Comments by "TruthWarrior" (@Truth-warrior-j3e) on ""Keir Starmer Wants To Give Asylum Seekers Full Amnesty” Says Caller Charlie" video.
-
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
-
1
-
You are factually incorrect. To be clear, the reference you're making likely stems from a controversial claim made by political figures or commentators, particularly during debates or accusations about Keir Starmer, the leader of the UK Labour Party. The connection to Jimmy Savile, a notorious figure who was revealed posthumously to have been a prolific sex offender, often arises in the context of criticism of Starmer’s past role as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) in the UK.
Before becoming the leader of the Labour Party, Starmer served as the Director of Public Prosecutions from 2008 to 2013. As DPP, he was the head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).
Savile was a well-known TV personality in the UK who, after his death in 2011, was found to have committed numerous sexual offenses over several decades. The scale of his crimes was only fully revealed after his death, leading to widespread public outrage.
Critics have sometimes attempted to link Starmer to the failure to prosecute Savile during his time as DPP. The argument is that under Starmer’s watch, the CPS did not bring charges against Savile, despite allegations being known. However, it's important to clarify that the decision not to prosecute Savile was made by local prosecutors in 2009, before some of the more significant evidence came to light. Starmer has publicly stated that the CPS under his leadership reviewed the case later and issued an apology for the failure to pursue the charges at the time.
This claim has been used politically, most notably by Prime Minister Boris Johnson during a heated debate in the House of Commons in early 2022. Johnson suggested that Starmer had "failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile," a statement that was widely criticized and led to controversy. Many viewed it as an unfair and misleading attack, and some Conservative MPs even distanced themselves from the remark. Johnson later clarified his statement, but the incident remains a significant moment of tension between the two political leaders.
The claim linking Keir Starmer to the failure to prosecute Jimmy Savile is largely regarded as misleading, as the decision not to prosecute was made by others, and the full extent of Savile's crimes was not known at the time.
1
-
I would love to know how you come to this conclusion. The United Kingdom is not becoming an Islamic state. The UK is a secular country with a diverse population that includes people of various religious beliefs, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, and many others, as well as those who are non-religious. The UK has a long-standing tradition of religious tolerance and freedom, and its legal and political systems are based on secular principles, with the Church of England having a symbolic role in some aspects of governance.
The idea that the UK is "becoming an Islamic state" is a misconception often propagated by misinformation or fearmongering. While the Muslim population in the UK has grown in recent decades, it remains a minority, and there is no evidence or credible movement towards establishing Islamic law (Sharia) as the law of the land in the UK.
In summary, the UK is not becoming an Islamic state; it remains a multicultural, secular society that respects the rights and freedoms of all its citizens.
1
-
1
-
1
-
@neillaw Incorrect, asylum seekers come from a wide variety of countries, not just France. People seek asylum when they are fleeing persecution, conflict, or serious human rights violations in their home countries. The countries of origin for asylum seekers can vary widely depending on global events, political situations, and conflicts.
In Europe, many asylum seekers may pass through France on their way to the UK or other destinations because France is geographically close. However, these individuals typically originate from different countries outside of Europe, such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea, and many others. They often travel through multiple countries, including France, to reach their final destination.
France itself is not a major source of asylum seekers, but rather a transit or destination country for those fleeing difficult situations elsewhere.
Due to Brexit the UK is no longer covered by the Dublin Agreement which required France to take back asylum seekers that originated from France.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@greatscott369 I certainly agree we should love more. I also agree with you that all media has bias. But we can still do a lot to fact check and also avoid repeating unsubstantiated fake news. Regarding media I disagree that it is all extreme. I hope this sets the record straight - at least as straight as I can find it allowing for my own bias of course:
The media landscape in the UK, like in many other countries, is diverse, with a range of perspectives and editorial stances. While some outlets are known for having a particular political or ideological bias, it is not accurate to say that all UK media is extreme or biased. Here’s a breakdown:
1. Diverse Media Landscape:
- Public Broadcasters: The BBC, as the UK's public service broadcaster, is generally expected to maintain neutrality and provide balanced reporting. However, it has faced criticism from various sides, accusing it of bias either towards or against certain political perspectives. Despite this, it remains one of the most trusted sources of news in the UK.
- Commercial Broadcasters: Channels like ITV and Channel 4 are also regulated to ensure they provide balanced and impartial news coverage, though some might argue there are subtle biases based on the choice of stories covered or the framing of issues.
2. Print Media:
- Newspapers: The UK's print media is highly varied, with some newspapers known for their political leanings. For example:
- Right-leaning: The Daily Mail, The Sun, The Telegraph.
- Left-leaning: The Guardian, The Mirror.
- These newspapers often reflect their editorial stances in the way stories are presented, the language used, and the selection of stories, which can lead to perceived bias.
3. Tabloid vs. Broadsheet:
- Tabloids like The Sun and The Daily Mirror are known for sensationalist headlines and sometimes more extreme positions, often focusing on entertainment and populist issues.
- Broadsheets like The Times and The Guardian traditionally offer more in-depth analysis and are less sensationalist, though they still have their own editorial biases.
4. Online Media and Social Media:
- The rise of online platforms has led to an increase in both extreme and biased content. Social media algorithms often amplify sensational or partisan content, which can contribute to the perception that media is increasingly extreme.
5. Regulation:
- UK media is regulated by bodies like Ofcom (for broadcasters) and IPSO (for most newspapers), which set guidelines to ensure fairness and accuracy. However, the effectiveness of these regulations is sometimes debated.
6. Consumer Choices:
- Media consumers in the UK have access to a wide range of sources, from the impartial to the highly biased. The perception of bias can often depend on the individual’s own beliefs and the sources they choose to consume.
Conclusion:
While some UK media outlets do exhibit clear biases, particularly in the print and online sectors, it is not accurate to say that all media in the UK is extreme or biased. There are reputable sources that strive for impartiality, though the diversity of perspectives means that biases are present in varying degrees. Media literacy is key for consumers to navigate this landscape effectively.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
except of course that statement is simply untrue. The Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party, or NSDAP) was not far left. It was a far-right political party. Despite the word "socialist" in its name, which can lead to some confusion, the party's ideology was rooted in extreme nationalism, authoritarianism, and fascism. It promoted ideas of racial purity, anti-Semitism, and anti-communism, and it sought to establish a totalitarian state.
The Nazi Party was opposed to left-wing ideologies such as communism and socialism, which advocate for class equality, workers' rights, and often the abolition of private property. The Nazis, instead, promoted a hierarchical society based on race and national identity, with a strong emphasis on private property and the suppression of any left-wing political movements.
In summary, the Nazi Party is historically and ideologically classified as a far-right movement.
1
-
1
-
1
-
Answer: Genuine asylum seekers often face significant challenges in providing their identification documents due to a variety of factors. Here are some of the common problems they encounter:
1. Destruction or Loss of Documents
Conflict or Persecution: Many asylum seekers come from war-torn regions or areas where persecution is rampant. During their flight, they might lose their documents or destroy them to avoid identification by persecutors.
Natural Disasters: Some flee from areas affected by natural disasters, where infrastructure, including government offices, may be destroyed, leading to a loss of personal documents.
2. Lack of Access to Documents
Imprisonment or Detention: Some individuals are imprisoned or detained by authorities in their home countries, preventing them from accessing their documents.
Travel Restrictions: Governments may impose restrictions on travel, making it difficult for individuals to retrieve their documents, especially in cases where they need to leave quickly.
Government Non-Issuance: In some cases, the home government may refuse to issue identification documents to certain ethnic, religious, or political groups, making it impossible for them to obtain proper ID.
3. Fear of Reprisals
Targeted by Authorities: In many cases, asylum seekers are fleeing persecution from their own government. They may fear that carrying identification could expose them to further danger or that their identities could be traced back by hostile authorities.
Fear of Traffickers: Some may fear that traffickers or smugglers could use their documents to manipulate or control them during their journey.
4. Lack of Awareness or Knowledge
Illiteracy: Some asylum seekers may be illiterate and unable to read or understand the importance of keeping their documents.
Cultural Barriers: In some cultures, formal identification documents may not be commonly used or recognized, leading to a lack of documentation.
Unaware of Requirements: Many asylum seekers are unaware of the documentation requirements in the country they are seeking asylum in and may not prioritize keeping their documents.
5. Forgery and Fraud Concerns
Difficulty Proving Authenticity: Even if an asylum seeker has documents, proving their authenticity can be difficult. Documents from countries with corrupt or inefficient bureaucracies may be viewed with suspicion.
Forgery: Asylum seekers may have been forced to use forged documents to escape their country, which can complicate their asylum claims.
6. Border Controls and Confiscation
Confiscation by Authorities: Border officials or smugglers may confiscate or destroy documents during the asylum seeker’s journey.
Illegal Crossing: Many asylum seekers enter countries illegally due to restrictive immigration policies, often leaving their documents behind to avoid detection.
7. Lack of Support Structures
No Legal Assistance: Asylum seekers may lack access to legal assistance or organizations that could help them obtain or verify their identification documents.
Difficulty in Communication: Language barriers and unfamiliarity with legal systems can make it difficult to navigate the process of providing or obtaining necessary documents.
These challenges can complicate the asylum process, as many countries require documentation to verify the identity and background of asylum seekers. The absence of these documents can lead to delays, rejections, or prolonged detention while authorities verify the asylum seeker's identity and claims.
1
-
1
-
In recent years, the United Kingdom has seen significant immigration, with a mix of economic migrants and asylum seekers. As of 2023, long-term immigration to the UK was estimated to be around 1.2 million people. Among these, approximately 7% (around 81,000 individuals) were asylum seekers, who arrived seeking protection due to persecution or conflict in their home countries.
On the other hand, the majority of immigrants to the UK are economic migrants. For instance, in the year ending June 2023, a large proportion of immigrants came for work or study, with non-EU nationals alone accounting for significant numbers. Economic migration primarily involves those coming for better job opportunities or education, which represents a substantial portion of the total immigration figures.
Thus, while asylum seekers form a smaller but important part of the total immigration to the UK, economic migrants make up the bulk of new arrivals.
The proportion of economic migrants granted visas to the UK varies depending on the specific visa category and year. Here’s a general overview:
1. Work Visas: A significant proportion of economic migrants who apply for work visas are granted them, especially under schemes targeting high-skilled workers. For instance, in 2023, the UK granted tens of thousands of visas under the Skilled Worker route, which is a major pathway for economic migrants. The success rate for such applications tends to be high, particularly when applicants meet the required criteria, such as having a job offer from a licensed UK employer and meeting salary thresholds.
2. Study Visas: Many economic migrants arrive in the UK on student visas, which are another common type of visa granted. The success rate for student visas is also generally high, as long as applicants have been accepted into a recognized educational institution and can prove they have the financial means to support themselves.
3. *verall Grant Rate: For most economic migration categories, the UK has a relatively high approval rate, especially for applications that are well-prepared and meet all requirements. For example, in 2022, the overall visa success rate for work and study-related applications was above 90% for many categories
1
-
The answer is no because(and despite incorrect comments on here) the UK government (including the prime minister) does not sign off on jail sentences. Instead, sentencing is the responsibility of the judiciary, which operates independently of the government. Here’s how it works:
Judges and Magistrates: In criminal cases, judges or magistrates decide the appropriate sentence for a convicted individual based on the law, guidelines from the Sentencing Council, and the specifics of the case. They consider factors like the severity of the offense, the offender's criminal history, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
Sentencing Guidelines: The Sentencing Council for England and Wales provides guidelines that judges and magistrates use to determine the appropriate sentence. These guidelines are designed to ensure consistency and fairness in sentencing.
Judicial Independence: The judiciary is independent of the government, meaning that judges and magistrates make their decisions without government interference. This principle is a cornerstone of the rule of law in the UK.
Appeals: If a sentence is considered too lenient or too harsh, it can be appealed. Appeals are handled by higher courts, not by the government.
In summary, while the UK government establishes laws and appoints judges, it does not directly decide or sign off on individual jail sentences. That responsibility lies with the independent judiciary.
1
-
1
-
So I am genuinely intrigued where you got that nugget from? Its certainly totally untrue. Here are the facts: In the UK, the government does not typically pay for extended families of immigrants to come over and join them. Immigration rules in the UK are strict, and the ability for extended family members (such as parents, adult siblings, or cousins) to join an immigrant in the UK is limited.
The UK immigration system allows certain family members to join immigrants in the UK under specific conditions, but these are usually limited to immediate family members, such as spouses, civil partners, children, and, in some cases, dependent parents. The sponsor (the person already in the UK) must generally demonstrate that they can financially support their family members without recourse to public funds, which means they must prove they have enough income or savings to cover the costs.
There are no provisions for the government to pay for or facilitate the immigration of extended family members. Any costs associated with the immigration process, such as visa application fees, travel, and resettlement expenses, are typically the responsibility of the individuals involved.
There may be some limited exceptions in the case of refugees or asylum seekers, where family reunification might be supported by specific programs, but these are rare and tightly controlled.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
interesting comment. where did you get that information from? Would love to know so i can have a look. I found the following which i believe to be the latest personal ratings unless you can prove me wrong: As of early August 2024, Keir Starmer's approval ratings have experienced a noticeable decline. After a brief "honeymoon period" following his election as Prime Minister, his approval rating has dropped significantly. According to recent polls, Starmer's favourability has fallen to around 35% from a previous high of 44% in early July. This decline is reflected across multiple polling organizations, with some showing his approval at approximately 37-38%.
Despite these declines, Starmer's ratings are still relatively positive compared to his political opponents, particularly the Conservative Party, which continues to struggle with voter appeal. However, there is concern that his approval might not be sufficient to maintain the broad coalition needed for future electoral challenges
Out of interest, Nigel Farage's approval ratings have significantly declined in recent weeks. As of early August 2024, his net favourability rating has dropped to -42, reflecting a steep seven-point decrease over a short period. This decline is evident across various demographic groups, including those who previously supported Brexit, where he now holds a negative rating for the first time, at -4. Even among 2024 Conservative voters, his approval has plummeted to -27.
Farage's popularity has been particularly affected by his controversial response to recent racist riots in the UK, which has led to widespread criticism and further damaged his public image
1
-
1