Comments by "TruthWarrior" (@Truth-warrior-j3e) on "British Stand"
channel.
-
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