Forum menu
Even decent folks tend to be thinking like them now.At least around here
So previously decent folk were not supporting far-right rioting but they are now ?
I would have thought that is unlikely since when the far-right were rioting last year they had so little public support.
Indeed in the end it was decent folk reclaiming the streets that put an end to the rioting which the police had been incapable of quelling.
And the very harsh sentences imposed by the courts on the rioters appeared to enjoy significant public support.
It turned out that decent folk weren't massively impressed with alcohol-fuelled racists smashing up their towns and going on violent rampages.
Very easy to just to dismiss people as racists and bigots rather than looking at the reasons why they may hold those views. Ask Gordon Brown how that worked out for him.
The reason they hold those views is because their money (and ours) is getting stolen by the mega-rich and almost all the media outlets and all the main political parties (to a greater or lesser extent) are telling them it's because brown people are stealing all the money.
For anyone who thinks about it for thirty seconds it's pretty obvious that it's not the brown people who are stealing all the money, it's the people who have all the money who are stealing all the money.
So why are so many people so quick to believe it's the brown people, I wonder...
Very easy to just to dismiss people as racists and bigots rather than looking at the reasons why they may hold those views.
They are concerned citizens worried about growing criminality in society and a lack of social cohesion?
https://youtube.com/shorts/PaitOHE1Z70?si=FMlG4xE3lYVp4cVM
They are concerned citizens worried about growing criminality in society and a lack of social cohesion?
That is not what I said and you know it. Quite easy in the STW bubble to just dismiss. The lies being pumped out by MSM and the 'othering' needs to change.
That is not what I said and you know it.
Hence the deliberate use of a question mark. I am clearly asking a question.
What do think are the reasons that the rather typical rioting thug in the clip that I posted holds whatever views he holds ?
What could be motivating him?
Edit : Sorry another question....."The lies being pumped out by MSM" which lies? I genuinely have no idea what lies you are referring to.
Edit : Sorry another question....."The lies being pumped out by MSM" which lies? I genuinely have no idea what lies you are referring to.
Spinning that round, do you think that MSM are presenting an accurate picture of the refugee situation?
It kicked off in Epping after an illegal migrant sexually assaulted a child.
Call it racism all you like but the people of Epping never asked for young men of unknown origin to be housed in their community, they clearly don't want it and why should they? The small boat people entered the country ILLEGALLY, their first act was to break our laws, they shouldn't be here in the first place. This situation was completely avoidable.
If there's one thing that's going to get people riled up it's feeling that their children aren't safe.
If there's one thing that's going to get people riled up it's feeling that their children aren't safe.
Well, that's kind of true and kind of not.
Brown person allegedly sexually assaults a child? Pitchforks (and bricks) out! Burn them all!
A white priest allegedly sexually assaults a child? Let's wait until we've gotten all the facts. If this happens a few more times then in few years we might have to take some action. Like move them to a different parish!
So yeah, racism.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9qx2qedqllo
Just to make sure I'm reading the right thing, is this what has caused all the riots?
It kicked off in Epping after an illegal migrant sexually assaulted a child.
Call it racism all you like but the people of Epping never asked for young men of unknown origin to be housed in their community, they clearly don't want it and why should they? The small boat people entered the country ILLEGALLY, their first act was to break our laws, they shouldn't be here in the first place. This situation was completely avoidable.
If there's one thing that's going to get people riled up it's feeling that their children aren't safe.
Depends, do they attack police and terrorise innocent people (the guy that did the assault is currently locked up) that also get done for sexual assault if theyre not brown?
if the answer is no then they probably are racist
The people attacking police and the asylum hotel are also breaking our laws, I say deport them!
Edit : Sorry another question....."The lies being pumped out by MSM" which lies? I genuinely have no idea what lies you are referring to.
Spinning that round, do you think that MSM are presenting an accurate picture of the refugee situation?
Well I think the media generally exaggerates the problem that people claiming asylum allegedly causes the UK, but they are probably responding to the narrative provided by troublemakers like Nigel Farage.
Of all the issues affecting the day-to-day lives of ordinary working people in the UK, in a real and tangible way, the issue of desperate people seeking refuge doesn't actually figure very highly.
Although you wouldn't think that if you listened to some of the shite that the MSM comes out with.
The small boat people entered the country ILLEGALLY, their first act was to break our laws, they shouldn't be here in the first place.
Well if you are going to start banging on about complying with legal requirements you better start focusing on the UK government.
One of the reasons that refugees pose such a "problem" for UK governments is precisely because they have legal rights under both UK and international law.
Understanding Your Right to International Protection
Your right to seek asylum and protection in the UK is grounded in the 1951 Refugee Convention, a key international treaty that outlines the rights of refugees and the obligations of nations to protect them. This Convention is enshrined in UK law, which means the UK authorities are legally required to offer protection and must not return you to a country where you would face persecution—a principle known as ‘non-refoulement.’ Non-refoulement ensures that you cannot be forcibly sent back to a place where your life or freedom would be threatened.
Never being one to miss an opportunity, the man-frog is presently giving a speech about deporting people or locking them up.
According to him, the UK is now ‘lawless’
I’m sure the knuckle-draggers will lap it up, as always 🙄
Well I think the media generally exaggerates the problem that people claiming asylum allegedly causes the UK, but they are probably responding to the narrative provided by troublemakers like Nigel Farage.
Of all the issues affecting the day-to-day lives of ordinary working people in the UK, in a real and tangible way, the issue of desperate people seeking refuge doesn't actually figure very highly.
I think Farage and his like generate stories which the Press run with. Successive governments have either allowed it to happen or just failed to provide alternative stories for the press to focus on.
It's the basis of Farage's success.
We already lock people up if they are breaking the law while here ... and already deport those whose applications ultimately fail. What's he suggesting, arbitrarily locking up or deporting random people waiting for their claims to be processed?
I think he’s just looking longingly across the Atlantic and fancies himself at the head of some ICE style operation
I live in Epping and know that the roads around the hotel were closed because of the protests, this is the main access road to Epping. These are the people that probably complained the most about roads being closed for Just Stop Oil and other similar protests.
And looking at the arrest reports, none of those arrested were from Epping.
Let’s hope they end up sharing a cell with those arrested for supporting Palestine action
Far-right rioters tend not to hold placards up so it is difficult to identify them as terrorists.
Hardly surprising as most of them are illiterate ****wits.
Even decent folks tend to be thinking like them now.At least around here
My condolences to you on where you have ended up living.
Spinning that round, do you think that MSM are presenting an accurate picture of the refugee situation?
Seeing as how they quote verifiable figures that tally with Home Office actuals and estimates, yes.
Or do you think the organs of state are also involved in some kind of cover up?
In which case, welcome to the Trumpian view of the world. 🙄
Quick Google brought up this article.... It's a depressing read obviously.
But they're all white, 24 yr old males. So let's kick all 24yr old males out the country for a start.
They were driving a white van..... Let's burn all the white vans! Surely if you've got a white van you're a sexual predator. Must be, there's no other explanation.
They're from Chorley. Let's all get down there and start a protest. Everyone from Chorley must be a danger to children. We should probably set fire to the place to be sure.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd78v8nv942o
I think now is also a fitting moment to remember that Brexit gave many of these small boat migrants the added incentive to cross one more border now that the UK is outside of the EU and without that institution's returns agreements.
Whatever horrible shite Farage comes out with, it is important to remember this.
We already lock people up if they are breaking the law while here ... and already deport those whose applications ultimately fail. What's he suggesting, arbitrarily locking up or deporting random people waiting for their claims to be processed?
A big part of the problem is we don't deport those who fail. We only deport a third of them.
Thankfully, the government are accepting all 12 recommendations of Louise Casey’s rapid review, including collecting ethnicity data.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/jun/16/police-ethnicity-nationality-data-grooming-gangs
If there's one thing that's going to get people riled up it's feeling that their children aren't safe.
Hold on - surely you're not saying that ordinary people would do something dangerous or illegal to get their kids out of danger?
If there's one thing that's going to get people riled up it's feeling that their children aren't safe.
Hold on - surely you're not saying that ordinary people would do something dangerous or illegal to get their kids out of danger?
If the situation called for it as a last resort I'd like to think that I'd put my children's safety over others. Wouldn't you?
Deleted because I cba seeing if my post passes the moderation criteria that it was stated it was under consideration for - it was a pic of the dump of the hotel when I stayed there a few years ago
If the situation called for it as a last resort I'd like to think that I'd put my children's safety over others. Wouldn't you?
I'm not sure diverting Police resource to deal with protests at an asylum hotel when the alleged offender has been remanded already helps keep anyone's kids safe.
Epping Forest voted Leave 62.7%.
Makes you think...
I wouldn't disagree with that but I was replying as an individual, not a member of a lynch mob.If the situation called for it as a last resort I'd like to think that I'd put my children's safety over others. Wouldn't you?
I'm not sure diverting Police resource to deal with protests at an asylum hotel when the alleged offender has been remanded already helps keep anyone's kids safe.
Tonnes of Afghan military/admin staff/translators etc, been rehoused around us (former TA base reassigned). Not one incident. One lone bloke taking a walk photographed and presented as a weirdo by (shock horror) Hindu local shopkeepers (who are forefront in the local struggle against a Sikh landowner and openly racist about it).
Funny thing. The less ****ish you are as a society, the less problems you have with assimilation. It's almost as if some Christian teachings have some worth.
I'd take fifty Afghan pluralist citizens over one white van driving, cash in hand, corner cutting, rogue trading arsehole in a heartbeat.
When push comes to shove. Under all of it, there are people who try and people who don't. And it's got **** all to do with skin colour/ race / religion / ethnicity.
Hold on - surely you're not saying that ordinary people would do something dangerous or illegal to get their kids out of danger?
ISWYDT
As a Southport resident I can only hope that this next week shows our communities coming together to remember the tragic loss this town suffered, for the 3 girls and the multiple other children and adults affected. I hate that the name of my town is now synonymous with the riots. In the aftermath of the 'bussed in' troublemakers people of this town came together to clean the streets up and rebuild the walls around the mosque. I drive past that mosque, that was under completely unprovoked attack by mindless racist thugs, probably 3-4 times a week. They have had volunteer 'security guards' from the mosque stand outside at all times ever since. It breaks my heart to see this and for them to think that that is what they need to feel safe.
They have had volunteer 'security guards' from the mosque stand outside at all times ever since. It breaks my heart to see this and for them to think that that is what they need to feel safe.
Which is a good juncture to make the point that the Southport attacker was a Christian brought up in Wales. Not a Muslim brought up in Lancashire.
If anyone wants to try to draw a line from the attack itself to the local mosque needing protection a year on, I'd like to see them try.
The answer is more simple than that, though. Racism plain and simple.
This Convention is enshrined in UK law, which means the UK authorities are legally required to offer protection and must not return you to a country where you would face persecution—a principle known as ‘non-refoulement.’
I have no problem with that. How many though have any thing to substantiate their claim that they would face persecution at home or in one of the other countries they have chosen to travel through. Given that many don’t have any documentation to even substantiate where home is I’m struggling to see how such a claim can be proven
This Convention is enshrined in UK law, which means the UK authorities are legally required to offer protection and must not return you to a country where you would face persecution—a principle known as ‘non-refoulement.’
I have no problem with that.
That's great!
The point is that the UK authorities are legally required to consider applications for asylum, it was suggested that those who arrive by irregular means such as small boats had automatically no legal status.
I’m struggling to see how such a claim can be proven
Well that's not something for you to concern yourself with, it is for the courts and the legal process to deal with that issue.
You just have to accept that asylum seekers have legal rights in the UK under both international and UK laws.
It's also a manufactured problem - people arrive and don't seem to be processed in a fair or timley manner, they just seem to be sent to languish in hotels or social housing in perpetuity.
Then the public, or should I say large swathes of the public get angry at the assylum seekers, rather then the lack of any real long term government plan to deal with them quickly and fairly....
It’s a shame the convention isn’t as strongly worded on what happens with those who have been through due process and not demonstrated they are asylum seekers. If as part of the legal process the claimant has to be able to demonstrate the country then those who fail should be automatically deported back to that country.
Many countries aren't very keen on or refuse point blank the return of asylum seekers. So short of parachute training the whole legal process is pointless. Handing out short-term work visas from day one is my suggestion so they can make themselves useful whilst in the UK and have some cash to go back with if asylum is ultimately refused and they are expelled.
Even if they don't qualify for asylum it might be worth considering how useful they could be to the country and granting a visa on merit.
Many countries aren't very keen on or refuse point blank the return of asylum seekers. So short of parachute training the whole legal process is pointless.
But if the uk is expected to honour the treaty to assess then those countries should be under the same level of obligation to take back failed asylum seekers. They can’t have it both ways. We either all play by the treaty on no one does
It's also a manufactured problem - people arrive and don't seem to be processed in a fair or timley manner, they just seem to be sent to languish in hotels or social housing in perpetuity.
Well yes, and a rather useful manufactured problem. How else can governments distract attention away from their own failings in housing, health care, crime, rising utility costs, etc etc ?
Get the issue of "the small boats" on the front pages whilst relegating real issues onto the more obscure pages and you've got yourself a result.
The only problem with that tactic of course is that if you do manage to convince voters that asylum seekers are a real issue and a threat to them they then expect you to resolve the "problem".
Invariably it ends up being completely counter-productive and the consequences are totally predictable, as the last Tory government discovered to their cost when they put the issue of small boats at the forefront of their voter charm offensive.
History repeats itself, first as a tragedy and then as a farce.
Many countries aren't very keen on or refuse point blank the return of asylum seekers. So short of parachute training the whole legal process is pointless.
But if the uk is expected to honour the treaty to assess then those countries should be under the same level of obligation to take back failed asylum seekers. They can’t have it both ways. We either all play by the treaty on no one does
I am not sure what "refuse point blank the return of asylum seekers" means, I suspect that it is a typo, but what I am sure of is anti-asylum seeker racism and bigotry is widespread across much of Europe and the the West, which is ironic as asylum seekers are often fleeing appalling conditions created by Western inference.
But the fact that there are widespread anti-asylum seeker sentiments in many countries is hardly a justification for having them in the UK.
Victor Orban might be popular in Hungary, or Donald Trump in the USA, but that is no reason to assume that it is therefore acceptable for Nigel Farage to be popular in the UK.
So applying that same logic, this comment :
We either all play by the treaty or no one does
has no traction.
As usual Ernie you've missed the point or more likely deliberately ignored it. chrismac and Edukator were referring to failed asylum seekers so most of your post isn't relevant when replying. Many countries won't take back failed asylum seekers (who by their very nature have failed to show they deserve ayslum) so we end up stuck with them. We're in a no win situation although I do agree it's not the biggest problem the UK faces despite all the right wing biggotted frothing. We have much bigger issues with our ever increasing numbers of home grown drains on society who are often ironically the ones shouting loudest about the immigrants stealing their benefits.
As my plain English isn't working for you, Ernie, try it in French: 😉
You simply can't return people to some places, they are refused entry.
That's not racist of me it's a simple obervation. What I'm suggesting is that all of these people whatever their immigration status are given temporay visas that allow them to work which will benefit them and society as a whole. Keeping them in detention centers (prisons) is counter productive unless there's reason to believe they're a danger to society which the vast majority aren't. They're people who've fled violence/persecution, undertaken dangerous joruneys and would like to make their lives in a safe place.
IMO it's a serious error not allowing them to work legally as history tells us immigrants who can't work very often work illegally and tend to set up criminal organisations.