefits such as housing support, child benefit, or tax credits. Skilled worker visas, for example, come with this restriction.
Work Requirement for Benefits: EU nationals, for example, were previously able to access some benefits in the UK under certain conditions, but they had to prove they were actively working or looking for work. Even refugees and asylum seekers have restricted access to benefits and are often required to prove their need.
3. Contribution to the Economy
Higher Employment Rate: Immigrants often have higher employment rates compared to UK-born citizens. Data from the ONS consistently show that non-EU migrants and recent EU migrants have higher employment rates, indicating that they are contributing to the economy through work rather than relying on benefits.
Net Contribution to Public Finances: Studies, such as those conducted by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) and the Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration (CReAM), indicate that recent migrants make a positive net contribution to public finances. EU migrants, in particular, have been found to contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits and public services.
4. Survey Data and Motivations
Migration for Economic Opportunities: Studies and surveys often indicate that economic opportunities, education, and family reunification are the primary motivations for migration, rather than access to benefits. For example, a 2018 study by the Pew Research Center found that most migrants cite work, study, or family reasons as the main factors for moving.
Student Migration: A significant portion of immigrants come to the UK as students, and they pay substantial tuition fees, which are often higher than those paid by domestic students. This indicates that they are contributing economically rather than seeking "free handouts."
5. Asylum Seekers and Refugees
Limited Financial Support: Asylum seekers are provided with very minimal financial support during the processing of their claims (£45 per person per week) and are generally not allowed to work. Once granted refugee status, they have access to benefits like any other UK citizen, but the process to be granted asylum is stringent and often takes years.
Overall, the evidence points to the fact that the majority of immigrants come to the UK for work, study, or family reasons, rather than for benefits. The restrictions on access to welfare and the net economic contributions of migrants further support the argument that the motivation to migrate to the UK is not primarily to access "free handouts."
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@terryfoster1706 probably not the wisest move. If someone decided to pay their energy bill minus £300 in protest at the removal of the winter fuel allowance, they would likely face several consequences:
1. Accrual of Debt: The unpaid £300 would be treated as debt by the energy supplier. This would lead to an outstanding balance on the account, which the supplier would eventually demand be paid in full.
2. Late Payment Fees: Many energy suppliers charge late payment fees when bills aren't paid in full. These fees could increase the amount owed over time.
3. Credit Rating Impact: Unpaid bills, including energy bills, are often reported to credit reference agencies. This could negatively affect the person’s credit score, making it harder to obtain loans, mortgages, or other forms of credit in the future.
4. Threat of Disconnection: If the debt accumulates and remains unpaid, the energy supplier might threaten to disconnect the person's energy supply. Before this happens, suppliers usually offer payment plans or install a prepayment meter, where the person pays for energy in advance.
5. Legal Action: In extreme cases, if the debt continues to go unpaid, the supplier could take legal action to recover the money owed. This could involve court proceedings and additional legal costs.
6. Prepayment Meter: Suppliers might opt to install a prepayment meter in the customer’s home to ensure they can only use energy that has been paid for in advance.
It’s worth noting that while protests like these may feel like a stand against a policy decision, they often harm the individual more than they pressure the government or energy suppliers to make changes. Alternative forms of protest, such as petitions or lobbying, might have more meaningful impact without these negative consequences.
1
-
@moonstone5565 There was! Yes, in the past it was possible for pensioners to reject or opt out of receiving the Winter Fuel Payment. Some pensioners, who felt they did not need the additional financial support, chose to decline it. However, the process for opting out wasn't widely advertised, and most people simply accepted the payment automatically.
While some may have chosen to donate their allowance to charity instead, the automatic nature of the payment meant that actively rejecting it required specific action, such as contacting the relevant government department to opt out.
In practice it was often deemed to complicated and, a bit like negative insurance clauses in documents where you have to tick a box NOT to have something, a lot of people didn’t bother. The alternative, to opt in, would be even worse since that would require the most disadvantaged to do so causing no end of issues, quite apart from the cost of administering such a scheme.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@elliegoldie6140 You seem to be confusing different things. Members of Parliament (MPs) do not receive a second Winter Fuel Payment for having a second home. Like other citizens, they are only eligible for one Winter Fuel Payment based on their primary residence, assuming they meet the age and residency criteria. MPs do not receive special treatment or additional allowances for this payment.
In the U.K., the Winter Fuel Payment (WFP) is generally provided to individuals who have reached the State Pension age and meet specific residency criteria. However, second homes do not qualify separately for the Winter Fuel Payment; it is tied to the person, not the property.
If you own more than one property, the payment is only made to the address that is registered as your main residence. Therefore, second homes do not get an additional allowance.
Perhaps you are thinking about MPs living expenses if they claim for another property by virtue of their constituency being far away from parliament. These expenses are nothing to do with WTP. MPs do not receive a specific "heating allowance" for a second home. However, they can claim certain expenses related to maintaining a second home or accommodation in London to perform their parliamentary duties. This includes costs for rent, utilities (which may cover heating), council tax, and other necessary expenses, as per the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) rules.
These allowances are designed to support MPs who need to live in two locations: one in their constituency and another near Parliament. However, the expenses claimed must be within set limits and are subject to transparency and regulation.
1
-
1
-
@ABM750 except that good does come from it:
1. Workforce Participation:
• According to a 2020 report by the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), migrants (including undocumented ones) are overrepresented in low-skilled sectors like hospitality (30%), construction (14%), and social care (17%). These sectors often rely on migrant labor due to difficulties in recruiting UK-born workers.
• In sectors like agriculture, illegal immigrants are often crucial to maintaining the workforce, with up to 20% of labor in some industries (like fruit picking) being performed by undocumented workers.
2. Economic Contribution via Consumption:
• Even if not directly contributing through income tax, undocumented migrants still contribute to VAT. The average UK household pays around £5,800 annually in VAT (per Office for National Statistics). If even a fraction of the estimated undocumented population (ranging from 800,000 to 1.2 million) spends at this rate, they contribute billions to the economy.
3. Overall Migrant Contributions:
• While illegal immigration data is scarce, studies on legal immigration may provide a useful proxy. A 2018 study from the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics showed that immigration as a whole has little to no negative impact on wages or employment for UK-born workers and actually has a small positive effect on the economy.
• According to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR), EU migrants (which could include some undocumented workers) have made a net positive fiscal contribution of £2,300 per head annually. Non-EU migrants make a smaller but still positive net contribution.
4. Tax Contributions from Undocumented Workers:
• While many illegal immigrants work in the informal economy, some studies suggest that undocumented workers in some sectors are actually paying taxes. In the United States, for example (which has parallels to the UK situation), it’s estimated that undocumented immigrants contribute around $11.74 billion annually in state and local taxes. While direct UK figures aren’t as easily available, similar mechanisms are likely in place.
5. Demographic and Workforce Support:
• The UK’s aging population presents a challenge to the labor market. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), by 2050, almost one in four people will be aged 65 or over. Migrants, including illegal immigrants, are typically younger and of working age, which helps balance out the workforce and supports pension systems indirectly by sustaining economic activity.
6. Healthcare and Public Services:
• A 2020 report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) suggests that while there are costs associated with providing healthcare and education to undocumented migrants, the overall fiscal impact is often overstated. The NHS, for example, spends a small percentage of its budget on treating undocumented migrants, who also contribute to the system through indirect taxes like VAT.
7. Cost of Deportation:
• There are significant costs associated with deporting undocumented immigrants. The UK Home Office’s estimates from 2019 suggest that deporting a single individual costs around £12,000 to £25,000, not including legal fees, detention, and ongoing enforcement costs. These costs are considerably higher than any assumed fiscal burden undocumented immigrants may place on public services in many cases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@alangardner8596 I think I can see where you are confused. Correct me if you meant something else but my point about Schengen wasn't anything to do with the free movement aspect, it was to do with the significant impact this now has on the UK. This is important because the UK is now at a significant disadvantage compared to Switzerland because of Brexit.
Since the UK is no longer part of the European Union (and thus no longer part of the Dublin Agreement), the UK's exit from the EU and the Schengen Area has had several significant impacts on its immigration and asylum policies:
The Dublin Agreement is a key mechanism that regulates which country in the EU (and Schengen Area) is responsible for processing asylum applications. Under this agreement:
Asylum seekers must apply for asylum in the first EU country they enter.
If they travel to another EU country, they can be returned to the first country where they entered and applied for asylum.
Now that the UK is no longer part of the Dublin system due to Brexit, this means:
No automatic returns to other EU countries: The UK can no longer return asylum seekers to the first EU country they entered under the Dublin Regulation. This used to be a mechanism the UK relied on to reduce the burden of processing asylum claims for people who had passed through countries like France or Greece.
In the absence of the Dublin Agreement, the UK has had to develop new bilateral or multilateral agreements with individual EU countries for cooperation on asylum and immigration matters. However, as of now, there is no comprehensive replacement for the Dublin Regulation. This affects:
Asylum cooperation: Without the DA, there is no legal basis for returning migrants between the UK and EU countries unless specific agreements are in place. The UK has made efforts to negotiate deals with countries like France, but these are more limited in scope.
Border and security cooperation: The UK also loses access to key EU systems like the Schengen Information System (SIS) and the Eurodac database, which track asylum seekers' fingerprints across the EU. This reduces the UK's ability to easily identify if an asylum seeker has already applied in another EU country.
The lack of a replacement for the Dublin Agreement may have several effects on migration flows:
Increased difficulty in managing asylum seekers: With no formal framework for returning asylum seekers to other EU countries, the UK may face increased pressure to handle more asylum claims domestically. This might increase the number of people seeking asylum in the UK.
Channel crossings: The end of the Dublin Agreement has coincided with a notable rise in the number of migrants and asylum seekers crossing the English Channel by small boats from France to the UK. The UK government has attributed part of this increase to the absence of Dublin-style returns and has made efforts to curb these crossings through increased border patrols and bilateral agreements with France, though challenges remain.
1
-
@alangardner8596 That is simply not true. Both Switzerland and the UK have strong deportation policies, but the UK has taken a more public stance on deterrence. Switzerland, on the other hand, typically focuses on pragmatic and efficient deportation processes.
The UK has a stricter stance on asylum, particularly after Brexit, with the government reducing options for regularisation. Switzerland has a similarly tough asylum system but is sometimes seen as more flexible in cases involving humanitarian concerns or long-term residents.
Integration Policies: Switzerland offers limited integration opportunities at the cantonal level for certain illegal immigrants, while the UK’s "Hostile Environment" policy aims to restrict services to those without documentation. This makes life more difficult for illegal immigrants in the UK.
In both countries, immigration is a highly politicized issue. However, the UK’s immigration debate is more visible internationally, particularly after Brexit, with frequent discussions on reducing immigration numbers. Switzerland’s discussions, while equally intense, tend to focus more on practical enforcement rather than high-profile political rhetoric.
Regarding your second sentence, the specific number of 1.6 million as "new arrivals" in a single year is not supported by mainstream data for any recent year.
I assume you are referring to so called data coming from The Centre for Migration Control (CMC). The CMC is not widely recognized as a mainstream or academic institution and is not mentioned frequently in major, reputable sources like the UK's Office for National Statistics (ONS) or large international organizations like the UN or the International Organization for Migration (IOM). Think tanks and advocacy groups like the CMC often produce reports to support specific policy positions, and the reputability of such organizations can vary depending on their methodologies, transparency, and biases.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@azazel_5319 Not exactly right - you rounded up by quite a bit - but your point is still valid. The 2024 UK general election brought significant changes in the political landscape. Here are some key details about the results:
1. Labour Party:
• Labour won 33.7% of the total vote share, which is a slight increase from their 2019 result of 32.1%. However, this is still lower than their 2017 result of 41%  .
• In terms of seats, Labour secured a commanding majority with 412 seats, which is 63% of all available seats in the House of Commons . Labour made significant gains in constituencies previously held by the Conservatives, such as Tamworth and Finchley .
• Notably, Labour had a huge breakthrough in Scotland, winning 37 seats (up from just 1 in 2019) due to major swings from the Scottish National Party (SNP) .
2. Conservative Party:
• The Conservatives suffered severe losses, winning 23.7% of the vote share and securing just 121 seats, a historic low  . This represented a loss of 251 seats compared to their 2019 result.
3. Liberal Democrats:
• The Liberal Democrats had one of their best performances ever, winning 12% of the vote share and 72 seats . This was a notable increase from their previous elections, with significant swings in several former Conservative constituencies, particularly in the South East .
4. Reform UK:
• Reform UK also saw substantial growth, capturing 14.3% of the vote share, although they only won 5 seats . Their presence had a notable impact on right-wing voters, splitting the conservative vote in many areas .
5. Other Parties:
• The SNP suffered major losses, winning just 9 seats, down from 48 in 2019 .
• The Green Party made gains, securing 6.39% of the vote share, and won 4 seats, the highest in their history .
6. Voter Turnout:
• Voter turnout was 59.8%, the lowest in over two decades, down from 67.3% in 2019 .
These results reflect a significant shift in the UK political landscape, with Labour achieving a strong victory, the Conservatives suffering a historic defeat, and smaller parties making record gains. The devil however is in the detail. If your wish is for Reform to succeed then it might just be a fools gold to go for the Labour vote (the stated aim of Reform). The detailed data suggests that this will not work. At least what I have seen anyway.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, it is not true to say that every illegal immigrant in the U.K. gets a free house or flat and free healthcare.
Housing:
Illegal immigrants in the U.K. are not entitled to government-provided housing. In fact, people living in the U.K. without legal status face significant barriers to accessing public services, including housing. The government has policies in place to prevent people without legal status from renting properties, such as the "Right to Rent" checks, where landlords are required to verify the immigration status of their tenants. Those without legal status often live in precarious situations, sometimes relying on informal arrangements, shelters, or staying with friends or relatives.
Healthcare:
The situation with healthcare is more complex. The U.K.'s National Health Service (NHS) provides some healthcare services free of charge to everyone, regardless of immigration status, such as emergency care, treatment for infectious diseases, and maternity services. However, other non-emergency services are chargeable for those who are not legally entitled to reside in the U.K. Hospitals are required to check the immigration status of patients and may charge those who do not qualify for free care. That said, the charges for healthcare can be significant and are a deterrent for illegal immigrants accessing non-emergency services.
In summary, the notion that illegal immigrants in the U.K. receive free housing and healthcare is a misconception. While they may access some emergency health services, they do not have entitlement to free housing, and most healthcare services require payment unless they are considered essential and cannot be withheld.
1
-
1