If

[Bulletguy]

Quote

 

Braverman, who last week caused outrage by referring to asylum seekers entering the UK as an “invasion”, had been warned by government lawyers that inflammatory immigration rhetoric risked inspiring a far-right terror attack.

Braverman’s comments came just one day after a man with links to the far right threw firebombs at a Dover immigration centre. On Saturday, counter-terrorism police announced they had found evidence that the attack was motivated by an “extreme rightwing” terrorist ideology.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/06/suella-braverman-was-warned-hate-speech-could-inspire-far-right

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

2 hours ago, B Dobson said:

1....................................... Whats funnier still is this bit "what was previously invisible has become visible" . Maybe in whatever world you live that may be true or maybe you've just "chosen to turn a blind eye " to it or maybe you've just formed an opinion on those for who it hasn't been "invisible" and its been very much "visible" for a long time .

2  I havent seen any "panic" either, I have seen concern and maybe somewhere along the way you've allowed yourself to confuse concern with panic .  

1  I rely on mainstream media, i.e. nationally broadcast radio and TV, and what used to be called "broadsheet" newspapers.  My impression, from those sources, is that before about 2020 immigration was only treated as newsworthy when "illegals" had been caught by Border Force.  Now, any migrants arriving across the channel in small boats are assumed to be "illegal" notwithstanding that, so long as they are received by Border Force on landing there is nothing illegal about their presence on UK soil.  Only those who enter the UK having evaded detection are illegal, and for some inexplicable reason no-one seems to know how many do so - unless and until, of course, they are picked up in country!  So, no-one can know how many are, actually, illegal. 

So, pre the small boats panic, there were only occasional reports, whereas now, migrant landings in Kent are reported almost daily - depending on the weather.  Only those who enter legally can be counted, and all of those have to have been granted leave to stay by the HO.  So, can you explain why the media has become so interested in the small boat crossings, where those on the boats will be a mix of (now visible) illegals, those eligible for entry (about 20%, and those who will be rejected (about 80%) - other than the obvious fact that as a result of their small boats crossings, all have become visible and appear on our TV screens almost nightly?

2  Call it what you like, but what I now see and hear is a far greater public outcry about the UK being "swamped" by migrants than was the case pre 2020 when the migrants either disappeared undetected, or arrived into restricted port areas from which they could only leave as detainees or legal visitors.  The public outcry at what is now visible has rattled the Home Office to the extent that the present Home Secretary, as Barry pointed out above, referred to us being an "invaded".  That level of hyperbole clearly suggests panic to me.

Look again at the numbers.  The total of all applications for admission, from all countries, under all headings, for the period from 2001 to 2022 is just under 1 million.  The total of successful applications for the same period is just under 200,000, or about 20%.  The year-on-year totals have fluctuated between approximately 10% in the noughties and the present 60%.  This is admissions.  All those who have applied for, under all headings, and been granted, legally, admission to the UK under the government's own rules by the government's own employees.  If they have been admitted, it is because they have proved their right to admission under UK immigration law.  That may have involved appeals against initial rulings, but that is the way the system has been designed to work by UK governments.  If you don't like the results you need to blame those who designed and administer the system, not the migrants who use it.

Why do they come.  Because they see the UK as a country that (eventually) offers them safety, opportunity, the rule of law, and reasonable stability.  Surely, that is something we, as a nation, should be proud of?  If you want to reduce the numbers, change the government, or trash the economy.  They won't come to join a fight for the scraps from other people's dustbins.

[B Dobson]

13 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

1  I rely on mainstream media, i.e. nationally broadcast radio and TV, and what used to be called "broadsheet" newspapers.  My impression, from those sources, is that before about 2020 immigration was only treated as newsworthy when "illegals" had been caught by Border Force.  Now, any migrants arriving across the channel in small boats are assumed to be "illegal" notwithstanding that, so long as they are received by Border Force on landing there is nothing illegal about their presence on UK soil.  Only those who enter the UK having evaded detection are illegal, and for some inexplicable reason no-one seems to know how many do so - unless and until, of course, they are picked up in country!  So, no-one can know how many are, actually, illegal. 

So, pre the small boats panic, there were only occasional reports, whereas now, migrant landings in Kent are reported almost daily - depending on the weather.  Only those who enter legally can be counted, and all of those have to have been granted leave to stay by the HO.  So, can you explain why the media has become so interested in the small boat crossings, where those on the boats will be a mix of (now visible) illegals, those eligible for entry (about 20%, and those who will be rejected (about 80%) - other than the obvious fact that as a result of their small boats crossings, all have become visible and appear on our TV screens almost nightly?

2  Call it what you like, but what I now see and hear is a far greater public outcry about the UK being "swamped" by migrants than was the case pre 2020 when the migrants either disappeared undetected, or arrived into restricted port areas from which they could only leave as detainees or legal visitors.  The public outcry at what is now visible has rattled the Home Office to the extent that the present Home Secretary, as Barry pointed out above, referred to us being an "invaded".  That level of hyperbole clearly suggests panic to me.

Look again at the numbers.  The total of all applications for admission, from all countries, under all headings, for the period from 2001 to 2022 is just under 1 million.  The total of successful applications for the same period is just under 200,000, or about 20%.  The year-on-year totals have fluctuated between approximately 10% in the noughties and the present 60%.  This is admissions.  All those who have applied for, under all headings, and been granted, legally, admission to the UK under the government's own rules by the government's own employees.  If they have been admitted, it is because they have proved their right to admission under UK immigration law.  That may have involved appeals against initial rulings, but that is the way the system has been designed to work by UK governments.  If you don't like the results you need to blame those who designed and administer the system, not the migrants who use it.

Why do they come.  Because they see the UK as a country that (eventually) offers them safety, opportunity, the rule of law, and reasonable stability.  Surely, that is something we, as a nation, should be proud of?  If you want to reduce the numbers, change the government, or trash the economy.  They won't come to join a fight for the scraps from other people's dustbins.

Im so glad you dont live in the real world . They come because of "the rule of law" has to be the most out of touch, void of reality and totally opposite of the truth remark Ive ever heard on here or anywhere . I sure am glad I aren't educated  

[Barry Lineker]

2 minutes ago, B Dobson said:

Im so glad you dont live in the real world . They come because of "the rule of law" has to be the most out of touch, void of reality and totally opposite of the truth remark Ive ever heard on here or anywhere . I sure am glad I aren't educated  

Has anyone seen one of those "Rule of Law" people lately?

The last ones I saw were on the telly helping some nice people bring the M25 to a standstill again.

[B Dobson]

3 minutes ago, Barry Lineker said:

Has anyone seen one of those "Rule of Law" people lately?

The last ones I saw were on the telly helping some nice people bring the M25 to a standstill again.

You gotta laugh Barry Lineker, you really do . My missus asked me what I was laughing at after reading Brains post and his claim so I showed her and even her who isnt well known for her grasp of humour started chuckling . Lordy, lordy my 

[Barryd999]

2 hours ago, B Dobson said:

So a few on Twitter, a few Labour MPs and a couple of left leaning members on here say . You really gotta laugh 

LOL! I bet without looking all your usual Twitter feeds are alive with right wing nutters spitting and shouting about migrants. They are furious about it yet they voted for it in their droves by voting for Brexit and the Tories who are now so incompetent they couldn't run a bath let alone a country.   I see it all over the internet every day!  So there must be a reason you have decided to dump the Tories.  What is it?  I bet I know.

[Bulletguy]

3 hours ago, Brian Kirby said:

The public outcry at what is now visible has rattled the Home Office to the extent that the present Home Secretary, as Barry pointed out above, referred to us being an "invaded".  That level of hyperbole clearly suggests panic to me.

Paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 in that article are interesting. When AG, Braverman contacted Patel to ask her to tone down her inflammatory rhetoric......only for Braverman to then use precisely the same language once she became HS.

[B Dobson]

8 hours ago, Barryd999 said:

LOL! I bet without looking all your usual Twitter feeds are alive with right wing nutters spitting and shouting about migrants. They are furious about it yet they voted for it in their droves by voting for Brexit and the Tories who are now so incompetent they couldn't run a bath let alone a country.   I see it all over the internet every day!  So there must be a reason you have decided to dump the Tories.  What is it?  I bet I know.

If "right wing nutters" are "spitting and shouting" about migrants then personally I dont think I'd blame them too much . Whoever is to blame for the lack of action towards these people coming in droves I would suggest that many folk may feel more than a little peeved that Aunt Mabel who worked and paid tax all her life now has to decide between eating or heating while an economic migrant who hasn't ever and probably wont ever add anything to society is living in heated luxury . I imagine that quite rightly gets "right wing nutters furious" 

[Barry Lineker]

2 hours ago, B Dobson said:

If "right wing nutters" are "spitting and shouting" about migrants then personally I dont think I'd blame them too much . Whoever is to blame for the lack of action towards these people coming in droves I would suggest that many folk may feel more than a little peeved that Aunt Mabel who worked and paid tax all her life now has to decide between eating or heating while an economic migrant who hasn't ever and probably wont ever add anything to society is living in heated luxury . I imagine that quite rightly gets "right wing nutters furious" 

Barry999 and Co are ignoring the fact that Europes migrant crisis is making many more voters in their wonderful EU turn into "Right wing nutters"🤣 

[Barryd999]

5 hours ago, B Dobson said:

If "right wing nutters" are "spitting and shouting" about migrants then personally I dont think I'd blame them too much . Whoever is to blame for the lack of action towards these people coming in droves I would suggest that many folk may feel more than a little peeved that Aunt Mabel who worked and paid tax all her life now has to decide between eating or heating while an economic migrant who hasn't ever and probably wont ever add anything to society is living in heated luxury . I imagine that quite rightly gets "right wing nutters furious" 

So they are panicking then?  So is this why you have decided to disown the Tory party then?  Because they have failed to sort out the migrants (well amongst all their other failures)?

[B Dobson]

37 minutes ago, Barryd999 said:

So they are panicking then?  So is this why you have decided to disown the Tory party then?  Because they have failed to sort out the migrants (well amongst all their other failures)?

I didn't say they were panicking and I didn't say I've disowned the Tory party either did I? You're making things up again 

[Barryd999]

2 hours ago, B Dobson said:

I didn't say they were panicking and I didn't say I've disowned the Tory party either did I? You're making things up again 

You suggested nobody was panicking!  They clearly are, got their knickers in a right twist.  

You have broadcast several times that you no longer support the Tory Party and wont be voting for them again.  I admired you for that but would be interested to hear your reasons.

[B Dobson]

47 minutes ago, Barryd999 said:

You suggested nobody was panicking!  They clearly are, got their knickers in a right twist.  

You have broadcast several times that you no longer support the Tory Party and wont be voting for them again.  I admired you for that but would be interested to hear your reasons.

They aren't panicking Barryd999, they are like I said previously they are concerned and with every right to be so . I don't think I said I wouldn't be voting for the Tories again, I think I said next time out . The reason for that is they have become poisonous just like John Majors Tories did and Blair/Browns Labour did and anything and everything they do is judged as bad . I'm quite happy for a change of government which would obviously be Labour but that doesn't mean they are a better option, far from it but maybe it's time to give the other fella a go and the merry go round starts all over again doesn't it? 

[Barryd999]

1 hour ago, B Dobson said:

They aren't panicking Barryd999, they are like I said previously they are concerned and with every right to be so . I don't think I said I wouldn't be voting for the Tories again, I think I said next time out . The reason for that is they have become poisonous just like John Majors Tories did and Blair/Browns Labour did and anything and everything they do is judged as bad . I'm quite happy for a change of government which would obviously be Labour but that doesn't mean they are a better option, far from it but maybe it's time to give the other fella a go and the merry go round starts all over again doesn't it? 

Who are you and what have you done with the real Anthony?

For once I think you might be right. 😲

[Brian Kirby]

21 hours ago, B Dobson said:

Im so glad you dont live in the real world . They come because of "the rule of law" has to be the most out of touch, void of reality and totally opposite of the truth remark Ive ever heard on here or anywhere . I sure am glad I aren't educated  

So, to be clear, in your opinion, none of the migrants who come to Britain come because they are fleeing corrupt regimes and want to be in a country where judges, and not corrupt politicians, govern the application of the law?  And you've never heard (or presumably read) this view expressed anywhere other than by me?  How very, very, sad.  Where have you been?

[Brian Kirby]

5 hours ago, B Dobson said:

I didn't say they were panicking and I didn't say I've disowned the Tory party either did I? You're making things up again 

Be fair, most of your posts take quite a lot of understanding!  🙂  It is unreasonable to blame your readers when they misunderstand what you mean.   The solution is in your hands - if you don't like the misunderstandings, eliminate them before you post.  How hard is that?  😄 

[Bulletguy]

25 minutes ago, Brian Kirby said:

Be fair, most of your posts take quite a lot of understanding!  🙂  It is unreasonable to blame your readers when they misunderstand what you mean.   The solution is in your hands - if you don't like the misunderstandings, eliminate them before you post.  How hard is that?  😄 

It's a step up from his usual disjointed pseudo hip-hop staccato style slingo though he cannot let go of his "n'all" habit.

 

[B Dobson]

1 hour ago, Brian Kirby said:

So, to be clear, in your opinion, none of the migrants who come to Britain come because they are fleeing corrupt regimes and want to be in a country where judges, and not corrupt politicians, govern the application of the law?  And you've never heard (or presumably read) this view expressed anywhere other than by me?  How very, very, sad.  Where have you been?

 

1 hour ago, Brian Kirby said:

Be fair, most of your posts take quite a lot of understanding!  🙂  It is unreasonable to blame your readers when they misunderstand what you mean.   The solution is in your hands - if you don't like the misunderstandings, eliminate them before you post.  How hard is that?  😄 

I do believe you asked "why do they come?" which wasn't a why do some come? but more a why do they all come? which you answered yourself by saying it was because of the (dont laugh at the back) the "rule of law". If you care to rephrase your question that you answered yourself then maybe we could move on . "Sad" aint cuttin it either Bro 

[B Dobson]

1 hour ago, Brian Kirby said:

Be fair, most of your posts take quite a lot of understanding!  🙂  It is unreasonable to blame your readers when they misunderstand what you mean.   The solution is in your hands - if you don't like the misunderstandings, eliminate them before you post.  How hard is that?  😄 

I didn't say I "dont like the misunderstandings" you did . Youre problem not mine sweet cheeks 

[Brian Kirby]

16 hours ago, B Dobson said:

 

I do believe you asked "why do they come?" which wasn't a why do some come? but more a why do they all come? which you answered yourself by saying it was because of the (dont laugh at the back) the "rule of law". If you care to rephrase your question that you answered yourself then maybe we could move on . "Sad" aint cuttin it either Bro 

What I actually said was "Why do they come.  Because they see the UK as a country that (eventually) offers them safety, opportunity, the rule of law, and reasonable stability."  I should probably have qualified the answer to my own question by adding:  ......................all or any of the following: safety, opportunity, the rule of law, and reasonable stability.   I should probably also have added to that list, "family attachments".

I certainly did not limit the reasons for migrants to come to the UK to the single issue of "the rule of law" as you are now seeking to claim.  That is just another distortion.

But I don't understand why the inclusion of "the rule of law" in the list of reasons could be "the most out of touch, void of reality and totally opposite of the truth remark Ive ever heard on here".

Isn't it obvious that that for so large and disparate a group as "migrants", who come from so many different countries, some will be attracted by one set of those reasons, and others by a different set?  They aren't clones.

But are you now trying to claim that no immigrants come to the UK because it is a more law-abiding country (the rule of law) than their own?  Where did you gain that information?  Do say.

[Brian Kirby]

17 hours ago, B Dobson said:

I didn't say I "dont like the misunderstandings" you did . Youre problem not mine sweet cheeks 

 

On 11/14/2022 at 12:27 PM, B Dobson said:

I didn't say they were panicking and I didn't say I've disowned the Tory party either did I? You're making things up again 

Well, you do seem to spend a lot of time saying "I didn't say" this or that.  So, I assume you are objecting to the fact that you consider some earlier post of yours has been misunderstood.  So, although I happily accept that you didn't literally say you don't like the misunderstandings, you certainly object to them, which I take to mean you'd prefer to be more clearly understood.

So, I said, helpful as ever:  "if you don't like the misunderstandings, eliminate them before you post."  Read what you have written before you post it.  That should reduce the chances of misunderstanding and the need for you to keep on protesting that you have been misunderstood.

You will now presumably reply that you haven't said you were protesting.  And, no you haven't, but your "I didn't say" posts are, in themselves, protests, or you wouldn't make them.  If not, what are they for?

[B Dobson]

1 hour ago, Brian Kirby said:

 

Well, you do seem to spend a lot of time saying "I didn't say" this or that.  So, I assume you are objecting to the fact that you consider some earlier post of yours has been misunderstood.  So, although I happily accept that you didn't literally say you don't like the misunderstandings, you certainly object to them, which I take to mean you'd prefer to be more clearly understood.

So, I said, helpful as ever:  "if you don't like the misunderstandings, eliminate them before you post."  Read what you have written before you post it.  That should reduce the chances of misunderstanding and the need for you to keep on protesting that you have been misunderstood.

You will now presumably reply that you haven't said you were protesting.  And, no you haven't, but your "I didn't say" posts are, in themselves, protests, or you wouldn't make them.  If not, what are they for?

I dont understand . Regards