Youtube comments of TruthWarrior (@Truth-warrior-j3e).
-
19
-
16
-
12
-
10
-
8
-
8
-
Largely Misleading and oversimplified. Nigel Farage is a polarizing figure, and whether his statements are seen as factual or not often depends on the specific context and the perspective of those evaluating his claims and what people want to hear.
Farage does present information that he believes supports his political views, particularly on issues like Brexit, immigration, and national sovereignty. However, the accuracy and interpretation of these facts as well as the highly selective nature of the facts he presents, often out of context and sometimes totally incorrect, are frequently disputed. Here are some examples where his use of facts has been a point of contention:
1. Brexit Campaign: Farage frequently cited statistics and facts during the Brexit campaign, such as the claim that the UK sends £350 million a week to the EU. While this figure was based on official government numbers, it was misleading because it didn't account for the rebate the UK received from the EU or the money that returned to the UK in the form of EU funding. Neither did it account for any of the economic benefit of being in the largest free trade block in the world. This claim was widely criticized for being factually incorrect or at least highly misleading.
2. Immigration: Farage has often linked high levels of immigration to various social problems in the UK and even road congestion! While it is true that immigration can have significant social and economic impacts, his statements have been criticized for exaggerating the negative effects and not fully considering the positive contributions of immigrants.
3. EU Regulations: Farage has criticized EU regulations and claimed that they have imposed significant burdens on the UK. While it is true that the EU imposes regulations on member states, the extent to which these regulations are burdensome or beneficial is a matter of debate. Farage's criticisms are rooted in his broader political stance against EU membership, which colors how he presents the facts. The UK is now out of the EU but the EU still determines the rules and standards of products and services that are allowed to be sold within the EU. The UK no longer has any say concerning those rules. This is one example of how sovereignty and 'control' which was and remains a major argument of Farage is factually incorrect.
In summary, Farage does use facts in his arguments, but how these facts are framed, interpreted, selectively chosen out of context, or emphasised often aligns with his political agenda. Critics argue that this framing can sometimes lead to misinformation or a skewed representation of reality, while his supporters see him as highlighting important issues that others might overlook or downplay. Therefore, while Farage does talk about facts, the accuracy and completeness of those facts are often reasonably contested.
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
@АлёшаА-ъ7п the short answer is - for the same reason that Russia is not expelled. The USA is also a permanent member of the UN Security Council and, like Russia, can always veto any such proposal. The long answer is more nuanced:
The legality of the NATO bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (which included Serbia) in 1999 remains a debated topic under international law.
The UN Charter prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state unless it is in self-defense or has been authorized by the UN Security Council. The NATO bombing was not explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council, which raised questions about its legality under the Charter.
NATO justified the bombing as a humanitarian intervention, aiming to stop the mass atrocities against ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. While this rationale is ethically compelling, there was no established legal basis under international law for humanitarian intervention without Security Council authorisation at the time. The concept of "Responsibility to Protect" (R2P), which supports humanitarian intervention under specific circumstances, was formally recognized only later, in 2005.
Some scholars argue that the NATO intervention could be justified under evolving customary international law, which may allow for humanitarian intervention to prevent grave human rights abuses. However, this remains a contentious view, as not all states agree on the legal grounds for such interventions.
There is a distinction between legality and legitimacy. Many argued that while the bombing might have been illegal under strict interpretations of international law (due to the lack of UN authorization), it was legitimate from a moral standpoint given the humanitarian crisis in Kosovo.
In summary, while the NATO bombing of Serbia was not explicitly legal under the UN Charter as it lacked Security Council authorization, it was argued by some to be legitimate due to humanitarian reasons. The legality of such actions is still a subject of debate among international law experts, reflecting the complexities of interpreting humanitarian intervention within the framework of international law.
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
No that’s not correct. She didn’t ban cannabis and neither did she grant any licence let alone a sole licence to anyone let alone her husband. She also was not ‘Drugs Minister’. Neither did she step down because of a perceived conflict of interest.
She did subsequently resign when she was the UK's Justice Minister in July 2022. She stepped down during a wave of government resignations protesting then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson's leadership. In her resignation letter, she expressed concerns about the erosion of values such as integrity, decency, and professionalism under Johnson's leadership, citing scandals like "Partygate" and the mishandling of complaints against MP Chris Pincher. Atkins, along with other ministers, felt that Johnson's leadership had become untenable, leading to their departures from government.
There was controversy surrounding Victoria Atkins, regarding her stance on cannabis regulation. Atkins, who has been openly critical of cannabis reform and regulation, is married to Paul Kenward, the managing director of British Sugar. British Sugar, under Kenward’s leadership, has been involved in growing cannabis for medicinal purposes in partnership with GW Pharmaceuticals. The cannabis is cultivated to produce Epidiolex, a drug used to treat severe epilepsy in children.
The criticism stems from the apparent contradiction between Atkins’s hardline stance against cannabis reform and the fact that her husband’s company is profiting from its regulated medical use. Some have pointed to this situation as hypocritical, given her role in shaping drug policy while benefiting indirectly from the legal cannabis industry
Concerning contract award, this was made in 2016. Atkinson did not become a minister until 2017. Unlike for example the ‘fast track’ system of PPE contracts, the granting of a licence for cannabis production is highly regulated by law and the process is strictly governed to ensure compliance by the home office. No one individual has the remit to grant such a licence.
5
-
5
-
4
-
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
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@shauneden4229 thanks. That’s a great example. Farage often argued that the U.K. was one of the top contributors to the EU budget, which is true, but this was often framed in a way that might lead some to believe that the U.K. was the largest contributor, which it was not. Germany was consistently the largest net contributor to the EU, with France usually following. Farage’s rhetoric during the Brexit campaign focused heavily on the amount of money the U.K. was sending to the EU, particularly the infamous claim that the U.K. was sending £350 million a week to the EU, which was widely criticized and debunked for being misleading. Since the 350m claim has been debunked he has distanced himself from it.
I havent found a Farage reference that say he claimed the U.K. paid in more than the rest of the eu combined with the exception of Germany. If he did please send me the reference. Such a statement would be untrue. The UK’s contribution was significant, typically around 12-15% of the total budget. However, even the combined contributions of Germany and France alone exceeded the UK’s contribution, not to mention the contributions from all other member states.
Further facts: Germany was the largest net contributor to the EU budget, given its large economy. The U.K. was typically among the top five contributors, but France was generally the second-largest contributor to the EU budget after Germany. Other significant contributors included Italy and the Netherlands.
The U.K. paid a significant amount into the EU budget, but its contribution was lower than that of Germany and France, particularly due to the U.K. rebate, which was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in 1984. This rebate reduced the U.K.’s contribution relative to its economic size, making its net contributions lower than those of Germany and France.
So, while the U.K. was a major contributor, it was not the second-largest after Germany.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@jamesjenkins3276 That is a false narrative that reflected colonial thinking that has long been debunked. I will put aside the moral issues and purely concentrate on the actual facts. Before European settlers arrived, the Americas were inhabited by diverse Indigenous nations with their own governments, territories, and legal systems. These groups were sovereign in their own right, and the land was not “empty” or unclaimed. From the perspective of Indigenous peoples, European settlers encroached upon their lands without their consent.
European powers justified settlement through legal frameworks like the Doctrine of Discovery, a principle established by European monarchies in the 15th century. According to this doctrine, lands not ruled by Christians were considered “terra nullius” (land belonging to no one), and European nations claimed the right to colonise them. However, this doctrine disregarded the sovereignty and rights of Indigenous peoples and is now widely recognised as unjust and a product of colonialism.
It’s true that the area now known as the United States was not a unified nation in the modern sense at the time of European colonisation. However, the absence of a Western-style nation-state doesn’t imply that the land was ungoverned or unowned. Indigenous societies had their own political systems and sovereign territory.
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
And the UK does not have open borders. The UK has a regulated immigration system, which means that individuals from other countries need to meet specific criteria to enter, live, work, or study in the UK. If they manage to enter without the requirements, often at enormous and dangerous risk to themselves, they do not get rights to live permanently or work or study.
The UK introduced a points-based immigration system after leaving the European Union (EU) at the end of 2020. This system applies to both EU and non-EU citizens, meaning that people from EU countries no longer have the automatic right to live and work in the UK as they did before Brexit.
Under the points-based system, potential immigrants are assessed on various factors such as their skills, qualifications, job offers, and English language proficiency. The system is designed to attract skilled workers who can contribute to the UK economy. There are also separate visa categories for students, family members, and refugees.
Overall, while the UK has provisions for people to move there legally under specific circumstances, it does not have an "open borders" policy, which would allow unrestricted movement into the country.
2
-
You will find that isn’t correct. I suspect that the specific amount you mention is more to do with an organisations internal policy. It is not mentioned in the Bribery Act itself. In the company I worked for the amount was limited to 15 Euros, and that even applied to lunch or dinner!
No, the UK Bribery Act (2010) does not specifically make gifts over £200 illegal. Instead, the act focuses on preventing bribery in both the public and private sectors, including through gifts, but it does not set a specific monetary threshold, such as £200, for when a gift becomes illegal. The legality of a gift under the Bribery Act depends on its intent and circumstances rather than the gift’s monetary value. Nevertheless, the question of whether gifts to a politician are legitimate or not will undoubtedly remain a highly contentious and debatable issue.
The question as to whether gifts made to Keir Starmer (or any political figure) breach the Bribery Act 2010 would depend on the specific circumstances surrounding the gifts, particularly the intent behind them and how they are handled. The key question is whether the gifts are intended to influence Starmer’s actions improperly, or if they are simply gifts or donations made for legitimate reasons, such as political support or goodwill, which is currently allowed (and even exempted for tax purposes). The whole area is likely to be increasingly contentious and questionable in the future.
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
-
2
-
@Nediablo To save time I will tackle one of yours examples, but happy to discuss the others should you wish to. The question of why paying for maternity through the NHS might be considered morally different from paying for smokers’ treatment involves examining the underlying principles of healthcare ethics, personal responsibility, and societal values. Here are some key points to consider:
1. Nature of the Condition:
• Maternity: Pregnancy is a natural biological process, often viewed as a social good, contributing to the continuation of society. Most people do not see it as a “disease” or something that requires treatment because of a harmful choice. Instead, maternity care is viewed as essential for ensuring the health of both the mother and the baby, and supporting it is seen as a collective societal responsibility.
• Smoking-related illnesses: Many illnesses associated with smoking, such as lung cancer and emphysema, are seen as preventable. Since smoking is a personal choice that is widely recognized as harmful, some people argue that individuals who choose to smoke should bear greater responsibility for the consequences, including the costs of treatment.
2. Personal Responsibility:
• Maternity: While choosing to have a child is a personal decision, it is generally not seen as a reckless or harmful choice. Maternity care is provided to support a healthy outcome for the mother and child, benefiting society at large.
• Smoking: Smoking is often seen as a behavior that an individual chooses to engage in despite well-documented risks. Therefore, some argue that smokers should take greater responsibility for the consequences of their actions, particularly when it comes to the financial burden on the healthcare system.
3. Societal Impact:
• Maternity: Children are seen as the future of society. Supporting maternity care is viewed as an investment in the next generation, ensuring that mothers and babies have the best possible health outcomes.
• Smoking: Smoking-related illnesses impose a significant financial burden on healthcare systems. While society does bear some responsibility for helping those who suffer from smoking-related conditions, the argument is made that these costs could be reduced if fewer people smoked, emphasizing prevention over treatment.
4. Moral and Ethical Considerations:
• Maternity: Providing care for pregnant women is often seen as a moral obligation because it directly impacts the well-being of two lives (mother and child) and ensures the health of future generations. There is a strong ethical argument for society to support maternity care through a public health system like the NHS.
• Smoking: There is a moral debate about how much responsibility individuals should bear for their own health when they engage in risky behaviors like smoking. Some believe that while everyone deserves access to healthcare, those who knowingly engage in harmful activities should not impose additional costs on others.
5. Public Perception:
• Maternity: There is widespread public support for maternity care, as it is seen as a universal need that can affect anyone. The support for maternity care is also tied to broader social values like family and community well-being.
• Smoking: Public perception of smoking has shifted over the years, with increasing awareness of its dangers and a growing emphasis on personal responsibility. This has led to less sympathy for smokers and more support for policies that discourage smoking, including taxes on tobacco products and public health campaigns.
In summary, the moral difference lies in the perception of personal responsibility and societal benefit. Maternity care is seen as a collective responsibility with broad societal benefits, while treatment for smoking-related illnesses is often framed within the context of personal choice and the consequences of risky behavior. However, these views are subject to ongoing debate and vary depending on individual perspectives and cultural attitudes.
2
-
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
-
2
-
2
-
That is why Free Speech is a recognised right in Britain, unlike North Korea. But like most rights it's not absolute. It's ironic because the right to free speech is protected under the ECHR, which I suspect, most people commenting on this video would like to get rid of. Here are the facts:
The right to free speech in Britain is primarily protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Article 10 of the ECHR protects the right to freedom of expression. It states that everyone has the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities, regardless of frontiers. However, this right is subject to certain restrictions that are "prescribed by law" and are "necessary in a democratic society."
In practice, this means that while people in Britain have the right to express their opinions freely, there are legal limits. For example, speech that incites violence, hate speech, or speech that defames someone can be subject to legal action.
The UK also has specific laws that regulate certain types of speech, such as the Public Order Act 1986, which addresses hate speech and speech that can cause harassment, alarm, or distress. Additionally, defamation laws in the UK allow individuals to take legal action against false statements that harm their reputation.
So, while free speech is a right in the UK, it operates within a framework of legal restrictions designed to balance it against other rights and societal interests.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Well, every worker earning a wage is contributing to the economy by doing the work they are employed to do eg catering industries, care sector, NHS, building, etc etc. The contribution to an economy is primarily the work not the tax except for the highest income levels. The key word in your statement is also “if”. First of all, undocumented immigrants are not allowed to work and that certainly does not contribute to the economy. By and large however all immigrant applications have quite high income threshold requirements for a visa to be issued. In the UK, the minimum income thresholds for immigrants applying for various types of visas are generally tied to specific visa categories, especially for work-related visas. Here are the key thresholds:
1. Skilled Worker Visa
- General Salary Threshold: The general minimum salary requirement is £26,200 per year or the "going rate" for the specific job role, whichever is higher. Some roles have different going rates.
- New Entrants: If you are classified as a "new entrant" to the job market (e.g., younger than 26, recent graduates), the threshold is £20,960 per year or 70% of the going rate for the role.
2. Global Talent Visa
- There is no specific salary requirement for the Global Talent Visa. Instead, it is based on endorsement by a recognized UK body in fields such as academia, research, arts, and digital technology. It is reasonable to assume that many of these jobs would be quite high paying.
3. Health and Care Worker Visa
- This visa has a minimum salary threshold of £20,960 per year, or the going rate for the occupation, whichever is higher.
4. Intra-Company Transfer Visa
- The minimum salary threshold for an intra-company transfer is £45,800 per year or the going rate for the job, whichever is higher.
- For the Graduate Trainee route (a subtype of this visa), the minimum salary threshold is £24,220 per year or 70% of the going rate for the job.
5. Innovator and Start-Up Visas
- These visas do not have specific income thresholds, but applicants must demonstrate that they have sufficient funds to support themselves without needing to work elsewhere.
6. Settlement (Indefinite Leave to Remain)
- If applying for settlement after holding a Skilled Worker visa, the salary requirement is £27,000 per year or the going rate for the job, whichever is higher.
7. Other Visas
- Family visas (e.g., Spouse Visa): Applicants must demonstrate a minimum income of £18,600 per year, with higher thresholds if there are dependent children.
These thresholds can be subject to change based on government policies, and some roles or visa types might have different requirements. Additionally, the "going rate" for a job is specific to each occupation and can vary significantly.
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
-
2
-
2
-
@squirrelpatrick3670 It’s a good question. The answer has two fundamental aspects. First, Brexit means the UK no longer has the right to return migrants back to the EU (typically France) if the migrants entered from an EU country. We lost our rights because we are no longer part of the Dublin Agreement which is an EU agreement how to handle migrants.
Also, Brexit facilitated immigration from outside the EU primarily by changing the UK’s immigration policy. Before Brexit, the UK was part of the EU’s free movement agreement, which allowed citizens of EU member states to live and work in the UK without the need for a visa. This limited opportunities for immigrants from non-EU countries, as a significant portion of UK immigration policy was designed to prioritize EU citizens.
Post-Brexit, free movement for EU citizens ended, and the UK introduced a points-based immigration system. This system applies equally to both EU and non-EU nationals, requiring them to meet specific skill, language, and salary requirements to qualify for work visas. This "leveling" has opened up opportunities for people from outside the EU to apply on equal terms.
The new system favors skilled workers, irrespective of their nationality. This means that migrants from outside the EU who meet the skill requirements now have greater access to UK visas than they did previously, as they are not disadvantaged compared to EU citizens.
The UK introduced several new visa categories, such as the Global Talent Visa and the Health and Care Worker Visa, which attract skilled migrants from outside the EU in sectors like science, healthcare, and technology.
Since the new system does not distinguish based on nationality but rather on skills and qualifications, it has led to a shift in the origin of migrants. With EU migration decreasing after Brexit, the gap has been filled by migrants from countries such as India, Nigeria, and the Philippines, particularly in sectors where there is a demand for labor.
In essence, Brexit has shifted the UK from an EU-centric immigration policy to a global, skills-based approach, facilitating greater access for skilled immigrants from outside the EU.
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
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Lord Waheed Alli was ennobled primarily due to his contributions to media, business, and politics. He was made a life peer in 1998 by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair, becoming Baron Alli of Norbury in the London Borough of Croydon. His ennoblement was part of a wider effort by the Labour Party to modernize the House of Lords and bring in diverse voices and perspectives.
Several key reasons contributed to his elevation:
Waheed Alli is a successful media entrepreneur, having co-founded media companies like Planet 24, which produced popular television shows such as "The Big Breakfast." His work in the media sector was influential in shaping modern British television.
Alli was and still is a known supporter of the Labour Party, and his ennoblement aligned with the party’s strategy to bring in younger, progressive, and diverse figures into the political sphere. He played a role in advising on policies, particularly those related to media, youth, and equality.
As one of the first openly gay peers in the House of Lords and a person of South Asian descent, Alli's ennoblement represented a commitment to promoting diversity and inclusivity within British politics. He has been an advocate for LGBTQ+ rights and played a key role in championing issues like civil partnerships and LGBTQ+ equality.
Lord Alli’s ennoblement was seen as both a recognition of his individual achievements and an effort to reflect the social diversity and progressive values within the UK's political landscape.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
In the UK, there is no single, comprehensive law that explicitly protects freedom of speech in the same way that the First Amendment does in the United States. However, freedom of speech is a recognized and protected right under various legal frameworks:
1. Human Rights Act 1998: The Human Rights Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law. Article 10 of the ECHR protects the right to freedom of expression, which includes the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. However, this right is not absolute and can be subject to restrictions that are prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society for reasons such as national security, public safety, or the prevention of disorder or crime.
2. Common Law: The UK also has a tradition of common law, where courts have recognized and protected free speech rights over time. However, these rights can be balanced against other legal principles, such as the laws on defamation, hate speech, or incitement to violence.
3. Specific Legislation: There are also various pieces of legislation that impact freedom of speech in the UK. For example, the Public Order Act 1986 and the Communications Act 2003 include provisions that criminalize certain forms of hate speech and offensive communications. The Defamation Act 2013 also allows individuals to seek legal recourse for false and damaging statements.
In summary, while freedom of speech is protected in the UK, it is subject to various legal restrictions and must be balanced against other competing rights and societal needs.
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
-
agree that your comment above is not racist. You statement regarding integration is interesting. While there certainly is a challenge of integration, the actual evidence relating to WILLINGNESS (not unwillingness) to integrate is very conclusive: This evidence spans various dimensions, including language acquisition, education, employment, social cohesion, and civic participation. Here are some key points:
1. Language Acquisition
- English Language Proficiency: A significant number of immigrants in the UK work to improve their English language skills. According to the UK government's Community Life Survey, many immigrants take English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) classes. These classes are often oversubscribed, indicating a strong demand from immigrants who wish to improve their language skills to better integrate into society.
2. Education and Professional Achievement
- Educational Attainment: Second-generation immigrants often outperform their parents and, in some cases, native-born students in educational achievement. For instance, students from immigrant backgrounds often excel in GCSEs and are more likely to pursue higher education.
- Professional Integration: Many immigrants actively pursue professional qualifications and accreditation recognized in the UK to improve their job prospects. For example, doctors, engineers, and other professionals who immigrate often go through requalification processes to practice in the UK.
3. Employment and Economic Contribution
- Labor Market Participation: Immigrants in the UK show a strong willingness to work and contribute economically. The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has found that immigrants are often more willing to work in sectors experiencing labor shortages, such as healthcare, hospitality, and agriculture. This indicates their willingness to fill essential roles in the economy.
- Entrepreneurship: Immigrants are more likely to start businesses compared to the native-born population. This entrepreneurial spirit contributes significantly to the UK economy and provides evidence of immigrants' integration through economic activity.
4. Social Cohesion and Community Involvement
- Civic Participation: Many immigrants engage in civic activities, such as voting in local elections, volunteering, and participating in community organizations. For example, studies have shown that immigrants are active in local community groups and charities, contributing to social cohesion.
- Intermarriage: There is evidence of increasing rates of intermarriage between immigrants and native-born citizens, which is often seen as a strong indicator of social integration.
5. Cultural Integration
- Cultural Participation: Immigrants often participate in local cultural events, adopt British customs, and celebrate national holidays like Christmas and Bonfire Night. Over time, many immigrants also adapt to British norms and values, while contributing elements of their own cultures to the broader society.
6. Policy and Public Perception
- Naturalization and Citizenship: Many immigrants show their commitment to the UK by seeking British citizenship. The naturalization process involves passing a Life in the UK Test, which requires knowledge of British history, culture, and values.
- Public Opinion and Integration Outcomes: Surveys, such as the British Social Attitudes Survey, often show that public perceptions of immigrants improve over time, particularly as they integrate and contribute to their communities.
7. Research Findings
- Academic Studies: Research conducted by institutions like the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford consistently shows that immigrants are keen to integrate. Studies highlight that many immigrants see the UK as their home and are eager to become part of the broader society.
These points collectively provide robust evidence that immigrants in the UK are not only willing but actively pursuing integration across various dimensions of society.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
not true. Blair did not start the multicultural society. Here are the facts:
The UK has been a multicultural society for many centuries. The roots of the UK's multiculturalism can be traced back to several key historical periods:
Roman Britain (43–410 AD): The Roman occupation brought people from across the Roman Empire to Britain, including soldiers, traders, and administrators from places like North Africa, the Middle East, and continental Europe.
Viking and Norman Invasions (8th–11th centuries): The arrival of the Vikings and later the Normans introduced new cultures, languages, and customs to Britain.
Medieval Period (11th–15th centuries): The UK saw an influx of Jewish communities in the 11th century, and after the expulsion of Jews in 1290, they were only allowed to return in the 17th century under Oliver Cromwell. The medieval period also saw various waves of migration from Europe, including Flemish weavers and Huguenots fleeing persecution.
British Empire and Colonial Era (16th–20th centuries): The expansion of the British Empire brought significant contact with diverse cultures around the world. This era saw the beginning of more substantial migration to the UK, especially from the Caribbean, South Asia, and Africa, starting in the 19th century and continuing into the 20th century.
Post-World War II Migration (1945 onwards): After World War II, the UK experienced significant immigration from former colonies, particularly from the Caribbean, South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), and Africa. This was partly due to labor shortages and the need for reconstruction. The arrival of the Windrush generation from the Caribbean in 1948 is often seen as a pivotal moment in the development of the UK's modern multicultural society.
European Union Membership (1973–2020): The UK's membership in the EU facilitated the migration of people from across Europe, further diversifying the population.
1
-
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
-
@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
-
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
-
Fake news. Free Speech is a recognised right in Britain. But like most rights it's not absolute. It's ironic because the right to free speech is protected under the ECHR, which I suspect, most people commenting on this video would like to get rid of. Here are the facts:
The right to free speech in Britain is primarily protected under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Article 10 of the ECHR protects the right to freedom of expression. It states that everyone has the right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authorities, regardless of frontiers. However, this right is subject to certain restrictions that are "prescribed by law" and are "necessary in a democratic society."
In practice, this means that while people in Britain have the right to express their opinions freely, there are legal limits. For example, speech that incites violence, hate speech, or speech that defames someone can be subject to legal action.
The UK also has specific laws that regulate certain types of speech, such as the Public Order Act 1986, which addresses hate speech and speech that can cause harassment, alarm, or distress. Additionally, defamation laws in the UK allow individuals to take legal action against false statements that harm their reputation.
So, while free speech is a right in the UK, it operates within a framework of legal restrictions designed to balance it against other rights and societal interests.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
@TestGearJunkie. That is correct. But it’s only a fraction of the full picture. In the fiscal year 2022/23, the UK government collected approximately £10 billion from tobacco duties. When combined with VAT, the total tax take from smoking is even higher. The direct cost to the National Health Service (NHS) for treating smoking-related illnesses is estimated to be around £2.5 billion to £3.3 billion per year. This figure includes the costs of treating conditions such as lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart disease, and other illnesses directly related to smoking. However, the overall economic impact is significantly negative. This is because you have to also include -
Productivity Losses:
• Smoking-related illnesses also result in significant productivity losses due to premature deaths, absenteeism, and reduced productivity at work. These costs are estimated to be in the range of £6 billion to £8 billion per year.
3. Social Care Costs:
• Smoking contributes to the need for social care, particularly among older adults who require assistance with daily living due to smoking-related conditions. The cost of social care linked to smoking is estimated to be around £1.4 billion per year.
4. Wider Economic Costs:
• When considering the broader economic impact, including lost income and the effect on families and communities, the total cost to the UK economy is estimated to be over £12 billion per year.
Total Estimated Costs:
Overall, the total cost of smoking-related illnesses to the UK is estimated to be between £12 billion and £14 billion per year. This figure includes direct healthcare costs, productivity losses, and additional social care costs, representing a substantial economic burden on the country.
These figures highlight the extensive financial impact of smoking-related diseases, which also has profound implications for public health policy and the allocation of resources in the UK.
1
-
1
-
@boota1979 I don’t deal in opinions. I deal entirely on facts, whether people like it or not. The estimate for social care costs related to smoking in the UK, often cited as around £1.4 billion per year, comes from research conducted by public health organizations, academic studies, and government reports that examine the broader impacts of smoking beyond just direct healthcare costs.
Key Sources for Social Care Cost Estimates:
1. Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) Reports:
- ASH has conducted detailed analyses of the economic impact of smoking, including the costs to the social care system. Their reports often use data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and other governmental and academic studies to estimate how much of the social care burden can be attributed to smoking-related disabilities and chronic conditions.
2. Public Health England (PHE) Studies:
- Public Health England, now part of the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), has published reports that include estimates of the costs of social care due to smoking. These reports typically assess the long-term care needs of individuals suffering from smoking-related illnesses, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cardiovascular disease, and other conditions that may result in a need for social care services.
3. Research by the King's Fund:
- The King's Fund, a leading health think tank in the UK, has also provided insights into how lifestyle factors like smoking contribute to social care demands. Their work often includes analysis of the costs associated with providing care for older adults who are unable to live independently due to smoking-related health issues.
4. Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) Analysis:
- The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) sometimes commissions or references studies that estimate the impact of smoking on social care services. These estimates take into account the increased likelihood that smokers, particularly as they age, will require social care due to debilitating health conditions.
Methodology for Estimating Social Care Costs:
The methodology typically involves calculating the proportion of people requiring social care who are smokers or who have smoking-related illnesses. This data is then multiplied by the average cost of providing social care services, including both home care and residential care, to estimate the total cost attributable to smoking.
Example of Findings:
For instance, a detailed analysis might look at the prevalence of smoking-related conditions that lead to dependency and need for social care (such as COPD or stroke-related disabilities). The analysis would then estimate how much of the social care provided in a given year is necessitated by these conditions, and apply cost data from local authorities or care providers to derive an overall cost figure.
The figure of approximately £1.4 billion per year is a synthesis of these analyses, representing an average or consensus estimate of the costs associated with providing social care to individuals suffering from conditions that are either directly caused or exacerbated by smoking.
These findings are typically highlighted in public health campaigns and policy discussions to underscore the broader economic impact of smoking beyond healthcare, including its contribution to the social care burden.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Really? When? Please tell me. The only information on public record that I can find is the exact opposite of what you say - but happy to be corrected if you have hard evidence to back up your claim. As of January 11, 2025, there are no publicly documented instances of Tommy Robinson defending Muslim families. On the contrary, he has been involved in activities and statements that have been widely criticized as targeting and vilifying Muslim communities. For example, In 2018, Robinson falsely accused a 15-year-old Syrian refugee, Jamal Hijazi, of attacking English girls at his school. These unfounded allegations led to significant distress for Hijazi and his family, including death threats and the need to relocate. In July 2021, Robinson was found liable for defamation and was ordered to pay £100,000 in damages, along with legal costs. Robinson is on public record having made statements indicating a lack of concern about inciting fear of Muslims. In a 2018 interview, he stated: “To be honest with you, I don’t care if it incites fear as long as it educates the children and prevents them from being raped.” 
These actions and statements have contributed to Robinson’s reputation as a figure who promotes anti-Muslim sentiments, rather than someone who defends Muslim families.
If you have specific instances or contexts in mind where Robinson may have defended Muslim families, please provide the evidence. And if true I will update accordingly. Thanks.
1
-
1
-
Lets actually get facts right instead of pointing either misleading or uneducated fake news. Leaders and organizations in the UK have actively condemned grooming gangs and sexual exploitation for years, emphasising that such actions are criminal and not representative of the Muslim community. Notable examples include the National Sermons Against Grooming. In June 2013, approximately 500 mosques across Britain delivered sermons condemning street grooming by gangs. Imams highlighted that the Quran condemns all forms of sexual indecency, reinforcing the community’s stance against such crimes. 
Another example, Ramadhan Foundation’s Stance. Mohammed Shafiq, Chief Executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, has been vocal in condemning grooming gangs. Another recent example, the Political Advocacy in Oldham (2025). Abdul Wahid, a British Muslim councillor in Oldham, supported calls for an inquiry into grooming gangs. He stated, “These groomers are criminals. They’re not part of our community. It’s time to find out the truth.”  Another example is the Muslim Council of Britain’s (MCB) Position. The MCB has consistently condemned child sexual exploitation. In response to divisive rhetoric (such as comments on this channel), they emphasized the importance of addressing such crimes without demonizing entire communities. 
These instances demonstrate the proactive efforts of Muslim leaders and organizations in the UK to condemn and combat grooming gangs and sexual exploitation within their communities.
1
-
@ you imply therefore that you gave read the Quran. You will therefore be aware that as the foundational text of Islam, it does not explicitly mention modern concepts like “child exploitation” as we understand them today. However, it establishes principles of justice, compassion, and protection for the vulnerable that strongly oppose any form of exploitation, including of children. You will have read the key themes and verses related to this including for example:
1. Prohibition of Injustice
• The Quran condemns all forms of injustice and oppression, which would include exploiting vulnerable groups like children.
“Indeed, Allah commands you to uphold justice and to do good…” (Quran 16:90)
2. Care for Orphans and Vulnerable Children
• Orphans and vulnerable children are given special attention in the Quran. Exploiting them, particularly taking advantage of their weakness, is strongly condemned:
“And do not approach the property of the orphan, except in a way that is best, until they reach maturity…” (Quran 6:152)
“Have you seen the one who denies the religion? For that is the one who drives away the orphan and does not encourage feeding the poor.” (Quran 107:1-3)
3. Prohibition of Exploitation in Transactions
• The Quran emphasizes fairness in dealings and strongly warns against taking advantage of others for personal gain, which applies to child labor or exploitation:
“And give full measure and weight with justice. We do not burden any soul beyond what it can bear.” (Quran 6:152)
4. General Protection of the Weak
• Protecting the rights and dignity of the weak and oppressed is a recurring theme in the Quran:
“And what is [the matter] with you that you fight not in the cause of Allah and for the oppressed among men, women, and children…” (Quran 4:75)
5. Prohibition of Harm
• A fundamental principle in Islam is to prevent harm to oneself and others:
“Do not kill your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you…” (Quran 17:31)
This verse addresses pre-Islamic practices of infanticide but also emphasizes the sanctity of children’s lives and their right to be cared for.
Broader Islamic Teachings:
Beyond the Quran, sayings (Hadith) of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) emphasize kindness, mercy, and justice toward children. For instance:
• “He is not one of us who does not show mercy to our young ones…” (Sunan Abi Dawood)
• Exploiting children, or failing to provide them with their rights, is incompatible with these teachings.
Conclusion:
The Quran and broader Islamic teachings prioritize justice, protection, and care for children and the vulnerable. Exploiting children violates these principles and would be considered a grave sin in Islam.
1
-
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
-
so what precisely is the point you are trying to make here?
In answer to your questions, which are easily available to be answered via reputable media sources:
1. The woman who was fatally attacked while walking her dog in Brantham, Suffolk, has been identified as Anita Rose, a 57-year-old mother of six. She was found unconscious on July 24, 2024, after suffering a severe injury during her early morning walk with her dog. Despite receiving intensive care at Addenbrooke's Hospital, she passed away four days later.
A 45-year-old man from Ipswich was initially arrested on suspicion of attempted murder but has since been rearrested on suspicion of murder following her death. Additionally, a 37-year-old woman was arrested in connection with the case on suspicion of handling stolen goods. Both individuals have been released on bail, pending further investigation.
The police are continuing their inquiries and have asked anyone with information, particularly those in the local area with CCTV or doorbell cameras, to come forward
2. Do you really want all the names? It'll take too long to list them here but what can be said is that over 700 individuals have been arrested so far and more than 300 charged across the country.
3. The recent stabbing of a British Army officer has led to the arrest of 24-year-old Anthony Esan. He has been Esan charged with attempted murder. The incident, initially feared to be terrorism-related, is now believed to be linked to mental health issues, with no terrorist connections identified. The soldier remains in serious but stable condition in the hospital. Esan has been remanded in custody pending further investigations.
4. Following the recent attack on a man outside the Clumsy Swan pub in Birmingham, the police issued a statement confirming that they are actively investigating the incident. They mentioned that there have been no arrests yet but are pursuing multiple leads to identify the attackers. The police also noted that they are investigating several related incidents of criminal damage in the area, including vandalism to vehicles and other property.
5. You are incorrect about Muslims. There have been reports of Muslims being hurt during the recent riots in the UK. For example, in Hull, an Asian man was attacked by a mob who falsely blamed Muslims for the killings that initially sparked the unrest. Similar attacks were reported in other cities like Manchester and Bristol.
So what exactly is your point?
1
-
Unfortunately @wildcar9276 (possibly a Russian bot?) is a typical distortion and exaggeration to suit a certain dark Russian narrative. The actual facts are as follows: The United States maintains a military presence in northeastern Syria, primarily to support local forces in combating the Islamic State (ISIS) and to protect key oil installations. This region, notably the provinces of Deir ez-Zor and Hasakah, is also Syria’s primary agricultural zone, producing a significant portion of the country’s wheat.
While the U.S. military’s main focus has been on oil fields, their presence in these agriculturally rich areas indirectly affects control over wheat resources. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), allied with the U.S., oversee much of this territory and, by extension, its agricultural production. This situation has led to competition between the SDF and the Syrian government for wheat harvests, with both sides attempting to procure grain from farmers in these regions. 
The Syrian government while backed by Russia accused U.S. forces of “looting” the country’s resources, including wheat. In May 2021, Syrian state media reported claims that U.S. forces were smuggling wheat and oil from Syria into Iraq.  However, these allegations have not been independently verified.
In summary, while the U.S. does not explicitly occupy Syrian wheat fields, its military presence in northeastern Syria—alongside its support for the SDF—indirectly influences control over the country’s primary wheat-producing areas. This dynamic has significant implications for Syria’s agricultural output and food security.
Stop distorting facts!
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
Funny you should say that: The relationship between the Russian mafia (often referred to as "organized crime" or "criminal groups" in Russia) and the Kremlin has been a subject of speculation and investigation for years. The extent and nature of these connections are complex, often opaque, and sometimes disputed. Here's a summary of what is generally understood:
1. **Historical Connections**: During the 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia experienced significant economic and social turmoil. During this time, organized crime flourished, taking advantage of weak state institutions and the chaotic privatization of state assets. It is widely believed that some members of the Russian elite, including business leaders and government officials, collaborated with or were influenced by criminal organizations. These relationships were often mutually beneficial, with organized crime figures gaining protection and legitimacy, while state officials and oligarchs used these connections for personal or political gain.
2. **Kremlin's Use of Organized Crime**: Some analysts argue that the Kremlin, particularly under Vladimir Putin, has used organized crime networks as tools of state policy. This includes activities such as money laundering, smuggling, and even carrying out violent acts. Reports have suggested that certain criminal groups have been allowed to operate relatively freely as long as their activities align with or do not interfere with state interests. Moreover, allegations have surfaced that Russian intelligence agencies have sometimes collaborated with organized crime groups for operations abroad.
3. **International Impact**: The alleged links between the Kremlin and organized crime have implications beyond Russia. There have been claims that Russian criminal networks, with tacit or explicit support from Russian state actors, have been involved in illegal activities across Europe and North America. This includes cybercrime, drug trafficking, and interference in foreign political processes.
4. **Controversies and Denials**: The Kremlin has consistently denied any official connections to organized crime. However, the opacity of Russia's political system and the blending of state and private interests make it challenging to fully disentangle these relationships. Moreover, some cases and investigative reports have highlighted connections between prominent Russian politicians or officials and criminal figures, though definitive proof is often elusive.
In summary, while there is substantial evidence suggesting that there are links between the Russian mafia and the Kremlin, the exact nature and extent of these ties are often difficult to pinpoint due to the secretive and intertwined nature of Russia's political and criminal spheres. The issue remains a topic of significant concern and investigation in both academic and intelligence communities.
1
-
1
-
@paulcornwall7258 Incorrect. The truth is that what we term multicultural today has been part of the fabric and part of what makes up the term ‘British culture’ of the United Kingdom. The UK has been a multicultural nation for centuries, although the term "multicultural" is more recent. The UK's history of multiculturalism can be traced back to various periods:
1. Roman Britain (43-410 AD): When the Romans invaded and settled in Britain, they brought people from all over the Roman Empire, including parts of Africa, the Middle East, and continental Europe. This led to a degree of ethnic and cultural diversity in Britain.
2. Viking and Norman Invasions (8th-11th centuries): The Viking invasions and later the Norman Conquest in 1066 brought Scandinavian and Norman-French influences to Britain, adding to the cultural mix.
3. Medieval and Early Modern Periods: During the medieval period, Britain saw the arrival of various groups such as the Jews, who were invited by William the Conqueror in 1066 (though later expelled in 1290), and Flemish weavers and Huguenots fleeing religious persecution in the 16th and 17th centuries.
4. Colonial and Post-Colonial Era (16th century onwards): The British Empire's expansion brought people from its colonies, particularly in the 18th and 19th centuries. This included individuals from Africa, the Caribbean, India, and other parts of Asia. Post-World War II immigration, particularly from the Caribbean (Windrush Generation), India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, significantly increased the multicultural makeup of the UK.
5. Modern Multiculturalism (20th century onwards): The term "multiculturalism" began to be used more widely in the latter half of the 20th century, reflecting the increasing recognition and celebration of cultural diversity within the UK, particularly as immigration from former colonies increased after World War II.
1
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
@Chari-n5b91ty Your statement is true except for the last line. The right of a country to defend itself is widely recognized in international law, particularly under the United Nations Charter's Article 51, which allows for self-defense if an armed attack occurs. However, how a country exercises this right is subject to international legal standards, such as humanitarian laws and rules of armed conflict.
These rules stipulate that any defensive actions must be proportional to the threat faced and must make a distinction between combatants and civilians, aiming to minimize harm to the latter. Even if a state has the right to defend itself, it doesn't grant carte blanche to act in any way it chooses; actions must comply with international law. Violations, such as excessive use of force or targeting civilians, can lead to accusations of war crimes.
In the case of Israel or any state facing conflict, the debate often centers on whether the measures taken are proportionate and whether they respect humanitarian norms, rather than whether the country has a right to self-defense itself. Critics may argue that some actions are excessive or violate international norms, while supporters may view those actions as necessary for self-defense.
Its is therefore not true to say that Isreal or any other country for that matter is entitled to defend itself in any way it chooses.
1
-
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
-
Except that knife crime increase isn’t caused by immigration. Here are the actual facts; Ministry of Justice Data show that foreign nationals made up around 12% of the total prison population in England and Wales. However, the MoJ data does not suggest that foreign nationals are overrepresented in violent crime, including knife crime, when adjusting for population size. Most knife crime offenders are British-born citizens.
Knife crime has been rising in some parts of the UK, but studies and statistics consistently show that immigration is not a key driver of this trend. Instead, knife crime is more closely associated with youth violence, gangs, and drug-related activities, which are fueled by social and economic factors such as deprivation and inequality.
While some politicians and media outlets might claim a direct link between immigration and knife crime, the evidence does not support this. The focus should instead be on tackling the underlying causes of violent crime, which often affect marginalized communities, regardless of immigration status.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
It’s actually a really good question. Immigrants who pay traffickers to facilitate their journey to the UK often gather the necessary funds through various means, which can include:
1. *Savings and Family Contributions:* Many migrants use personal savings accumulated over time. Their families, both immediate and extended, often contribute, pooling resources to cover the costs. This can involve selling property, livestock, or other assets in their home countries.
2. *Loans from Relatives or Community Members:* Migrants might borrow money from relatives, friends, or community members. In some communities, informal lending systems exist where individuals contribute to a communal fund, which is then lent out to those needing to make such journeys.
3. *Debt to Traffickers or Smugglers:* In some cases, migrants may not pay upfront but instead enter into debt arrangements with traffickers or smugglers. They agree to repay the debt after arriving in the UK, often by working in informal or illegal employment, sometimes under exploitative conditions.
4. *Sale of Personal Belongings:* Some migrants sell their personal belongings or assets, such as jewelry, vehicles, or land, to raise the necessary funds.
5. *Remittances from Family Abroad:* Migrants with family members already living abroad, including in the UK, may receive remittances to cover the costs of their journey.
6. *Employment in Transit Countries:* Migrants may work in transit countries for extended periods to earn enough money to pay traffickers for the next stage of their journey.
These methods vary depending on the migrant's country of origin, the journey's complexity, and their personal or familial financial situation. The cost of being smuggled can be substantial, often ranging from thousands to tens of thousands of pounds, depending on the route and method of travel.
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
-
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
-
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
-
@conz9879 so I ask for evidence and you choose not to provide it. I think anybody with any sense will realise why.
Obviously you will not be referring to the following video since you wouldn’t want to spread fake news, would you? I am talking about the case Snopes has already investigated and found the claim to be false. Specifically Snopes states “Video Footage and News Headlines Don't Document Haitian Immigrant Eating Cat in Springfield, Ohio….
A video of an American citizen has been shared as evidence that Haitians are eating pets. Following remarks made by former U.S. President Donald Trump in his first presidential debate against Vice President Kamala Harris — in which he repeated the unfounded claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were "eating your dogs" and "eating your cats" — several conservative influencers shared purported evidence to support the claim. One of the earliest pieces of alleged support came from an Aug. 16, 2024, incident in which an Ohio woman identified as Alexis Telia Ferrell allegedly killed and ate a pet cat in front of several people:
Authorities later released body camera footage of the incident, which some conservative influencers then used as alleged evidence of the claims against Haitian immigrants, describing or implying that the woman involved in this incident was Haitian: As Snopes previously reported, and other outlets have confirmed, Ferrell is not a Haitian immigrant. According to The Associated Press, she is an American citizen who was born in the United States and who graduated from high school in Canton, Ohio. This event has nothing to do with Springfield, as it occurred in a different town…..
According to court records viewed by Snopes, Ferrell has an extensive criminal record involving numerous arrests, but none of these charges involved any immigration-related violation. In the cat incident, she was booked into jail on suspicion of prohibitions concerning companion animals, cruelty to animals and disorderly conduct, according to news reports. Because Ferrell is not an immigrant, not Haitian and not from Springfield, we have rated the claim as "False." ‘’
So go on, please do share your evidence so that we can see you fully understand the nature and process of critical thinking.
1
-
1
-
@conz9879 thanks for the clarification, even if you have now switched it to ducks. Unfortunately it doesn’t actually qualify as evidence. I can see what is happening here. You and others are using a video of a social media influencer who makes a living out of chasing clicks) making claims that are only not only unproven but have actually been debunked. Evidence means it is verified not simply an allegation or anecdote. Once again if you make the effort to cross check with reputable fact checkers such as Snopes then you will find the following (in their own words):
“No Evidence Haitian Immigrants Are Eating Ducks, Geese or Pets in Springfield, Ohio…
In early September 2024, a series of claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, went viral. Most significant among these claims were the assertions that a Haitian immigrant had eaten someone's pet cat, and that others had been seen eating swans and ducks in public parks.
In a Sept. 8, 2024, post on X, GOP vice presidential candidate JD Vance repeated the allegation. These claims have been elevated by a series of right-wing influencers including Benny Johnson, Tim Pool, and Charlie Kirk, and politicians including U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan.
In response to the headlines, the GOP House Judiciary Subcommittee — chaired by Jordan — posted a meme containing an AI-generated image of Trump hugging a duck and a cat on the subcommittee's official X account.
These charges had no basis in fact — they were unsourced internet rumors. Here, Snopes explains the controversy:
Background
Since 2020, Springfield, Ohio, has seen a dramatic rise in immigrants from Haiti. City officials estimate, according to The New York Times, that as many as 20,000 Haitians had arrived in the small town in 2024 since the onset of the pandemic.
Thanks to the availability of jobs, Springfield became a hot spot for Haitian immigrants around that time, according to reporting in NPR. According to The New York Times, the arrival of several manufacturing plants or corporations between 2017 and 2020 created a surplus of jobs. A lack of local labor created a deficit of workers, and word spread among the Haitian community that work could be found in the town, per the Times: ‘Soon there were not enough workers. Many young, working-age people [from Springfield] had descended into addiction. Others shunned entry-level, rote work altogether, employers said. Haitians who heard that the Springfield area boasted well-paying, blue-collar jobs and a low cost of living poured in, and employers were eager to hire and train the new work force.’
In September, when Vance tweeted his meme referencing murdered pets, he shared a video of himself raising the issue of federal funding for Springfield that arose during a May 2024 congressional hearing.
Cats, Ducks and Geese?
As reported by the Springfield News-Sun, the claim that a Haitian immigrant ate a pet cat stems from a rumor posted to a Springfield Facebook group:
A social media post originally from a Springfield Facebook group went viral nationally in recent days. The original poster did not cite first-hand knowledge of an incident. Instead they claimed that their neighbor's daughter's friend had lost her cat and found it hanging from a branch at a Haitian neighbor's home being carved up to be eaten. That Facebook post was shared on several social media platforms, and gained virality when it was shared by the X account End Wokeness on Sep. 6, 2024.
The Facebook post originating the claim presented unverified third-hand Facebook information as fact. Further, it falsely claimed local law enforcement was aware of a problem involving Haitians butchering local pets or waterfowl.
In fact, according to the News-Sun, the Springfield Police Department had not received any reports related either to the killing of a cat or the butchering of ducks and geese at the time of this reporting. Springfield Mayor Rob Rue said claims that geese or ducks from parks were being killed and eaten in the town were unsubstantiated.
False Evidence
In defense of the claim that Haitian immigrants were eating cats, some on X shared a video of purported bodycam footage of police arresting a Haitian immigrant in Springfield, Ohio eating a cat. This video does not support claims about Haitians in any way. In reality, the video depicts a real incident involving the arrest of an American citizen (not a Haitian immigrant) in Canton (not Springfield), Ohio. The video concerns an Aug. 16, 2024, incident involving a woman named Alexis Telia Ferrell, who was accused of murdering and eating a cat.
There is no evidence that Ferrell is Haitian, and no reports filed at the time of her arrest mentioned anything about Haiti. According to court records viewed by Snopes, Ferrell has an extensive criminal record involving numerous arrests, but none of these charges involved any immigration-related violation.
Another piece of purported evidence for the claim of widespread Haitian goose-killing in Springfield concerned a single image of a Black man carrying a dead Canada goose.
Like the bodycam footage used as evidence for Haitian cat killing, however, this image does not come from Springfield. The photo can be found in a Reddit thread about Columbus, Ohio, and it was posted at least one month earlier than these viral claims. There is no evidence that this individual had any connection to Haiti.
Further purported evidence comes from far-right or conspiracy influencers providing "on the ground" coverage from Springfield, or from videos of local city council meetings in which alleged residents are seen complaining about the Haitian population. As far as eating animals is concerned, these videos all depict people repeating second-hand information, and are not independent corroboration of those viral claims.
The Bottom Line
There is no evidence, outside of second- and third-hand social media gossip, to support the notion that Haitian residents of Springfield, Ohio, are eating people's pet cats or their parks' waterfowl. The only alleged evidence in support of the former actually depicts an American in a different city. The alleged evidence of the latter stems from a single picture apparently taken in a different city.
For these reasons, and because Springfield officials deny the validity of such reports, the claim is "Unfounded." ‘’
Of course, since you are clearly an intelligent and analytical person desperate to seek the actual facts you will not be referring to any of these things and your assertion that the ‘guy in red’ was somehow actual evidence was clearly an error. It’s ok, we all make mistakes. So come on, what is the actual evidence you are using as proof? I would love to know so I can add it to my database and assist in explaining the actual facts for people in the future.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@CurtisStackhouse ok got it. Thanks for clarifying. Entering the UK without going through border control is indeed a criminal offence. However, labelling immigrants as ''illegal'' is problematic. Immigration law is complex, and many individuals described as "illegal" are often in situations where their legal status is unclear or in flux. For instance, some might be asylum seekers awaiting decisions, or people who have overstayed visas due to complicated legal processes. Labeling them as "illegal" oversimplifies these nuances.
Also, many immigration violations, such as overstaying a visa, are civil infractions rather than criminal offenses. The term "illegal" implies criminality, which misrepresents the legal nature of these infractions. The use of the term "illegal" in political discourse and media can fuel xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment, making it easier for extremist views to gain traction in the public sphere.
From a human rights perspective, all individuals, regardless of their legal status, are entitled to basic rights and dignity. Using the term "illegal" can obscure this fact and contribute to a narrative that devalues the humanity of those who are undocumented or out of status.
Using terms like "undocumented immigrant," or "unauthorized immigrant," are more precise and avoid the negative implications of criminality that come with the word "illegal."
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@sugarkane4830 statements to the effect that immigrants are able to get PIP UC benefits are highly misleading. In reality the eligibility is strict and genrally applies to approved residence status. Whether immigrants are under this illusion or not is another question. Here are the facts: eligibility depends on several factors, including your immigration status, residency, and specific rules related to each benefit.
1. Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
Habitual Residence Test: To be eligible for PIP, you generally need to pass the Habitual Residence Test. This test looks at whether you have a right to reside in the UK and whether your presence in the UK is lawful.
Right to Reside: You must have a right to reside in the UK. This right can come from being a British citizen, having indefinite leave to remain (settled status), or being a national of an EU/EEA country or Switzerland with pre-settled or settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme.
Presence in the UK: You usually need to have been present in the UK for at least two out of the last three years (104 out of 156 weeks) before applying for PIP. However, there are exceptions for refugees and people with humanitarian protection.
Asylum Seekers: Generally, asylum seekers are not eligible for PIP unless they have been granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.
2. Universal Credit (UC)
Right to Reside and Habitual Residence Test: Like PIP, to claim UC, you must have a right to reside in the UK and pass the Habitual Residence Test. This includes showing that you intend to stay in the UK long-term.
Settled Status or Pre-Settled Status: EU/EEA nationals and Swiss nationals need to have pre-settled or settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme to be eligible for UC.
No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF): Many immigrants have a visa condition that states they have "no recourse to public funds" (NRPF). This means they cannot claim most welfare benefits, including UC. However, if you have indefinite leave to remain, refugee status, or humanitarian protection, you may be eligible despite this condition.
Work-Related Benefits: If you are working and meet the other criteria, you might still qualify for UC, especially if you have settled status or another recognized residency.
Specific Scenarios:
Settled Status: Immigrants with settled status (indefinite leave to remain) are generally eligible for both PIP and UC, provided they meet the other criteria for each benefit.
Pre-Settled Status: Those with pre-settled status may be eligible for UC, though there are additional requirements. They might face restrictions when applying for PIP unless they meet specific criteria, like having a history of lawful residence.
NRPF Condition: If your immigration status includes a "no recourse to public funds" condition, you are generally not eligible for UC or PIP unless you have settled status or specific exemptions.
Asylum Seekers: Asylum seekers waiting for a decision on their claim are not eligible for PIP or UC but may receive support through the asylum support system.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rogerwoodhouse7945 Good question. Your question relates specifically to “boat people”. Here is the answer:
1. Legal Status Upon Arrival:
- Individuals who arrive in the UK via small boats often claim asylum upon arrival. Under international law, people have the right to seek asylum if they are fleeing persecution or conflict in their home country.
- When they claim asylum, their immigration status is classified as an "asylum seeker" while their claim is being processed. During this period, they are generally not allowed to work and are provided with basic support such as accommodation and a small financial allowance.
2. Processing and Outcomes:
- The UK government assesses each asylum claim to determine if the individual qualifies for refugee status or other forms of humanitarian protection.
- If the asylum claim is approved, the person is granted refugee status, which allows them to live and work in the UK with most of the same rights as a British citizen, including the possibility of applying for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) after a certain period.
- If the claim is rejected, the individual may be required to leave the UK, although they may have the option to appeal the decision or seek other forms of protection.
3. Recent Policy Changes and Challenges:
- The UK government has introduced stricter measures to deter people from making dangerous crossings by boat, including policies that could deny asylum to those who arrive through "irregular" routes (like crossing the Channel by boat).
- The "Illegal Migration Act" passed in 2023 allows the UK to detain and remove individuals who arrive by small boats to a third country (previously defined as Rwanda but now cancelled - but the law still applies) or their country of origin, without considering their asylum claim in the UK. This has been subject to legal challenges and widespread debate.
- The situation is further complicated by the backlog in processing asylum claims, which has led to prolonged periods of uncertainty for those awaiting decisions.
4. Detention and Removal:
- Under current laws, individuals who are denied asylum and have exhausted all appeal rights may be detained in immigration removal centers while arrangements are made to deport them. However, deportation is often challenging due to legal barriers, human rights considerations, and the reluctance of some countries to accept returnees. When the UK left the EU following the Brexit referendum it automatically left the Dublin Agreement which was the internal rules concerning who handles immigrants in an EU country. Under this rule the UK used to be entitled to return “boat” people coming from France back to France and, in some circumstances chose to do so. Since leaving the EU there is no obligation on France to take any immigrants from the UK
In summary, the immigration status of those arriving by small boats is initially often as asylum seekers, but their long-term status depends on the outcome of their asylum claims, legal challenges, and the evolving policies of the UK government. It’s worth pointing out that while the boat issue is a serious one, the vast majority of immigrants (coming via all means) are not asylum seekers.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One swallow doesnt make a summer. Showing pictures of rioting is not illegal in principle in the UK. However, there are several important considerations to be aware of:
1. Content Restrictions: If the images contain graphic violence or could incite further violence or hatred, they might be subject to content restrictions under UK law. The publication of such content could potentially violate laws related to public order, incitement to violence, or hate speech.
2. Privacy Concerns: If the images identify individuals, particularly minors, without their consent, this could raise issues under privacy laws. The UK has strict privacy laws, including the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Human Rights Act, which protect individuals' privacy rights.
3. Court Orders: In some cases, courts may issue specific orders restricting the publication of certain images or information related to ongoing criminal investigations or trials. Violating such orders can result in legal consequences.
4. Broadcasting Regulations: Media outlets are subject to broadcasting regulations that govern what can be shown on television and online. These rules, enforced by Ofcom, ensure that content is not harmful or offensive and does not breach broadcasting standards.
As long as the images are shared responsibly, without violating these considerations, it is generally legal to show pictures of riots in the UK. However, it's always important to consider the potential impact of sharing such images and whether they could contribute to harm or further unrest.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Partially true but more complex: Immigrants who already have or had British citizenship can be categorized into different groups based on historical, legal, and geographical contexts. Here are some of the key categories:
### 1. *Commonwealth Citizens*
- *Historical Context:* Citizens of Commonwealth countries, especially during the British Empire's peak, were often considered British subjects. They could migrate to the UK and were eligible for British citizenship or residency under certain conditions.
- *Examples:* Immigrants from countries like India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada, Jamaica, and Nigeria often had or could acquire British citizenship, especially before changes in the immigration laws in the 1960s and 1970s.
### 2. *Irish Citizens*
- *Special Relationship:* Due to the Common Travel Area (CTA) agreement between the UK and Ireland, Irish citizens have a unique status that allows them to live and work in the UK. Many Irish immigrants either held or easily obtained British citizenship.
### 3. *British Overseas Territories Citizens (BOTC)*
- *Connection to Territories:* Individuals born in British Overseas Territories (like Bermuda, Gibraltar, or the Falkland Islands) often had or were eligible for British citizenship. In 2002, the British Overseas Territories Act granted full British citizenship to BOTC citizens.
### 4. *European Union (EU) Citizens (Before Brexit)*
- *EU Context:* Before Brexit, EU citizens had the right to live and work in the UK. Many of these individuals, especially those who settled before 2021, applied for and acquired British citizenship.
### 5. *Refugees and Asylum Seekers*
- *Path to Citizenship:* Refugees granted asylum in the UK often became eligible for British citizenship after a certain period of residency, typically six years.
### 6. *Naturalized Citizens*
- *General Immigrants:* Immigrants from various countries who legally resided in the UK for a sufficient period could apply for naturalization. Upon meeting the residency, language, and other requirements, they could become British citizens.
### 7. *Children of British Citizens*
- *By Descent or Birth:* Children born abroad to British citizens often automatically acquire British citizenship by descent. Additionally, children born in the UK to non-British parents could acquire citizenship if their parents later naturalized or if they met certain residency requirements.
### 8. *Hong Kong Citizens (Before 1997 Handover)*
- *Special Status:* Some Hong Kong citizens held British National (Overseas) status before the 1997 handover to China, which allowed them to hold British passports and certain rights within the UK. In recent years, the UK offered a new pathway to citizenship for BN(O) status holders and their dependents.
### 9. *Former British Colonies*
- *Historical Migrants:* Citizens from countries that were once British colonies or protectorates often held or had access to British citizenship, especially if they migrated before their country's independence.
These groups reflect a range of historical and legal changes that have shaped who could acquire or hold British citizenship. The status and rights of these groups have evolved significantly over time, influenced by immigration laws, international relations, and policy changes.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Your comment is simply untrue. Tommy Robinson has a history of criminal convictions, including fraud. Specifically, in January 2014, Robinson was sentenced to 18 months in prison for mortgage fraud. He pleaded guilty to conspiring to obtain a mortgage by misrepresentation, involving a sum of £160,000 over six months. The judge described him as the “instigator, if not the architect” of a series of frauds totaling £640,000.  In 2005, he was convicted of assaulting an off-duty police officer. In 2013, he was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment for using someone else’s passport to enter the United States, circumventing travel restrictions due to his criminal record. Robinson has been jailed multiple times for contempt of court, including an 18-month sentence in 2024 for violating a court order prohibiting him from repeating libelous claims against a Syrian refugee. These convictions highlight a pattern of unlawful behavior beyond the mortgage fraud incident.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Ktf2309 “All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well if you mean that he has not been convicted of specifically assaulting women then you would be right. But his record demonstrates he does have a pattern of aggressive behaviour. His criminal record includes various offenses, such as assault, public order offenses, and stalking. For example, in July 2004, Robinson assaulted an off-duty police officer who intervened in an argument between Robinson and his then-girlfriend. He was convicted in April 2005 and received a 12-month prison sentence. Another example, in April 2011, he was convicted of assault for headbutting a man in Blackburn and received a 12-week suspended jail term. Another example, in January 2021, Robinson went to the home of journalist Lizzie Dearden after she inquired about allegations of his misuse of financial donations. He falsely accused her partner of being a pedophile and threatened to return every night. In October 2021, he was convicted of stalking and received a five-year ban from contacting the couple.
1
-
1
-
To say multiculturalism has failed in the UK ignores that fact that the whole of British history has been based upon it for centuries. Indeed, it is interwoven into the very fabric or what makes Britian ''British''. The multicultural history of Britain is a rich and complex narrative that spans thousands of years. It reflects the waves of migration, trade, conquest, and cultural exchange that have shaped the nation into a diverse society.
Prehistoric and Ancient Migrations
- Prehistoric Britain: The earliest inhabitants of Britain were of varied origins, migrating from what is now mainland Europe. The arrival of the Celts around 600 BCE brought significant cultural influences.
- Roman Britain (43-410 CE): The Roman conquest introduced a wide range of ethnic groups to Britain, including soldiers, traders, and slaves from across the Roman Empire (Africa, the Middle East, and Europe).
Early Medieval Period (5th - 11th Century)
- Anglo-Saxon Migration: After the fall of Roman Britain, Anglo-Saxons, a mix of tribes from present-day Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, migrated to Britain. This period also saw the arrival of the Viking Norsemen.
- The Norman Conquest (1066): The Normans, originally of Viking descent but culturally French, invaded and established a new ruling elite in Britain.
Medieval and Early Modern Period (11th - 16th Century)
- Medieval Jewish Communities: Jews arrived in Britain following the Norman Conquest, contributing to trade and finance until their expulsion in 1290.
- Hanseatic League and Flemish Weavers: The late medieval period saw the arrival of German merchants and Flemish weavers, who brought skills and influenced the economy.
- Black Tudors: Records indicate the presence of Africans in Tudor England, often as free individuals, servants, or skilled workers.
The Age of Empire and Transatlantic Slavery (17th - 19th Century)
- The Transatlantic Slave Trade: Britain became deeply involved in the slave trade, with African slaves being transported to the Americas. This era saw the forced migration of Africans and their significant, if often overlooked, presence in Britain.
- Indian and Chinese Sailors: With the expansion of the British Empire, Indian and Chinese sailors (lascars) were employed on British ships, some of whom settled in port cities like London and Liverpool.
- Huguenot Refugees: French Protestant Huguenots fled to Britain in large numbers in the late 17th century, contributing to the economy and society, particularly in weaving and silk production.
As an aside, even Nigel Farage's ancestors were immigrants: Nigel Farage's ancestry includes Huguenot heritage. The surname "Farage" is of French origin, and it is believed that his ancestors were Huguenots. Many Huguenots settled in England and other countries, bringing with them their skills, culture, and names. Farage's family history aligns with this migration, as the Huguenots were known to have a considerable influence in England, particularly in certain industries and communities.
The 19th and Early 20th Century
- Irish Migration: The Irish Famine of the 1840s triggered mass migration to Britain, particularly to industrial cities, where they often faced discrimination.
- Jewish Immigration: Pogroms in Eastern Europe led to waves of Jewish refugees arriving in Britain in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
- Windrush Generation (Post-World War II): After WWII, Britain encouraged migration from the Caribbean to help rebuild the country. This marked the beginning of significant Black and South Asian communities.
Late 20th and Early 21st Century
- South Asian Migration: Post-war migration policies also brought large numbers of migrants from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, many of whom settled in major cities.
- African and Caribbean Migration: Migration continued from former colonies in Africa and the Caribbean, contributing to the diversity of Britain's population.
- European Union: The expansion of the EU in the 2000s led to increased migration from Eastern European countries, such as Poland and Romania.
Contemporary Britain
- Cultural Diversity: Britain today is a multicultural society with significant communities from across the world. The 21st century has seen increased awareness and celebration of this diversity, alongside challenges such as debates on immigration and integration.
- Recognition and Representation: There has been growing recognition of the contributions of minority groups to British culture, history, and society, though issues of inequality and discrimination persist.
Far from a ''failure'' the multicultural history of Britain is a testament to the enduring impact of migration and cultural exchange on the fabric of the nation. Each wave of newcomers has left its mark, contributing to the rich and diverse society that Britain is today.
1
-
1
-
1
-
very good. Unfortunately that's not the picture for all Reform voters by any stretch: The involvement of individuals affiliated with Reform UK in recent violence and riots has become a notable concern. While there isn't a comprehensive list of individuals from Reform UK directly involved in violence, the party has been linked to several incidents of unrest, particularly following inflammatory rhetoric from its leaders.
Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK, has been criticized for contributing to the tensions that led to the riots, especially following an incident in Southport where misinformation about the attacker's identity and immigration status was spread online. Although Farage and the party have officially condemned the violence, there is evidence suggesting that the rhetoric from some Reform UK members has fueled unrest. Supporters of the party are more likely than others to sympathize with or justify the unrest, as revealed by recent polling.
In total, hundreds of people have been arrested in relation to the recent riots, with a significant number of them being involved in or inspired by far-right and anti-immigration sentiments, which Reform UK has been associated with, even if not directly organizing the violence
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
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Saltybuher if you are just talking about the NHS then you are right. Taxes on smoking account for around £10 billion plus compared toNHS costs for the same of around 2.5 to 3.3 Billion. But economically overall it’s a different picture. Overall the cost to the UK is estimated at 12 to 14 billion per year due to direct healthcare costs, productivity losses, and additional social care costs, representing a substantial economic burden on the country. But quite apart from the raw economics, the fact remains that In the UK, the desire to quit smoking is also quite significant among smokers. Here are some relevant statistics:
1. General Population: According to Public Health England (now part of the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities), approximately 60-70% of adult smokers in the UK say they want to quit smoking.
2. Quit Attempts: Around 50-55% of smokers in the UK attempt to quit each year. However, only a small percentage of these attempts result in long-term success without support.
3. Young Adults: Among younger smokers, particularly those aged 18-24, the desire to quit is generally higher, with surveys indicating that up to 75% express a desire to quit smoking.
4. Support Programs: The UK has robust smoking cessation support systems, including the NHS Stop Smoking Services, which have been shown to increase the success rate of quit attempts.
These statistics highlight the strong desire among UK smokers to quit, which is supported by various public health initiatives aimed at reducing smoking prevalence in the country.
1
-
1
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ lots of stuff here to deal with. Regarding Hamas, the U.K. like many other countries, does not provide aid directly to Hamas, as it is designated a terrorist organization by the UK government. However, aid has been provided to Palestinians in Gaza through international organizations and humanitarian channels, such as the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) and other NGOs.
There have been allegations in the past that aid intended for humanitarian purposes in Gaza might be misused or diverted by Hamas. Governments and aid agencies implement stringent monitoring and auditing procedures to minimize this risk. For example, the UK government channels aid through trusted organizations and ensures that funds are strictly monitored. Safeguards are in place to ensure aid reaches the intended beneficiaries, such as vulnerable Palestinian families.
The UK government has been clear that its aid is meant to support Palestinian civilians, including providing food, medical supplies, and education. It does not fund Hamas or any activities associated with it. Any allegations of misuse are investigated, and additional controls are implemented as necessary.
Regarding Ukraine, the U.K. has given significant aid but the amount given for supporting criminal investigations and direct support of the ICC is a tiny proportion- it’s significantly less than 1% : 0.15% to be exact. The vast bulk is in the form of military hardware (much made in U.K.)and humanitarian relief.
For examples of British reconstruction, obviously Ukraine is still at war so it’s too early for many examples. Nevertheless British companies are actively engaging in Ukraine’s reconstruction efforts, leveraging UK aid and investment to rebuild critical infrastructure and support economic recovery. Notable examples include, Mace and AtkinsRéalis (formerly SNC-Lavalin) and Pinsent Masons and Costain: As part of a UK coalition, these companies have targeted Ukraine’s reconstruction sector, aiming to contribute to projects worth up to $1 trillion. Another example of direct British company involvement (though not in construction) is BAE Systems: In August 2023, BAE Systems announced the opening of an office in Ukraine and signed an agreement to cooperate on the repair, spare parts, and production of L119 howitzers within the country. 
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
-
1
-
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Well the evidence says otherwise:
1. Public Statements and Rhetoric:
• Anti-Muslim Statements: Tommy Robinson has frequently made statements that have been widely interpreted as anti-Muslim. For example, he has generalized and blamed the entire Muslim community for the actions of extremists. In one interview, he said, “Every single Muslim watching this… you are the enemy within.” Such statements have been characterized as racist because they target an entire religious group in a way that stirs up hate.
• Affiliation with Far-Right Groups: Robinson has been associated with the English Defence League (EDL), a far-right organization known for its anti-Muslim stance. Although he stepped down as leader, his involvement and leadership in the EDL, which has been accused of promoting racist ideologies, have been a major point in the argument that he harbors racist views.
2. Criminal Convictions and Legal Actions:
• Robinson has been convicted of various crimes, some of which were related to his activism and protests that targeted Muslim communities. His criminal record includes charges of inciting racial hatred, which is a serious legal indication of racist behavior under UK law.
3. Actions and Campaigns:
• Social Media Activity: Robinson’s social media accounts have been banned multiple times for hate speech and promoting racist content. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have all taken actions against him, citing violations of their hate speech policies. This repeated behavior has been used to argue that his rhetoric goes beyond free speech and enters the realm of racism.
• Anti-Muslim Demonstrations: Robinson has organized and participated in multiple demonstrations against Muslim communities, which have often turned violent. His speeches at these events have typically been laced with anti-Muslim rhetoric.
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
-
1
-
1
-
@ozjob where do you get that data from? No, it is not true that American healthcare has better outcomes. Neither is it more efficient. The U.S. spends significantly more per person on healthcare than the UK.
In 2022, U.S. healthcare spending was approximately $12,555 per capita. The UK spends much less, with healthcare spending at around $5,387 per capita in the same period.
(Source: OECD Health Statistics)
In the United States Healthcare is primarily funded through private insurance, employer-provided plans, and out-of-pocket payments. In the U.K. the NHS is funded through general taxation and provides care free at the point of use for patients.
In the United States, Administrative costs in the U.S. healthcare system account for 25-30% of total spending due to the complexity of insurance billing, multiple payers, and profit-driven systems. In the United Kingdom:
Administrative costs in the NHS are much lower, at around 2-3%, due to a single-payer system.
In the United States Drug prices are among the highest in the world due to limited regulation of pharmaceutical pricing. In the United Kingdom the NHS negotiates prices with pharmaceutical companies, resulting in significantly lower costs for medications.
In the United States many Americans face high out-of-pocket expenses, including co-pays, deductibles, and non-covered services. Medical debt is a significant issue, with millions struggling to pay bills. In the United Kingdom, NHS patients typically pay little or nothing for healthcare services, though there are small charges for some prescriptions, dental care, and optical services.
Concerning health outcomes and value fir money Health Outcomes and Value for Money, despite higher spending, the U.S. often has poorer health outcomes (e.g., lower life expectancy, higher infant mortality rates) compared to the UK. In the U.K. the NHS provides universal access at a lower cost with better overall health outcomes in many areas.
Overall the data show that Healthcare in the U.S. is significantly more expensive than the NHS, both in terms of overall spending and individual costs. The NHS delivers more cost-effective care by focusing on universal access, centralized funding, and cost regulation. While the U.S. system offers quicker access to some services for those who can afford it, it is far from being cheaper overall.
1
-
@gemmag.2988 It’s a reasonable question and unfortunately not one I can answer. What I can say is that the claim that Lord Alli met with President Assad is based on statements made by Lord Alli himself during a House of Lords debate, as reported by Guido Fawkes. However, Guido Fawkes is not a reliable source given that the source is partisan, so what i have done is go to the actual source of the speech made by Lord Alli on 29th August 2013. It’s readily available online and you can easily find it if you are interested. In it he does say he had meetings though the content of the discussions and when those meetings took place are not mentioned. Apparently he had a UN mandate some years before but I am unable at this stage to evidence that and get further information.
It’s worth pointing out that the purpose of the speech was to warn of the unknown consequences of displacing Assad and his regime, Lord Alli pointing out the disaster of Gulf War 2. His concern expressed in his speech was that military removal of Assad should be based only on international law. It’s an interesting speech and well worth a look. Whether you or I agree with it is another matter but I have no intention of getting into that. I am only concerned with the facts.
Lord Alli is an interesting if controversial figure. He has been very successful in business, making his initial fortune in investment banking and then subsequently setting up Planet 24, a TV media company which was hugely successful creating for example, ‘Survivors’, and ‘Big breakfast’. He is also a philanthropist being a Patron of the Albert Kennedy Trust, Oxford Pride, and Elton John’s AID Foundation. Virtually all of his political work seems to be related to supporting gay rights.
Despite all of this he is also a shy character, preferring not to be in the limelight. This as well as the recent revelations concerning gifts to Labour politicians is bound to increase controversy. Much will inevitably be fake or misleading but that is not to say that some factual revelations might come out in the future. I have no knowledge of that, though I am sure that there will also be responsible independent journalists (and many irresponsible ones) who will find Lord Alli an interesting investigative topic. I am tempted to investigate myself. Anyway, I hope that helps to put things into context even if I am unable to directly answer your question.
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
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1