FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Misinformation blaming migrants: our problems are homegrown
Misinformation blaming migrants: our problems are homegrown
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Following the misinformation about the Southport attacker's origins, a recent stabbing attack against police officers in Dublin had attracted right wing comments as being committed by "a foreigner". The fact that the attack was committed by someone with a Muslim name, or that he began his attack with a shout on a foreign language (Allahu Akbar) could explain the confusion, but pundits and activists should, by now, know better than to jump to conclusions. https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-debunked-capel-street-supsect-was-not-a-non-national-foreigner-migrant-irish-citizen-6778209-Jul2025/ (Link complies with Fab ToS being a major news site) Migration might be a hot topic for those on the right, but is it time to begin accepting that attacks such as these are now, in fact, part of the British (or, in this case, Irish) landscape? Would people rather believe that this type of violence is foreign, and not homegrown, because that makes it easier to blame someone elsewhere, with a less obvious solution than "stopping the boats"?" Illegal (or unlawful if you prefer) entry into the UK, and facilitating thereof can be considered in isolation without looking at other woes we suffer. It's just that : illegal. That said, illegal entrants seem to be punching above their weight in terms of criminality. | |||
| |||
"It's the mindset of ignorance to the actual reality because then they can't spread hatred, once they get the story out regardless that it's inaccurate it's believed by those they want to agitate and kick off .. There's been three convictions of white indigenous groups one was just two of them in Bolton, Glasgow and I'm not sure about the pairs location but all were rightly convicted for child abuse.. Shock horror no protests, no rallying call from the likes of the fugitive Tommy.. " But that's where the law took it's usual course. Everyone knows that sexual predators and criminals exist across all walks of society. Weren't the protests triggered by alleged cover-ups and deliberate avoidance based upon ethnicity (or other demographic) by police and other institutions? In the cases you bring up, there's nothing to protest, is there? People did bad, got caught, got prosecuted, got banged up. As opposed to did bad, got excused, did more bad, got caught, etc. | |||
"It's the mindset of ignorance to the actual reality because then they can't spread hatred, once they get the story out regardless that it's inaccurate it's believed by those they want to agitate and kick off .. There's been three convictions of white indigenous groups one was just two of them in Bolton, Glasgow and I'm not sure about the pairs location but all were rightly convicted for child abuse.. Shock horror no protests, no rallying call from the likes of the fugitive Tommy.. But that's where the law took it's usual course. Everyone knows that sexual predators and criminals exist across all walks of society. Weren't the protests triggered by alleged cover-ups and deliberate avoidance based upon ethnicity (or other demographic) by police and other institutions? In the cases you bring up, there's nothing to protest, is there? People did bad, got caught, got prosecuted, got banged up. As opposed to did bad, got excused, did more bad, got caught, etc." one might think they do know that but it's the skin colour of the perpetrators that's the problem, the vile criminal acts are by the by.. No I disagree, it was malicious falsehoods and misrepresentation deliberately set in motion to cause civil unrest probably with the hope that there would be a direct response from the 'asian' community.. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Over the last 12 months the amount of misinformation I have heard is at an all time high, and from all walks of life and political leanings. We are seeing the symptoms, what is the cause? I'm not setting that up for a small boat etc comments. I mean what is the core problem that is creating such a large divide amongst the population?" One side in the UK will not acknowledge changing demographics, or at least its impact (There's nothing to see here and, if you think there is, it's bigotry). The other side will not accept changing demographics, or at least its impact (I'm not a racist, but...). Add such, most people don't understand how to deal with changing demographics. There are few adults left in the room. | |||
"Following the misinformation about the Southport attacker's origins, a recent stabbing attack against police officers in Dublin had attracted right wing comments as being committed by "a foreigner". The fact that the attack was committed by someone with a Muslim name, or that he began his attack with a shout on a foreign language (Allahu Akbar) could explain the confusion, but pundits and activists should, by now, know better than to jump to conclusions. https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-debunked-capel-street-supsect-was-not-a-non-national-foreigner-migrant-irish-citizen-6778209-Jul2025/ (Link complies with Fab ToS being a major news site) Migration might be a hot topic for those on the right, but is it time to begin accepting that attacks such as these are now, in fact, part of the British (or, in this case, Irish) landscape? Would people rather believe that this type of violence is foreign, and not homegrown, because that makes it easier to blame someone elsewhere, with a less obvious solution than "stopping the boats"?" It's fairly simple. Normal people are opposed to violent crime. Regardless of the ethnicity of the perpetrator. The far right get extremely enthused if it's a brown person or especially a Muslim being violent. And yet don't give two shits if said crime has been committed by a white British person. | |||
"Over the last 12 months the amount of misinformation I have heard is at an all time high, and from all walks of life and political leanings. We are seeing the symptoms, what is the cause? I'm not setting that up for a small boat etc comments. I mean what is the core problem that is creating such a large divide amongst the population?" This has been covered to death on here. Plain and simple, blame everything on Muslims, brown people, people in small boats. It's the perfect distraction to an element of the electorate that isn't particularly engaged. | |||
"Depends on the facts. If, as in Epping, an illegal immigrant sexually assaults a 14 year old girl within 8 days of arriving on a dinghy, it’s difficult to argue that the attack is “homegrown”, aside from indirectly being caused by a failure by government to control our borders and keep newly arrived individuals of unknown provenance in secure conditions. It’s statistical fact that non British nationals are way more likely to commit sexual offences than British nationals. Again, the only wider “cause” of such problems is weak immigration controls and lack of education of new arrivals and firm consequences (prison and swift deportation) for those who don’t adhere to societal rules and norms. Ultimately the person responsible for the attacks is the perpetrator, but weak government based on confused liberal groupthink isn’t helping." Perfect example.  | |||
"Depends on the facts. If, as in Epping, an illegal immigrant sexually assaults a 14 year old girl within 8 days of arriving on a dinghy, it’s difficult to argue that the attack is “homegrown”, aside from indirectly being caused by a failure by government to control our borders and keep newly arrived individuals of unknown provenance in secure conditions." The bbc has been covering up Jimmy Saville and Gary glitter child abuses for decades before any small boats arrived. Same applies to the Catholic Church covering up the nonce priests and the establishment covering up for Prince Andrew. | |||
"Following the misinformation about the Southport attacker's origins, a recent stabbing attack against police officers in Dublin had attracted right wing comments as being committed by "a foreigner". The fact that the attack was committed by someone with a Muslim name, or that he began his attack with a shout on a foreign language (Allahu Akbar) could explain the confusion, but pundits and activists should, by now, know better than to jump to conclusions. https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-debunked-capel-street-supsect-was-not-a-non-national-foreigner-migrant-irish-citizen-6778209-Jul2025/ (Link complies with Fab ToS being a major news site) Migration might be a hot topic for those on the right, but is it time to begin accepting that attacks such as these are now, in fact, part of the British (or, in this case, Irish) landscape? Would people rather believe that this type of violence is foreign, and not homegrown, because that makes it easier to blame someone elsewhere, with a less obvious solution than "stopping the boats"?" We, like all countries have both homegrown and imported criminals. Misinformation is a big problem and things like social media enables it to spread in an instant. I would say migration is a hot topic for many people, not just those on the right. | |||
| |||
| |||
"As a country we have to accept homegrown criminality, but the country can and should rescue itself from foreign criminality." Fair play to you for your honesty. It's refreshing. This is exactly my point, people just don't care if the crime is committed by a white British person. Yet are energised if the crime is committed by a foreigner. | |||
"I can't find any statistics for non British offenders. Only ones based on ethnicity. Which is not the same. If anyone can point me in the right direction.... " I'm not sure if there are any official figures in the public domain. An old BBC article from march 2024 was about Robert Jenrick proposing that migrant crime data is published. Obviously we have changed government since and not sure if this proposal was taken up or dropped by the new lot. | |||
"As a country we have to accept homegrown criminality, but the country can and should rescue itself from foreign criminality." I suppose for homegrown crimes we do far to accept a proportion of citizens will commit crimes. That doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders at it though if that is what you suggest. I'm assuming you don't mean accepting it in that way so just asking for clarification. | |||
"I can't find any statistics for non British offenders. Only ones based on ethnicity. Which is not the same. If anyone can point me in the right direction.... " Try using AI. This was all reported in the media (probably not the BBC) a month or so ago. “Data obtained via FOI from the MoJ indicates the following for sexual offences (including r*pe, sexual assault, and related crimes) where nationality was recorded: • Total convictions with known nationality: 16,771. • Convictions by foreign nationals (non-UK citizens): 2,500 (15%). • Convictions by UK nationals: 12,619 (75%). • Unknown nationality: Approximately 8%, potentially increasing the foreign national share to up to 23% if many unknowns are non-UK.    Per capita comparisons, based on census data where foreign nationals comprise 9.3% of the population, suggest foreign nationals were convicted at a rate 71% higher than UK nationals. Specific nationalities with the highest conviction rates per 10,000 population include Afghanistan (59 per 10,000, 22.3 times the UK rate of 2.66 per 10,000), Eritrea (53.6 per 10,000), and others such as Namibia, Chad, and Moldova.  By raw numbers, the top nationalities for convictions were Romania (987), Poland (208), India (148), Pakistan (144), and Portugal (79).  These figures originate from MoJ records compiled by the Centre for Migration Control and have been reported in media outlets, though they represent convictions rather than all recorded offences”.  Of course somebody has to make the effort to find and publish the data, as the government won’t, for obvious reasons. | |||
" These figures originate from MoJ records compiled by the Centre for Migration Control and have been reported in media outlets, though they represent convictions rather than all recorded offences”.  Of course somebody has to make the effort to find and publish the data, as the government won’t, for obvious reasons." Does this account for potential media reporting bias, should non-UK crime attract more eyeballs? It didn't seem clear from the response. | |||
| |||
| |||
"As a country we have to accept homegrown criminality, but the country can and should rescue itself from foreign criminality. Fair play to you for your honesty. It's refreshing. This is exactly my point, people just don't care if the crime is committed by a white British person. Yet are energised if the crime is committed by a foreigner. " Who mentioned colour, I don't care what colour the criminal is or what colour the foreign criminal is. | |||
| |||
"Read you're newspapers immigration has made this country a shit hole get out and look at Ur local high st." More honesty, it's refreshing. Good to see people being straight up about knowingly absorbing and falling for propaganda. | |||
"As a country we have to accept homegrown criminality, but the country can and should rescue itself from foreign criminality. Fair play to you for your honesty. It's refreshing. This is exactly my point, people just don't care if the crime is committed by a white British person. Yet are energised if the crime is committed by a foreigner. Who mentioned colour, I don't care what colour the criminal is or what colour the foreign criminal is." Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you did. Just was an excellent example of a point I made earlier. | |||
"As a country we have to accept homegrown criminality, but the country can and should rescue itself from foreign criminality. Fair play to you for your honesty. It's refreshing. This is exactly my point, people just don't care if the crime is committed by a white British person. Yet are energised if the crime is committed by a foreigner. Who mentioned colour, I don't care what colour the criminal is or what colour the foreign criminal is. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you did. Just was an excellent example of a point I made earlier. " I sometimes scroll through the chaff, my bad, your good hey.  | |||
"Over the last 12 months the amount of misinformation I have heard is at an all time high, and from all walks of life and political leanings. We are seeing the symptoms, what is the cause? I'm not setting that up for a small boat etc comments. I mean what is the core problem that is creating such a large divide amongst the population? This has been covered to death on here. Plain and simple, blame everything on Muslims, brown people, people in small boats. It's the perfect distraction to an element of the electorate that isn't particularly engaged." Possibly a surface level view of what is driving so much unrest, as it is as you say being trotted out every 5 minutes to explain something I believe to be more complex. The demographic changes acknowledging and accepting them, mentioned by T_M touches on wider point but I think there are still other issues that at play. If all immigration was stopped tomorrow, the anger across the divide wouldn't go away, it would find a new home. | |||
"Over the last 12 months the amount of misinformation I have heard is at an all time high, and from all walks of life and political leanings. We are seeing the symptoms, what is the cause? I'm not setting that up for a small boat etc comments. I mean what is the core problem that is creating such a large divide amongst the population?" | |||
"Over the last 12 months the amount of misinformation I have heard is at an all time high, and from all walks of life and political leanings. We are seeing the symptoms, what is the cause? I'm not setting that up for a small boat etc comments. I mean what is the core problem that is creating such a large divide amongst the population? This has been covered to death on here. Plain and simple, blame everything on Muslims, brown people, people in small boats. It's the perfect distraction to an element of the electorate that isn't particularly engaged. Possibly a surface level view of what is driving so much unrest, as it is as you say being trotted out every 5 minutes to explain something I believe to be more complex. The demographic changes acknowledging and accepting them, mentioned by T_M touches on wider point but I think there are still other issues that at play. If all immigration was stopped tomorrow, the anger across the divide wouldn't go away, it would find a new home. " Of course. The government and media don't give a fuck about immigrants, as long as the electorate is divided, distracted and directing their ire elsewhere. That's all that matters. The previous government also used homeless people, tofu eating people, trans people etc. just so happens that someone-in-a-boat/brown/foreign/Muslim people are by far the most effective. | |||
"Over the last 12 months the amount of misinformation I have heard is at an all time high, and from all walks of life and political leanings. We are seeing the symptoms, what is the cause? I'm not setting that up for a small boat etc comments. I mean what is the core problem that is creating such a large divide amongst the population? This has been covered to death on here. Plain and simple, blame everything on Muslims, brown people, people in small boats. It's the perfect distraction to an element of the electorate that isn't particularly engaged. Possibly a surface level view of what is driving so much unrest, as it is as you say being trotted out every 5 minutes to explain something I believe to be more complex. The demographic changes acknowledging and accepting them, mentioned by T_M touches on wider point but I think there are still other issues that at play. If all immigration was stopped tomorrow, the anger across the divide wouldn't go away, it would find a new home. Of course. The government and media don't give a fuck about immigrants, as long as the electorate is divided, distracted and directing their ire elsewhere. That's all that matters. The previous government also used homeless people, tofu eating people, trans people etc. just so happens that someone-in-a-boat/brown/foreign/Muslim people are by far the most effective. " Blaming politicians and the media for the anger that has built up between the people of the country is sweeping issues under the carpet. Everything you mentioned are things people disagree on but that disagreement has now escalated into bitter resentment not only for the topic but in my opinion, mostly with each other. Why? | |||
| |||
"Over the last 12 months the amount of misinformation I have heard is at an all time high, and from all walks of life and political leanings. We are seeing the symptoms, what is the cause? I'm not setting that up for a small boat etc comments. I mean what is the core problem that is creating such a large divide amongst the population? This has been covered to death on here. Plain and simple, blame everything on Muslims, brown people, people in small boats. It's the perfect distraction to an element of the electorate that isn't particularly engaged. Possibly a surface level view of what is driving so much unrest, as it is as you say being trotted out every 5 minutes to explain something I believe to be more complex. The demographic changes acknowledging and accepting them, mentioned by T_M touches on wider point but I think there are still other issues that at play. If all immigration was stopped tomorrow, the anger across the divide wouldn't go away, it would find a new home. Of course. The government and media don't give a fuck about immigrants, as long as the electorate is divided, distracted and directing their ire elsewhere. That's all that matters. The previous government also used homeless people, tofu eating people, trans people etc. just so happens that someone-in-a-boat/brown/foreign/Muslim people are by far the most effective. Blaming politicians and the media for the anger that has built up between the people of the country is sweeping issues under the carpet. Everything you mentioned are things people disagree on but that disagreement has now escalated into bitter resentment not only for the topic but in my opinion, mostly with each other. Why?" It's 100% by design. A divided electorate is much easier to control and coerce. People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. Do you see a correlation between people who watch GBNews, frequent Daily Mail, Daily Express websites, Twitter etc etc (these are just examples), & people who think Reform are a good option, with level of anger towards mentioned minorities? One chap in this thread even explicitly mentioned it. As an anecdotal piece of evidence. | |||
"Over the last 12 months the amount of misinformation I have heard is at an all time high, and from all walks of life and political leanings. We are seeing the symptoms, what is the cause? I'm not setting that up for a small boat etc comments. I mean what is the core problem that is creating such a large divide amongst the population? This has been covered to death on here. Plain and simple, blame everything on Muslims, brown people, people in small boats. It's the perfect distraction to an element of the electorate that isn't particularly engaged. Possibly a surface level view of what is driving so much unrest, as it is as you say being trotted out every 5 minutes to explain something I believe to be more complex. The demographic changes acknowledging and accepting them, mentioned by T_M touches on wider point but I think there are still other issues that at play. If all immigration was stopped tomorrow, the anger across the divide wouldn't go away, it would find a new home. Of course. The government and media don't give a fuck about immigrants, as long as the electorate is divided, distracted and directing their ire elsewhere. That's all that matters. The previous government also used homeless people, tofu eating people, trans people etc. just so happens that someone-in-a-boat/brown/foreign/Muslim people are by far the most effective. Blaming politicians and the media for the anger that has built up between the people of the country is sweeping issues under the carpet. Everything you mentioned are things people disagree on but that disagreement has now escalated into bitter resentment not only for the topic but in my opinion, mostly with each other. Why? It's 100% by design. A divided electorate is much easier to control and coerce. People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. Do you see a correlation between people who watch GBNews, frequent Daily Mail, Daily Express websites, Twitter etc etc (these are just examples), & people who think Reform are a good option, with level of anger towards mentioned minorities? One chap in this thread even explicitly mentioned it. As an anecdotal piece of evidence. " No I don't, that is a wide brushstroke. I have listened to people who have walked away from the 2 main parties and see Reform as the next best option, they are not all knuckle dragging thugs who fit a perfect ready made description that satisfies the dislike. There are sides being taken, clearly, and the topic could be a simple as the weather. Both sides will argue and in many cases resort to violence, what has changed in our society that people are so opposed? | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. " How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion?" Probably something to do with Isis, Al Qaida and their attacks. It was a common misconception that anyone who was Muslim must be a terrorist. That shadow is long, and the effects are far reaching. | |||
"That said, illegal entrants seem to be punching above their weight in terms of criminality." Far outweighed by the level of criminality amongst those protesting outside the hotels, all of which seem to have criminal records. Now if only we could deport the protesters to another country, how much better it would be for everyone. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion?" I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion?" Are you asking why the media doesn't tell people to be angry with Hindus, or people from India etc? They've been there, done that, moved on to new targets. | |||
"Over the last 12 months the amount of misinformation I have heard is at an all time high, and from all walks of life and political leanings. We are seeing the symptoms, what is the cause? I'm not setting that up for a small boat etc comments. I mean what is the core problem that is creating such a large divide amongst the population? This has been covered to death on here. Plain and simple, blame everything on Muslims, brown people, people in small boats. It's the perfect distraction to an element of the electorate that isn't particularly engaged. Possibly a surface level view of what is driving so much unrest, as it is as you say being trotted out every 5 minutes to explain something I believe to be more complex. The demographic changes acknowledging and accepting them, mentioned by T_M touches on wider point but I think there are still other issues that at play. If all immigration was stopped tomorrow, the anger across the divide wouldn't go away, it would find a new home. Of course. The government and media don't give a fuck about immigrants, as long as the electorate is divided, distracted and directing their ire elsewhere. That's all that matters. The previous government also used homeless people, tofu eating people, trans people etc. just so happens that someone-in-a-boat/brown/foreign/Muslim people are by far the most effective. Blaming politicians and the media for the anger that has built up between the people of the country is sweeping issues under the carpet. Everything you mentioned are things people disagree on but that disagreement has now escalated into bitter resentment not only for the topic but in my opinion, mostly with each other. Why? It's 100% by design. A divided electorate is much easier to control and coerce. People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. Do you see a correlation between people who watch GBNews, frequent Daily Mail, Daily Express websites, Twitter etc etc (these are just examples), & people who think Reform are a good option, with level of anger towards mentioned minorities? One chap in this thread even explicitly mentioned it. As an anecdotal piece of evidence. No I don't, that is a wide brushstroke. I have listened to people who have walked away from the 2 main parties and see Reform as the next best option, they are not all knuckle dragging thugs who fit a perfect ready made description that satisfies the dislike. There are sides being taken, clearly, and the topic could be a simple as the weather. Both sides will argue and in many cases resort to violence, what has changed in our society that people are so opposed? " You see no correlation between media telling people to direct their ire at Muslims, foreigners and people on boats, with people who consume that media and direct their ire at Muslims, foreigners and people on boats? | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion?" You don't see people from any other religions indulging physical violence over a burned book or a drawn picture. Last week some TikTok guy went into a vegetarian restaurant run by the religious group ISKCON, took out some KFC chicken, ate it and posted people's reactions on TikTok. I personally hate ISKCON and the guy who started the movement. But I admire them for their reaction to the whole thing. Imagine if the same guy offended Islam? | |||
"I can't find any statistics for non British offenders. Only ones based on ethnicity. Which is not the same. If anyone can point me in the right direction.... " Such statistics are deliberately not recorded for political reasons. Some countries in Europe have released crime statistics based on country of origin. It doesn't look great for certain countries. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? Are you asking why the media doesn't tell people to be angry with Hindus, or people from India etc? They've been there, done that, moved on to new targets. " Why move on from something that works? Doesn't scan. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? Are you asking why the media doesn't tell people to be angry with Hindus, or people from India etc? They've been there, done that, moved on to new targets. Why move on from something that works? Doesn't scan." I assume because society moves forward and it no longer becomes acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people. Just like it moved on from black people before. At some point it'll be another ethnic group or minority. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country." This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion?" Was watching a video about Hindus in India. What is their primary identity, their religion or nationality. Overwhelming it was their nationality. I think for Muslims you will find a totally opposite answer. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? Was watching a video about Hindus in India. What is their primary identity, their religion or nationality. Overwhelming it was their nationality. I think for Muslims you will find a totally opposite answer. " Technically India is a secular state, as mandated by its constitution. Though the vast majority of its population identify as Hindu. On the other hand there are 27 countries in the world which have Islam as their national religion. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? Are you asking why the media doesn't tell people to be angry with Hindus, or people from India etc? They've been there, done that, moved on to new targets. Why move on from something that works? Doesn't scan. I assume because society moves forward and it no longer becomes acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people. Just like it moved on from black people before. At some point it'll be another ethnic group or minority. " oh so everytime you scream racist they are racist just not to black or Indian people? That's not how racism works,the reason black and Indian people don't get singled out is they came here and integrated they didn't come here and try and turn the country into the places they left | |||
| |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? Are you asking why the media doesn't tell people to be angry with Hindus, or people from India etc? They've been there, done that, moved on to new targets. Why move on from something that works? Doesn't scan. I assume because society moves forward and it no longer becomes acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people. Just like it moved on from black people before. At some point it'll be another ethnic group or minority. oh so everytime you scream " I'm not screaming. " racist " Haven't called anyone racist, not sure where you got that from. " they are racist just not to black or Indian people? " No clue what this means. " That's not how racism works,the reason black and Indian people don't get singled out is they came here and integrated they didn't come here and try and turn the country into the places they left" This is exactly what I'm talking about. People move on from black people to Indian people, currently is Muslims. | |||
| |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. " But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets" Going by polls, majority of the population are concerned about it. It's not just a fringe. The left as always likes to dismiss these concerns as "those daily mail readers". | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets" Suggesting that there's no correlation between people who consume media that bombards them with anti-immigrant rhetoric, and these same people being so vehemently anti-immigrant (while often ignoring much more serious issues). Seems naive at best. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets Suggesting that there's no correlation between people who consume media that bombards them with anti-immigrant rhetoric, and these same people being so vehemently anti-immigrant (while often ignoring much more serious issues). Seems naive at best." Suggesting that there is correlation is naive at best. | |||
"People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be." "How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion?" "Are you asking why the media doesn't tell people to be angry with Hindus, or people from India etc? They've been there, done that, moved on to new targets." "Why move on from something that works? Doesn't scan." "I assume because society moves forward and it no longer becomes acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people. Just like it moved on from black people before. At some point it'll be another ethnic group or minority." So you're saying that the media don't in fact lead the way, and are just responding to public opinion. If it's no longer acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people, that's because society is ignoring the media and choosing their own path. Have I got that right? | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets Suggesting that there's no correlation between people who consume media that bombards them with anti-immigrant rhetoric, and these same people being so vehemently anti-immigrant (while often ignoring much more serious issues). Seems naive at best." I believe you are trying to put something into a box marked "Media led fools" and are not looking at the possibility that all concerned people are not racist bigoted daily mail readers. If that helps you make sense of something that is fine, but you should expect pushback on how you are simplifying it. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets Suggesting that there's no correlation between people who consume media that bombards them with anti-immigrant rhetoric, and these same people being so vehemently anti-immigrant (while often ignoring much more serious issues). Seems naive at best. I believe you are trying to put something into a box marked "Media led fools" and are not looking at the possibility that all concerned people are not racist bigoted daily mail readers. If that helps you make sense of something that is fine, but you should expect pushback on how you are simplifying it." It's the typical left wing arrogance. Anyone who doesn't follow their party line blindly must be fools, according to them. One would imagine that after receiving so many political defeats and becoming a laughing stock of politics, they would have learned their lessons and cut off this lame attitude. But apparently not. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets Suggesting that there's no correlation between people who consume media that bombards them with anti-immigrant rhetoric, and these same people being so vehemently anti-immigrant (while often ignoring much more serious issues). Seems naive at best. I believe you are trying to put something into a box marked "Media led fools" and are not looking at the possibility that all concerned people are not racist bigoted daily mail readers. If that helps you make sense of something that is fine, but you should expect pushback on how you are simplifying it." You're putting words in my mouth there, then making an assumption on something I didn't say. Which isn't accurate. I stand by what I said. It's naive to think that bombarding people with anti-immigrant propaganda has no effect. Just look at Brexit as a clear example. | |||
"People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? Are you asking why the media doesn't tell people to be angry with Hindus, or people from India etc? They've been there, done that, moved on to new targets. Why move on from something that works? Doesn't scan. I assume because society moves forward and it no longer becomes acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people. Just like it moved on from black people before. At some point it'll be another ethnic group or minority. So you're saying that the media don't in fact lead the way, and are just responding to public opinion. If it's no longer acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people, that's because society is ignoring the media and choosing their own path. Have I got that right?" Nope, that's the opposite of what I said. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets Suggesting that there's no correlation between people who consume media that bombards them with anti-immigrant rhetoric, and these same people being so vehemently anti-immigrant (while often ignoring much more serious issues). Seems naive at best. I believe you are trying to put something into a box marked "Media led fools" and are not looking at the possibility that all concerned people are not racist bigoted daily mail readers. If that helps you make sense of something that is fine, but you should expect pushback on how you are simplifying it. You're putting words in my mouth there, then making an assumption on something I didn't say. Which isn't accurate. I stand by what I said. It's naive to think that bombarding people with anti-immigrant propaganda has no effect. Just look at Brexit as a clear example." If you had said that I don't think anyone would have disagreed with what you were saying. However, your posts don't necessarily reflect that view. | |||
"People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be." "How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion?" "Are you asking why the media doesn't tell people to be angry with Hindus, or people from India etc? They've been there, done that, moved on to new targets." "Why move on from something that works? Doesn't scan." "I assume because society moves forward and it no longer becomes acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people. Just like it moved on from black people before. At some point it'll be another ethnic group or minority." "So you're saying that the media don't in fact lead the way, and are just responding to public opinion. If it's no longer acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people, that's because society is ignoring the media and choosing their own path. Have I got that right?" "Nope, that's the opposite of what I said." Well then your argument doesn't make sense. If the media are leading, and society just follows them, why would they ever have moved away from blaming black people? You said it was because "society moves forward and it no longer becomes acceptable". How could that happen if it's the media doing the leading? Why would they change targets if the rage against black people was working? | |||
"People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? Are you asking why the media doesn't tell people to be angry with Hindus, or people from India etc? They've been there, done that, moved on to new targets. Why move on from something that works? Doesn't scan. I assume because society moves forward and it no longer becomes acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people. Just like it moved on from black people before. At some point it'll be another ethnic group or minority. So you're saying that the media don't in fact lead the way, and are just responding to public opinion. If it's no longer acceptable to project hate and blame onto Indian people, that's because society is ignoring the media and choosing their own path. Have I got that right? Nope, that's the opposite of what I said. Well then your argument doesn't make sense. If the media are leading, and society just follows them, why would they ever have moved away from blaming black people? You said it was because "society moves forward and it no longer becomes acceptable". How could that happen if it's the media doing the leading? Why would they change targets if the rage against black people was working?" I'm not sure what the media is leading in what you're saying? Within elements of society, it's perfectly acceptable to be anti-muslim. It was the same in the past with other ethnic/religious minorities. That's all I'm saying. Someone asked me to speculate why, hence my use of the words "I assume...". The mechanism behind these changes are probably interesting, but I can't say I know enough to comment. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets Suggesting that there's no correlation between people who consume media that bombards them with anti-immigrant rhetoric, and these same people being so vehemently anti-immigrant (while often ignoring much more serious issues). Seems naive at best." I think you misunderstood my post as I did not say anything if the sort. I asked a question and also gave my view. To clarify my view, I feel more and more people are becoming concerned without being regular consumers of the outlets mentioned. I read the BBC far more than anything else. Now and then I look at other sources including the likes of the express etc, and the articles are very similar. Not sure what 'more serious issues' are being ignored | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets" Fully agree, I never read the DM nor DE. I occasionally look at GB news, but also will look at Guardian vids. I'm concerned about unfettered illegal immigration - both the illegality and associated costs. But that doesn't suit the apologists who want to pigeon hole protestors as rabid right wing nazis. I guess it deflects from having to address the real issues. | |||
" People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be. How come nobody is especially angry with Hindu Indians? Is it because they are so successful/integrated? Is it about real or perceived crime statistics? Something else? What separates Hindu Indians from Muslim Pakistanis, is it's all about different skin/religion? I hear this 'blame' argument a lot, but think it's a misunderstanding of the 'anti-migration' debate. People are not angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people per se. They are angry because our borders are being violated on a daily basis by unvetted asylum seekers aided and abetted by criminals. It's just plain gormless sitting back and watching this happen at a huge social and financial cost to our country. This is it. We are basically operating an open borders system today with no vetting done on people coming in through the boats. It's only natural for people to be concerned about it. But does being concerned about it mean you are a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer or is it possible to not be a regular daily mail / express/ GB news consumer and be concerned about it? Personally I think more and more people are concerned about without being regular consumers of the mentioned outlets Fully agree, I never read the DM nor DE. I occasionally look at GB news, but also will look at Guardian vids. I'm concerned about unfettered illegal immigration - both the illegality and associated costs. But that doesn't suit the apologists who want to pigeon hole protestors as rabid right wing nazis. I guess it deflects from having to address the real issues." The irony of the last sentence is too much. | |||
| |||
| |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations" Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum. | |||
"Within elements of society, it's perfectly acceptable to be anti-muslim. It was the same in the past with other ethnic/religious minorities. That's all I'm saying. Someone asked me to speculate why, hence my use of the words "I assume...". The mechanism behind these changes are probably interesting, but I can't say I know enough to comment." If you don't know enough to comment on how people make up their minds, you probably shouldn't be making statements like "People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be". | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum." 3.8% of what? | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations" Do they also publish the percentage of taxes paid by asylum seekers, as well as benefits paid out to them? Or are they somewhat selective in which statistics they publish? | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum. 3.8% of what? " The 10 million. | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum. 3.8% of what? The 10 million." Yes, so of ALL foreign born migrants (10 million) ONLY 387,000 were seeking asylum on arrival, but most of them have been granted leave to remain, and have been living in the UK for over 10 years. | |||
"Within elements of society, it's perfectly acceptable to be anti-muslim. It was the same in the past with other ethnic/religious minorities. That's all I'm saying. Someone asked me to speculate why, hence my use of the words "I assume...". The mechanism behind these changes are probably interesting, but I can't say I know enough to comment. If you don't know enough to comment on how people make up their minds, you probably shouldn't be making statements like "People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be"." I stand by that statement because it's true. And it's unrelated to mechanisms that change what is and isn't acceptable to be prejudice against over time. Nice try though. | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum. 3.8% of what? The 10 million. Yes, so of ALL foreign born migrants (10 million) ONLY 387,000 were seeking asylum on arrival, but most of them have been granted leave to remain, and have been living in the UK for over 10 years. " Uk population 2000 58 million, uk population 2024 69 million, roughly 10 million increase over 24 years, the same amount of foreign born migrants, which is 6.9% of the population. | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum. 3.8% of what? The 10 million. Yes, so of ALL foreign born migrants (10 million) ONLY 387,000 were seeking asylum on arrival, but most of them have been granted leave to remain, and have been living in the UK for over 10 years. Uk population 2000 58 million, uk population 2024 69 million, roughly 10 million increase over 24 years, the same amount of foreign born migrants, which is 6.9% of the population." My bad 14.2 %. | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum. 3.8% of what? The 10 million. Yes, so of ALL foreign born migrants (10 million) ONLY 387,000 were seeking asylum on arrival, but most of them have been granted leave to remain, and have been living in the UK for over 10 years. Uk population 2000 58 million, uk population 2024 69 million, roughly 10 million increase over 24 years, the same amount of foreign born migrants, which is 6.9% of the population." Migrants include students, work visas, travel visas etc. - so, those seeking asylum constituted what %? An estimated 387,000 foreign-born people living in the UK in 2022 said they originally came to the UK to seek asylum, according to Migration Observatory analysis of the Annual Population Survey. This made up 4% of the UK’s 10 million foreign-born population in 2022, and 0.6% of the UK’s total 2022 resident population of around 67 million. Of these, 54% had lived in the UK for sixteen years or more. | |||
| |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Do they also publish the percentage of taxes paid by asylum seekers, as well as benefits paid out to them? Or are they somewhat selective in which statistics they publish?" You can find that at Gov.Uk | |||
| |||
"Within elements of society, it's perfectly acceptable to be anti-muslim. It was the same in the past with other ethnic/religious minorities. That's all I'm saying. Someone asked me to speculate why, hence my use of the words "I assume...". The mechanism behind these changes are probably interesting, but I can't say I know enough to comment." "If you don't know enough to comment on how people make up their minds, you probably shouldn't be making statements like "People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be"." "I stand by that statement because it's true. And it's unrelated to mechanisms that change what is and isn't acceptable to be prejudice against over time. " So how does that work? If people only hate foreigners because the media tells them to, how would acceptable prejudice change over time? | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations" "Do they also publish the percentage of taxes paid by asylum seekers, as well as benefits paid out to them? Or are they somewhat selective in which statistics they publish?" "You can find that at Gov.Uk" No I can't. The government seems to be curiosity reticent to publish the figures. | |||
"The number of British people charged with sexual offences in London per 10,000 of population is 6.5 according to the centre for migration control. The number of Afghans per 10,000 of population is 74.17 In a league table ranked by country of origin, British was 39th with Afghan at the top. I only have the data in graphic for but if anyone wants the full table, send me PM. " Any data on the nationalities of the victims? Over 40% of the rioters who were convicted had previous for domestic abuse. Save our women and children seems to need to start at home. | |||
"The number of British people charged with sexual offences in London per 10,000 of population is 6.5 according to the centre for migration control. The number of Afghans per 10,000 of population is 74.17 In a league table ranked by country of origin, British was 39th with Afghan at the top. I only have the data in graphic for but if anyone wants the full table, send me PM. Any data on the nationalities of the victims? Over 40% of the rioters who were convicted had previous for domestic abuse. Save our women and children seems to need to start at home. " The domestic situation sounds grim. Maybe we need to stop making it worse by letting even more abusers in. | |||
"The number of British people charged with sexual offences in London per 10,000 of population is 6.5 according to the centre for migration control. The number of Afghans per 10,000 of population is 74.17 In a league table ranked by country of origin, British was 39th with Afghan at the top. I only have the data in graphic for but if anyone wants the full table, send me PM. " Centre for Migration Control - says it all, really. | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum. 3.8% of what? The 10 million. Yes, so of ALL foreign born migrants (10 million) ONLY 387,000 were seeking asylum on arrival, but most of them have been granted leave to remain, and have been living in the UK for over 10 years. " The use of terms like “only” or focusing on a 0.6% figure can blur the reality. Since 2018, small boat arrivals total around 175,000 people, comparable to the population of Oxford or Reading. Housing and supporting those arriving today currently costs us, the taxpayer around £300 million per month, including approximately £180 million on hotels. Employment rates among this group are extremely low around 51%, with most working in low wage roles. The OP is about misinformation, and selective framing of statistics changes the narrative purposefully to begin with and blindly by those who simply believe what they read, which in turn fuels anger and mistrust that is evident up and down the country. | |||
"Within elements of society, it's perfectly acceptable to be anti-muslim. It was the same in the past with other ethnic/religious minorities. That's all I'm saying. Someone asked me to speculate why, hence my use of the words "I assume...". The mechanism behind these changes are probably interesting, but I can't say I know enough to comment. If you don't know enough to comment on how people make up their minds, you probably shouldn't be making statements like "People are angry with foreigners, Muslims, brown people, people in boats because they've been told to be". I stand by that statement because it's true. And it's unrelated to mechanisms that change what is and isn't acceptable to be prejudice against over time. So how does that work? If people only hate foreigners because the media tells them to, how would acceptable prejudice change over time? " You're asking a question based on something I didn't say, an assertion I haven't made. So I can't answer it. | |||
" Over 40% of the rioters who were convicted had previous for domestic abuse. Save our women and children seems to need to start at home. " in one police force area over two thirds of the perpertrators of the extreme violence at the farage riots were previously involved in domestic abuse | |||
"The number of British people charged with sexual offences in London per 10,000 of population is 6.5 according to the centre for migration control. The number of Afghans per 10,000 of population is 74.17 In a league table ranked by country of origin, British was 39th with Afghan at the top. I only have the data in graphic for but if anyone wants the full table, send me PM. " The data is similar in pretty much every European country that took refugees during the refugee crisis and published the statistics. When Sweden released the statistics around 2017, over 50% of men committing sexual assaults were born outside Sweden and predominantly from the middle eastern countries. Their government started trying to suppress publishing these statistics, just like the how German government and media tried to suppress news about the Cologne New year's eve mass sexual assaults. The politicians knew that they screwed up with their open door asylum policies and instead of fixing that, they thought suppressing the news about it would solve the problem. The question is why some left wingers still find the data surprising. Most of these men showing up as asylum seekers grew up in a culture that taught them that women who don't cover every inch of their body from top to bottom are sinful women and deserve to be assaulted. Most of these countries have death penalty for gays. Just because they started breathing the European air, it won't suddenly make them feminist gay rights activists. | |||
"Read you're newspapers immigration has made this country a shit hole get out and look at Ur local high st." Go far enough back and one of your ancestors was an immigrant, I guarantee it. | |||
"The number of British people charged with sexual offences in London per 10,000 of population is 6.5 according to the centre for migration control. The number of Afghans per 10,000 of population is 74.17 In a league table ranked by country of origin, British was 39th with Afghan at the top. I only have the data in graphic for but if anyone wants the full table, send me PM. Any data on the nationalities of the victims? " No, but I’d expect the table to be reversed. Nearly all the child victims of the gangs were white British I believe. They don’t seem to attack girls of their own ethnicity | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum. 3.8% of what? The 10 million. Yes, so of ALL foreign born migrants (10 million) ONLY 387,000 were seeking asylum on arrival, but most of them have been granted leave to remain, and have been living in the UK for over 10 years. Uk population 2000 58 million, uk population 2024 69 million, roughly 10 million increase over 24 years, the same amount of foreign born migrants, which is 6.9% of the population." The face of England is changing, and not for the good. All I see is moaning, and ignorance of what is happening. I wonder when the people in Germany were being put on the trains to internment camps, and then to their final place. Did they ever realize they could have done something if they didn't wait so long? | |||
" Yes, so of ALL foreign born migrants (10 million) ONLY 387,000 were seeking asylum on arrival, but most of them have been granted leave to remain, and have been living in the UK for over 10 years. Uk population 2000 58 million, uk population 2024 69 million, roughly 10 million increase over 24 years, the same amount of foreign born migrants, which is 6.9% of the population. " Dwarfed by the contraception free birth rate of migrant Muslims which is double plus that of western women | |||
"From the way asylum is debated in the UK, you would think a huge proportion of the population were asylum seekers. But nothing could be further from the truth: the Migration Observatory’s analysis of the UK annual population survey shows that in 2022 roughly 387,000 of the 10 million UK residents born abroad arrived seeking asylum, equating to an estimated 0.6% of the UK population (6 in 1,000). Most have lived in the UK for over a decade. Courtesy of the Institute for Race Relations Another angle, 3.8% sought asylum. 3.8% of what? The 10 million. Yes, so of ALL foreign born migrants (10 million) ONLY 387,000 were seeking asylum on arrival, but most of them have been granted leave to remain, and have been living in the UK for over 10 years. Uk population 2000 58 million, uk population 2024 69 million, roughly 10 million increase over 24 years, the same amount of foreign born migrants, which is 6.9% of the population. The face of England is changing, and not for the good. All I see is moaning, and ignorance of what is happening. I wonder when the people in Germany were being put on the trains to internment camps, and then to their final place. Did they ever realize they could have done something if they didn't wait so long? " Good analogy. The rise of the far right is changing England, and as you say, not for the good. | |||
"Following the misinformation about the Southport attacker's origins, a recent stabbing attack against police officers in Dublin had attracted right wing comments as being committed by "a foreigner". The fact that the attack was committed by someone with a Muslim name, or that he began his attack with a shout on a foreign language (Allahu Akbar) could explain the confusion, but pundits and activists should, by now, know better than to jump to conclusions. https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-debunked-capel-street-supsect-was-not-a-non-national-foreigner-migrant-irish-citizen-6778209-Jul2025/ (Link complies with Fab ToS being a major news site) Migration might be a hot topic for those on the right, but is it time to begin accepting that attacks such as these are now, in fact, part of the British (or, in this case, Irish) landscape? Would people rather believe that this type of violence is foreign, and not homegrown, because that makes it easier to blame someone elsewhere, with a less obvious solution than "stopping the boats"?" Classic case…. The person who drove the car into people at the Liverpool celebration parade At the time, how many people were itching for it to have been an immigrant, or an asylum seeker All the posts and plot lines all set up… tweets and comments ready to go And then we find out it wasn’t.. and all the excuses start flying.. wasn’t him, not the driver ect… White people also get the benefit of the doubt “mental illness” excuse where as people of colour don’t The problem is the like of Robinson and farage like to own it, until it goes wrong and then they can’t run away quick enough.. Apparently Farage hates it when people call it the farage riots, but it’s the first time the slimy toad has not been able to outrun anything! Apparently the true man of the people is a private school educated former merchant banker | |||
" Apparently the true man of the people is a private school educated monumental merchant banker " FIFY me ol'china  | |||
| |||
"Following the misinformation about the Southport attacker's origins, a recent stabbing attack against police officers in Dublin had attracted right wing comments as being committed by "a foreigner". The fact that the attack was committed by someone with a Muslim name, or that he began his attack with a shout on a foreign language (Allahu Akbar) could explain the confusion, but pundits and activists should, by now, know better than to jump to conclusions. https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-debunked-capel-street-supsect-was-not-a-non-national-foreigner-migrant-irish-citizen-6778209-Jul2025/ (Link complies with Fab ToS being a major news site) Migration might be a hot topic for those on the right, but is it time to begin accepting that attacks such as these are now, in fact, part of the British (or, in this case, Irish) landscape? Would people rather believe that this type of violence is foreign, and not homegrown, because that makes it easier to blame someone elsewhere, with a less obvious solution than "stopping the boats"? Classic case…. The person who drove the car into people at the Liverpool celebration parade At the time, how many people were itching for it to have been an immigrant, or an asylum seeker All the posts and plot lines all set up… tweets and comments ready to go And then we find out it wasn’t.. and all the excuses start flying.. wasn’t him, not the driver ect… White people also get the benefit of the doubt “mental illness” excuse where as people of colour don’t The problem is the like of Robinson and farage like to own it, until it goes wrong and then they can’t run away quick enough.. Apparently Farage hates it when people call it the farage riots, but it’s the first time the slimy toad has not been able to outrun anything! Apparently the true man of the people is a private school educated former merchant banker " You are criticising stereotyping and then say this: "White people also get the benefit of the doubt “mental illness” excuse where as people of colour don’t" Aren't you doing exactly what you say others are doing? If it is wrong to make assumptions about individuals based on their race, religion, or nationality, then it’s wrong in all directions. | |||
"Obviously folks of different strokes commit crimes and people jump to conclusions and often blame migrants, but from the 1970s to the 1990s if a bomb went off in a UK street you would be close to 100% to assume it was the IRA before it was announced who did it. In the 2000s if a bomb goes off in any European city or a car drives through a crowd you would naturally assume it's some kind of Islamic terror attack and in most instances you would be correct, after all why are concrete barriers installed in public places such as Christmas markets etc nowadays and why are there armed cops present, why are they there and to protect who from what ? We have been conditioned to expect such occurrences and it's natural to then jump to conclusions when an incident occurs. Rightly or wrongly. Unfortunately when one community is associated with bad things due to the actions of a minority within that community the vast majority of that community are viewed in a bad light. " Great post, good points very well made. I am old enough to remember when if a bomb went off it was always assumed it was the IRA. Back then there were a lot less people and a lot fewer groups who wanted to kill innocent civilians in the UK. Now there’s lots of groups for one cause and lots of causes. I think the religious leaders of Iran back in the 80s, set precedents that have impacted the entire Muslim world. | |||
"Apparently the true man of the people is a private school educated former merchant banker" Whereas the leader of the Labour Party is a private school educated, Oxford graduate, with a knighthood, a Knight of the Bath, a King's Counsel, and former Director of Public Prosecutions. Does that make him more of a "man of the people"? | |||
"Apparently the true man of the people is a private school educated former merchant banker Whereas the leader of the Labour Party is a private school educated, Oxford graduate, with a knighthood, a Knight of the Bath, a King's Counsel, and former Director of Public Prosecutions. Does that make him more of a "man of the people"?" Unfortunately the concept of any political person being a man/woman of the people is a fantasy. Regardless of your political beliefs or country etc etc | |||
"Apparently the true man of the people is a private school educated former merchant banker Whereas the leader of the Labour Party is a private school educated, Oxford graduate, with a knighthood, a Knight of the Bath, a King's Counsel, and former Director of Public Prosecutions. Does that make him more of a "man of the people"? Unfortunately the concept of any political person being a man/woman of the people is a fantasy. Regardless of your political beliefs or country etc etc" From the film gladiator….. “I may not be a man of the people, but I pride myself in being a man for the people”. I remember Tony Benn being a peer of the realm who gave up his title to enter politics within the Labour Party. It’s interesting that Starmer clings to his knighthood like a life raft. | |||
| |||
| |||
"The OP is labouring under the illusion entering a country illegally makes you British or Irish." Eventually, it does. That's how Britain of today evolved, and will be how the Britain of tomorrow is formed. | |||
| |||
"The OP is labouring under the illusion entering a country illegally makes you British or Irish. Or being raised in a household with immigrant parents gives you British values. These people do not want to integrate, they hate us and just want to take and destroy. Btw, I wondered how long before the old "The BBC covered up Jimmy Saville (et al) for decades" would come up. Plus the "more white men carry out such attacks". There are 10 times as many white as the uninvited, FFS. But look at the proportional rate? BTW, the government does help matters. They imposed a blackout of any description when a sexual assault happens with a "man of colour" involved. It used to be a reasonable description and the suspect "spoke with a local accent". That never happens now when it is one of the uninvited. Naz Shah summed it up when talking about three little girls who had been assaulted repeatedly over months if not years by a Pakistani grooming gang. "They should shut up for the sake of diversity". Really?" Spot on, shame how many comments of those turning a blind eye. Too bad so many moaners and no one jumping in to save their country | |||
"Is the world illegal losing it's meaning???" In 1066, the British border force wasn't able to repel the boats that came over from France. It never recovered. | |||
"Apparently the true man of the people is a private school educated former merchant banker Whereas the leader of the Labour Party is a private school educated, Oxford graduate, with a knighthood, a Knight of the Bath, a King's Counsel, and former Director of Public Prosecutions. Does that make him more of a "man of the people"?" But his dad was a tool maker... | |||
"Apparently the true man of the people is a private school educated former merchant banker Whereas the leader of the Labour Party is a private school educated, Oxford graduate, with a knighthood, a Knight of the Bath, a King's Counsel, and former Director of Public Prosecutions. Does that make him more of a "man of the people"? But his dad was a tool maker..." he certainly was a tool maker and the biggest tool he made is leading the country | |||
"Following the misinformation about the Southport attacker's origins, a recent stabbing attack against police officers in Dublin had attracted right wing comments as being committed by "a foreigner". The fact that the attack was committed by someone with a Muslim name, or that he began his attack with a shout on a foreign language (Allahu Akbar) could explain the confusion, but pundits and activists should, by now, know better than to jump to conclusions. https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-debunked-capel-street-supsect-was-not-a-non-national-foreigner-migrant-irish-citizen-6778209-Jul2025/ (Link complies with Fab ToS being a major news site) Migration might be a hot topic for those on the right, but is it time to begin accepting that attacks such as these are now, in fact, part of the British (or, in this case, Irish) landscape? Would people rather believe that this type of violence is foreign, and not homegrown, because that makes it easier to blame someone elsewhere, with a less obvious solution than "stopping the boats"?" Racists gonna ........ Follow Nige | |||
