Comments by "TruthWarrior" (@Truth-warrior-j3e) on "BlackBeltBarrister"
channel.
-
8
-
7
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ in simplistic terms that is a leakage from the economy in the same way as when you might buy a German car, Chinese air fryer or Italian washing machine. It’s also akin to when you save. That’s also leakage. In reality it’s far more nuanced. You mention three examples. In the case of Syria UK’s financial aid provides both direct and indirect benefits to the UK, though the primary motivation is humanitarian. Here’s how this aid aligns with the UK’s strategic, economic, and moral interests.
By providing aid, the UK demonstrates its commitment to global humanitarian principles, reinforcing its reputation as a responsible and compassionate nation. Humanitarian aid alleviates suffering, addressing basic needs like food, shelter, and medical care for millions of displaced Syrians.
Aid helps stabilize conflict-affected regions by supporting refugees and host countries (e.g., Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey). This reduces the risk of further escalation, which could have global consequences.
Instability in Syria has fueled terrorism and organised crime. Aid helps address the root causes of insecurity, such as poverty and displacement, reducing threats to the UK and its allies.
By funding support programs in Syria and neighboring countries, the UK helps displaced people stay closer to their home regions, reducing the pressure of irregular migration to Europe, including the UK.
Aid to refugee-hosting nations helps maintain stability and reduces the strain on their economies, preventing further displacement.
By providing aid, the UK strengthens its relationships with key allies in the region, such as Turkey and Jordan, which are critical to addressing broader Middle Eastern challenges.
Supporting recovery and stabilization efforts in Syria positions UK companies to participate in reconstruction projects, benefiting the UK economy in the long term.
The UK is committed to international agreements like the UN Refugee Convention and Sustainable Development Goals, which emphasise the need to support vulnerable populations.
Upholding moral values through aid reinforces the UK’s identity as a compassionate society, which resonates with many citizens and organizations.
Providing aid enhances the UK’s soft power, giving it a stronger voice in international decision-making and diplomacy.
Aid reduces the influence of adversaries, such as Russia or Iran, in Syria by promoting stabilization efforts aligned with Western values.
While the immediate benefits of UK aid to Syria are humanitarian, the long-term advantages include enhanced security, reduced migration pressures, strengthened alliances, and a stronger global reputation. These efforts align with both moral imperatives and the UK’s strategic interests. It is therefore far more complex than saying it’s a leakage.
Of course I can also cover Ukraine in more detail, which is similar to some extent but also has significant differences based on the military hardware expenditures and migration support. Likewise Chagos Islands are another case altogether but also with interesting nuances.
I suspect you are not actually really interested though. Just a gut feeling.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@lisah9561 oh dear. How about getting back to evidence based facts rather than fiction? Here’s an evidence-based summary of the issue:
Studies, including those by the UK Migration Advisory Committee (MAC), find that migration has minimal impact on average wages across the economy. High-skilled migration can actually boost wages for native workers in complementary roles, as migrants bring specialized skills and innovation.
Do Migrants Take Jobs from Native Workers? The “lump of labor fallacy” assumes there’s a fixed number of jobs in the economy, which isn’t true. Migrants often create demand for goods and services, which can lead to job creation.
Migrants often fill roles that are hard to recruit for domestically, such as care work, seasonal agricultural labor, and technical fields, rather than directly competing with native workers.
Studies by the London School of Economics (LSE) and others find no significant evidence that migration reduces employment rates for UK-born workers.
In fact, migration can increase productivity, leading to more jobs over time.
While migration can have small, localized effects on wages in certain sectors, the broader evidence suggests that migrants do not systematically drive down wages or take jobs. Instead, they fill labor shortages, contribute to economic growth, and often complement the native workforce.
1
-
@ Who “Doesn’t Want Them”? I know you don’t. But the world doesn’t revolve around you or me. “Not wanted” is a massive generalisation - not necessarily obvious though if you only ever get your reference points from echo chambers like this one. Many migrants are welcomed and appreciated, especially in sectors where they fill vital roles (e.g., healthcare, agriculture). As a NHS volunteer I can tell you that without the migrant employees in the service the NHS would totally collapse.
Surveys show that public attitudes toward migrants vary, with many people recognising their contributions. Many migrants integrate into communities, build businesses, and enrich cultural diversity.
Secondly, “Going Home” Isn’t Simple. For refugees and asylum seekers, returning home could mean facing war, persecution, or violence.
Fortunately, International law (e.g., the 1951 Refugee Convention) protects individuals who cannot safely return to their home countries.
Concerning Economic Migrants, what is wrong with that? You and I would do it in the same circumstances I am sure. Migrants often move for better opportunities, and they may not have viable options in their home countries. Many migrants have families, homes, and communities in the host country, making it their “new home.” It’s how Britain was built from the earliest years. The reality is that migration is often a difficult and emotional decision. Migrants leave behind loved ones and familiarity to seek a better life. Of course you might argue that you would prefer women and children from Ukraine to go back “home” and die there because you prefer that but the polling evidence suggests few people would agree. How would you feel if your own family had to migrate due to poverty, conflict, or lack of opportunity? You talk about different values and certainly everyone is different. But my own personal experience living and working in many different parts of the world demonstrated to me that we have far more in common with shared values, such as wanting safety, opportunity, and a better life for loved ones. Migration can be a two-way benefit: migrants gain opportunities, and host countries gain skills, labor, and cultural diversity.
I understand from your comments that you have concerns about housing, jobs, and public services. I do understand that and can sympathise but blaming migrants oversimplifies the issues. Structural problems, not migration, often cause strains on resources. Brexit for example has massively reduced the tax take, reducing the effectiveness of the economy leading to resource stresses while at the same time significantly increasing undocumented immigration.
Instead of blaming migrants, maybe we should focus on policies that ensure everyone—migrant or not—can thrive. Wouldn’t that be better than hate?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
What did multiculturalism ever do for us, eh? Apart of course from a diverse and skilled workforce, helping to fill gaps in industries such as the NHS, late life care, technology, construction, and education. Yes of course, but apart from that what has it ever done for us eh? ….apart of course from the numerous founding of successful businesses, contributing to job creation and economic prosperity. For example, notable companies like Cobra Beer (Karan Bilimoria) and Deliveroo (Will Shu, of mixed heritage). And of course UK’s rich multicultural tapestry has enhanced its appeal as a global destination, fueling industries like tourism, fashion, and the arts. But apart from that…….
…….oh, except of course that diverse cultures have transformed British cuisine. Indian curry is considered a national dish, and influences from Chinese, Italian, Middle Eastern, and African cuisines have expanded British palates. But apart from that it has been a failure….
……excepting of course influences that have reshaped British music, film, literature, and art, with contributions from diverse communities producing globally acclaimed artists like Zadie Smith, Idris Elba, and Stormzy. But apart form all of these things we can clearly say that multiculturalism has been a disaster…….
…….Excepting of course those athletes from diverse backgrounds, such as Mo Farah, Marcus Rashford, Jessica Ennis-Hill and Lewis Hamilton to name just a handful of examples that have elevated the UK’s global sporting status. But apart from all of these amazing things it’s been a disaster………
……..hang on…..wait a minute……..of course we should exclude the fact that every single British person in the UK today is the result of generations of historic migrations of multicultural societies, starting with the earliest inhabitants of Britain which came from continental Europe in c. 800,000 BC such as the Homo heidelbergensis, who arrived in Britain when it was connected to continental Europe via a land bridge, and of course during the Neolithic Revolution (c. 4000 BCE) when farmers from the Middle East and Anatolia introduced agriculture to Britain, replacing hunter-gatherer lifestyles. And of course we would have to exclude the impact of the Celts (c. 1200 BCE - 500 BCE) who migrated from central Europe and settled across the British Isles introducing the Celtic languages (ancestors of modern Welsh, Gaelic, and Cornish), metalwork skills, and distinctive art styles. Naturally we would also have to pretend that our ancestry didn’t benefit from the Roman Conquest and Settlement (43 CE - 410 CE ) bringing people from across the Empire, including Italy, North Africa, Spain, and the Middle East, to administer and defend Britain. Naturally we should ignore the fact that cities like London (Londinium) and Bath (Aquae Sulis) were established, introducing urban planning, Roman law, and Christianity. But apart from that……
well….of course you should forget the Anglo-Saxons (5th-7th Century) ie the Germanic tribes (Anglo-Saxons) from modern-day Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands who migrated to Britain and established kingdoms such as Wessex, Mercia, and Northumbria, and laid the foundation for the English language. (So much for integration eh). And oh yes, you forgot the Viking Invasions and Settlement (8th-11th Century). Those pesky Norse Vikings from Scandinavia who raided and settled in parts of Britain, particularly in the north and east. The Danelaw region was heavily influenced by Norse culture, language, and law. Towns like York (Jorvik) became Viking strongholds. Naturally you would be against the Norman migration which brought settlers from Normandy (modern France), of Viking descent, to Britain. They reshaped the aristocracy, introduced feudalism, and influenced the English language, adding many French-derived words. As for those subsequent migrants from Flanders (modern Belgium) who settled in parts of Wales and England, contributing to trade, cloth-making, and banking industries. Yeah. But apart from that…….
……Er ok, the Huguenots (16th-17th Century), French Protestants fleeing religious persecution who brought expertise in weaving, craftsmanship, and banking. Many settled in London, Norwich, and Canterbury, enriching industries like textiles and finance. And their offspring eventually led directly to the birth of Nigel Farage, amongst others of course. But apart from that……
……well there was the Irish Migration (19th Century), a consequence of The Irish Famine (1845-1852) which prompted mass migration to England, Scotland, and Wales. Irish laborers played key roles in building Britain’s canals, railways, and urban infrastructure. Then again, forget the Jewish Communities (19th-20th Century) fleeing persecution in Eastern Europe and Russia who settled in Britain, particularly in cities like London and Manchester and contributed to commerce, science, and culture, with notable figures like Benjamin Disraeli (Prime Minister).
I’ll stop there. If anybody has actually managed to read all of this well done. Im sure for some, getting this far was an overload of reality and they will want to escape to their deluded world view and hatred of themselves and everyone else.
The simple fact is that you and me and the entire British Isles have been shaped by millennia of migrations and cultures each wave adding layers to the country’s culture, language, and identity. Today, multiculturalism in the UK is a testament to this long history, demonstrating how diverse influences have created a dynamic, innovative, and interconnected society. But apart from all of this, and our very existence in Britain, multiculturalism has been a total failure. Er….er…..er…..
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
It’s really simple. The two individuals you mention have pleaded not guilty. The case is ongoing. What part of this don’t you understand?
The case involves multiple aspects, including reviewing evidence of violence, determining the roles of the suspects, and addressing potential allegations of police misconduct. Balancing these elements can take significant time.
Greater Manchester Police (GMP) submitted a detailed file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). The CPS must carefully assess whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute and if doing so is in the public interest. This process can be lengthy, especially if the evidence includes video footage, witness statements, and expert opinions.
The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is also investigating the actions of the police officers involved. Parallel investigations can slow the timeline, as findings from one inquiry may impact the other.
Legal proceedings in the UK are designed to ensure due process. Authorities must ensure that any charges filed are legally sound and based on robust evidence to avoid challenges in court.
High-profile cases, especially those involving alleged police misconduct, attract public and political scrutiny. Authorities may take extra precautions to ensure their decisions are transparent and defensible, which can extend timelines.
The UK legal system has been experiencing significant backlogs due to resource constraints and delays exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This has slowed the progress of many cases.
The combination of these factors likely explains why the case is taking longer than expected. So which part of this don’t you understand? Happy to help explain it if you are struggling.
1
-
1