FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The Bell Hotel, Epping
The Bell Hotel, Epping
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population." Which explains so, so much about your political outlook. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population. Which explains so, so much about your political outlook." Yes. I’m more concerned about the UK population than about foreigners. The overwhelming majority of the UK population would feel the same. We have a government that was elected by less than 20% of the electorate. None of what’s happening is surprising. Just same old Labour I’m afraid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Support for Farage will go up by a few points today." This.. It is the gift that keeps on giving. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population. Which explains so, so much about your political outlook. Yes. I’m more concerned about the UK population than about foreigners. The overwhelming majority of the UK population would feel the same. We have a government that was elected by less than 20% of the electorate. None of what’s happening is surprising. Just same old Labour I’m afraid. " A lot of decisions have been made in the UK with a minority percentage of the electorate. The current government is simply one of them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population. Which explains so, so much about your political outlook. Yes. I’m more concerned about the UK population than about foreigners. The overwhelming majority of the UK population would feel the same. We have a government that was elected by less than 20% of the electorate. None of what’s happening is surprising. Just same old Labour I’m afraid. " I'm very concerned about the UK population as more and more seem to like Reform. On your 20% point - so what? That's how elections work, the winner is the one with the majority of those who show up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population. Which explains so, so much about your political outlook. Yes. I’m more concerned about the UK population than about foreigners. The overwhelming majority of the UK population would feel the same. We have a government that was elected by less than 20% of the electorate. None of what’s happening is surprising. Just same old Labour I’m afraid. " This was a legal ruling. The points of law are important. Do you find the interpretation valid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population. Which explains so, so much about your political outlook. Yes. I’m more concerned about the UK population than about foreigners. The overwhelming majority of the UK population would feel the same. We have a government that was elected by less than 20% of the electorate. None of what’s happening is surprising. Just same old Labour I’m afraid. " Nah, I mean the bit where you shriek and cower as if a mediocre centre-left government is as terrifying to you as the fucking Borg or something. Maybe if your interpretation of the world around you wasn't so heavily rooted in bad faith you'd be able to relax. It's just a legal dispute over where to house asylum seekers. I realise you'd rather they were all kicked into the sea, but failing that there's really no need to clutch your pearls over a few more nights in a disused hotel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population. Which explains so, so much about your political outlook. Yes. I’m more concerned about the UK population than about foreigners. The overwhelming majority of the UK population would feel the same. We have a government that was elected by less than 20% of the electorate. None of what’s happening is surprising. Just same old Labour I’m afraid. Nah, I mean the bit where you shriek and cower as if a mediocre centre-left government is as terrifying to you as the fucking Borg or something. Maybe if your interpretation of the world around you wasn't so heavily rooted in bad faith you'd be able to relax. It's just a legal dispute over where to house asylum seekers. I realise you'd rather they were all kicked into the sea, but failing that there's really no need to clutch your pearls over a few more nights in a disused hotel." Are you sure you aren’t being paid by Reform? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population. Which explains so, so much about your political outlook. Yes. I’m more concerned about the UK population than about foreigners. The overwhelming majority of the UK population would feel the same. We have a government that was elected by less than 20% of the electorate. None of what’s happening is surprising. Just same old Labour I’m afraid. Nah, I mean the bit where you shriek and cower as if a mediocre centre-left government is as terrifying to you as the fucking Borg or something. Maybe if your interpretation of the world around you wasn't so heavily rooted in bad faith you'd be able to relax. It's just a legal dispute over where to house asylum seekers. I realise you'd rather they were all kicked into the sea, but failing that there's really no need to clutch your pearls over a few more nights in a disused hotel. Are you sure you aren’t being paid by Reform?" ... to keep their most swivel-eyed fanboys busy on Internet forums so they don't stumble out into the real world and give the game away? Loads, mate. It's not the stacks Nige makes from hawking tax-free bullion, but it's enough for some Champagne to go with my socialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population. Which explains so, so much about your political outlook. Yes. I’m more concerned about the UK population than about foreigners. The overwhelming majority of the UK population would feel the same. We have a government that was elected by less than 20% of the electorate. None of what’s happening is surprising. Just same old Labour I’m afraid. Nah, I mean the bit where you shriek and cower as if a mediocre centre-left government is as terrifying to you as the fucking Borg or something. Maybe if your interpretation of the world around you wasn't so heavily rooted in bad faith you'd be able to relax. It's just a legal dispute over where to house asylum seekers. I realise you'd rather they were all kicked into the sea, but failing that there's really no need to clutch your pearls over a few more nights in a disused hotel. Are you sure you aren’t being paid by Reform? ... to keep their most swivel-eyed fanboys busy on Internet forums so they don't stumble out into the real world and give the game away? Loads, mate. It's not the stacks Nige makes from hawking tax-free bullion, but it's enough for some Champagne to go with my socialism." He does seem to be living rent free inside your “brain”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Feels like the UK is being occupied by some alien colonial regime that couldn’t care less about the population. Which explains so, so much about your political outlook. Yes. I’m more concerned about the UK population than about foreigners. The overwhelming majority of the UK population would feel the same. We have a government that was elected by less than 20% of the electorate. None of what’s happening is surprising. Just same old Labour I’m afraid. Nah, I mean the bit where you shriek and cower as if a mediocre centre-left government is as terrifying to you as the fucking Borg or something. Maybe if your interpretation of the world around you wasn't so heavily rooted in bad faith you'd be able to relax. It's just a legal dispute over where to house asylum seekers. I realise you'd rather they were all kicked into the sea, but failing that there's really no need to clutch your pearls over a few more nights in a disused hotel. Are you sure you aren’t being paid by Reform? ... to keep their most swivel-eyed fanboys busy on Internet forums so they don't stumble out into the real world and give the game away? Loads, mate. It's not the stacks Nige makes from hawking tax-free bullion, but it's enough for some Champagne to go with my socialism. He does seem to be living rent free inside your “brain”. " Yeah, but to be fair he's a major political figure and I'm interested in politics. I on the other hand am just some guy on a message board, but you've apparently been keeping track of the times I post, so maybe let's not talk about unhealthy obsessions, eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad." Really? Not able to work, not eligible for benefits, a very basic allowance (certainly not one you or I could manage on), are arrested for crimes they commit, and they have greater protection? Can you elaborate, please? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad." The appeal court overturned the injunction because of errors in principle in the High Court's judgement, such as considering protests as a factor in an issue of planning law and failing to include the Home Secretary in the proceedings. In no way did it make any judgment that offers greater protection to illegal immigrants than to British nationals. It's the law being completely sane. You just don't like the outcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. The appeal court overturned the injunction because of errors in principle in the High Court's judgement, such as considering protests as a factor in an issue of planning law and failing to include the Home Secretary in the proceedings. In no way did it make any judgment that offers greater protection to illegal immigrants than to British nationals. It's the law being completely sane. You just don't like the outcome." Three judges. Two Labour supporters. One anti Brexit. The public sector is just stuffed with Leftists. We need a clear out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad." I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. The appeal court overturned the injunction because of errors in principle in the High Court's judgement, such as considering protests as a factor in an issue of planning law and failing to include the Home Secretary in the proceedings. In no way did it make any judgment that offers greater protection to illegal immigrants than to British nationals. It's the law being completely sane. You just don't like the outcome. Three judges. Two Labour supporters. One anti Brexit. The public sector is just stuffed with Leftists. We need a clear out." Right-wingers have always been at liberty to go for those jobs. I guess you lot just aren't drawn to public service like we are. Not surprised you like the idea of purging your political enemies though. That's way more in line with your values. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. The appeal court overturned the injunction because of errors in principle in the High Court's judgement, such as considering protests as a factor in an issue of planning law and failing to include the Home Secretary in the proceedings. In no way did it make any judgment that offers greater protection to illegal immigrants than to British nationals. It's the law being completely sane. You just don't like the outcome. Three judges. Two Labour supporters. One anti Brexit. The public sector is just stuffed with Leftists. We need a clear out." And the Judge in the original hearing was a Tory candidate. Four times. Stuffed to the rafters. Clearly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The judge was in a hard place. If he agrees to stop housing migrants, where would they go, and more council might follow proceedings, But now it might come to civil un-rest so will the council move the occupats anyway to save on policing cost. But is it about migrants coming in Or the cost of them to the tax payer. When I was homeless I got nothing from government, as a single man you get 0 zero nothing, so why doo all these single imaergrants get so much ? Bed food etc..." Single immigrants? I'm sure there is information on websites about the marital and family status of people fleeing persecution. Should you care to look. Were you at risk of being persecuted or killed in the UK? If you were, I'm pretty sure you would have been housed and given assistance. That's the difference. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". When I was homeless I got nothing from government, as a single man you get 0 zero nothing, so why doo all these single imaergrants get so much ? Bed food etc..." I'm sorry to hear you were homeless but you were lied to if you think there was nothing available to you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Foreign illegal immigrant paedophile: 1 People of Essex/England: 0 The Magna Carta needs an update." Clearly, because the Magna Carta doesn't remotely refer to any of this. Do you even know what the Magna Carta is, or are you just repeating something you overheard some other bigot saying? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Latest that three men were arrested during a protest outside The Bell Hotel. Essex Police said the men were arrested on suspicion of different offences - one for violent disorder, one for assaulting a police officer, and another for drink driving. Two police officers were injured, though not seriously. Tommys twats protest in a fortnight " We're grateful for regular updates about activities at the Bell hotel from Fab's very expert team of supporters of illegal foreign paedophiles. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Foreign illegal immigrant paedophile: 1 People of Essex/England: 0 The Magna Carta needs an update. Clearly, because the Magna Carta doesn't remotely refer to any of this. Do you even know what the Magna Carta is, or are you just repeating something you overheard some other bigot saying?" Thanks very much for your vicious response. I'll bear that in mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Foreign illegal immigrant paedophile: 1 People of Essex/England: 0 The Magna Carta needs an update. Clearly, because the Magna Carta doesn't remotely refer to any of this. Do you even know what the Magna Carta is, or are you just repeating something you overheard some other bigot saying? Thanks very much for your vicious response. I'll bear that in mind. " Do you, though, know what it is? It's both easy and tempting to dismiss people who bellow "FOREIGN PAEDOPHILES" over and over again as a bunch of pea-brained goose-steppers, you see, so in order to challenge my own preconceptions I do try to find out if they actually know what they're talking about when they bang on about the Magna Carta and Protestant Reformation and Alfred the Great and all that other blood-and-soil shit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. The appeal court overturned the injunction because of errors in principle in the High Court's judgement, such as considering protests as a factor in an issue of planning law and failing to include the Home Secretary in the proceedings. In no way did it make any judgment that offers greater protection to illegal immigrants than to British nationals. It's the law being completely sane. You just don't like the outcome." The appeal judges balanced the risks to residents against the risks to illegal asylum seekers. They outlined this in their verdict summary. In short they prioritised the welfare of illegal asylum seekers over residents. You are right, I don't like the outcome. The fact you do, is profoundly troubling for the future of our country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you " Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Were you at risk of being persecuted or killed in the UK? If you were, I'm pretty sure you would have been housed and given assistance. That's the difference. " And when the asylum seekers passed through x number of countries in Europe were they still at risk? The current system is not sustainable. Something will have to give one way or the other. Sooner or later. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. The appeal court overturned the injunction because of errors in principle in the High Court's judgement, such as considering protests as a factor in an issue of planning law and failing to include the Home Secretary in the proceedings. In no way did it make any judgment that offers greater protection to illegal immigrants than to British nationals. It's the law being completely sane. You just don't like the outcome. The appeal judges balanced the risks to residents against the risks to illegal asylum seekers. They outlined this in their verdict summary. In short they prioritised the welfare of illegal asylum seekers over residents. You are right, I don't like the outcome. The fact you do, is profoundly troubling for the future of our country." Did they state in their summary that they decided to offer greater protection to illegal immigrants than to British nationals? Or did their assessment conclude that their verdict would in fact not prioritise the welfare of asylum seekers over that of residents? I don't like the outcome or any of the situation, but what I especially don't like is hordes of people bellowing like a pitchforked mob trying to get 130 asylum applicants turfed out of their temporary accommodation over the acts of one man who hasn't yet been tried for what he's being accused of. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection." No, don't forget the exact words. The exact words are important. Here's the press summary that is currently available: Court of Appeal Press Summary (29 August 2025) Case Details Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division Judges: Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies, and Lord Justice Cobb Appealing: Secretary of State for the Home Department and Somani Hotels Ltd Respondent: Epping Forest District Council Originated in the High Court: [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB) Summary of the Judgment 1. The appeals concern the temporary injunction granted by Mr Justice Eyre (on 19 August 2025) under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The injunction prohibited Somani from using The Bell Hotel in Epping to accommodate asylum seekers until the full trial, scheduled for October 2025. 2. The Court emphasized that the hearing did not challenge government policy on asylum accommodation but focused purely on the merits of granting the temporary injunction under planning law. 3. The judges found that Mr Justice Eyre made several legal errors in granting the injunction, fundamentally weakening the decision. 4. Crucially, the judge failed to consider the systemic impact of closing one site—namely, that removing one hotel risks overwhelming the broader asylum accommodation system where alternative capacity is limited. 5. The Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, grounded in both national obligations and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was a significant public interest factor inadequately addressed. 6. The Court cited concerns that giving weight to public protests, even unlawful ones, as a rationale for planning enforcement sets a dangerous precedent—potentially incentivizing further protests and disorder. 7. The Court highlighted that the council had previously tolerated the hotel’s use since 2020 with no enforcement action, undermining the rationale for a sudden injunction. 8. Conclusion: The interim injunction was overturned. The judge’s approach was deemed seriously flawed, and the Court allowed the appeals. The full judgment—with detailed legal reasoning—will be published after typographical checks. Have a read of that and see if it bears any resemblance to what MidnightRambler is saying. In my estimation, it does not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection." You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. " No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. " "I was too vague to be accused of lying, but I maintain that my opinion is correct despite all the evidence against it." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. " The ruling does not give anyone a higher protection under the law.. That's what you said.. It's also not a valid brief for any further legal challenges to say we want to overturn the leftie judges decision.. Words really do matter in such things.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. The ruling does not give anyone a higher protection under the law.. That's what you said.. It's also not a valid brief for any further legal challenges to say we want to overturn the leftie judges decision.. Words really do matter in such things.." You are right, and the what also matters is the sentiment behind those words. 4. Crucially, the judge failed to consider the systemic impact of closing one site—namely, that removing one hotel risks overwhelming the broader asylum accommodation system where alternative capacity is limited. 5. The Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, grounded in both national obligations and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was a significant public interest factor inadequately addressed. 6. The Court cited concerns that giving weight to public protests, even unlawful ones, as a rationale for planning enforcement sets a dangerous precedent—potentially incentivizing further protests and disorder. From the above we can draw some conclusions: One hotel closes and it risks overwhelming the asylum accommodation.. This alone should set the alarm bells ringing, we have no more room and we risk collapsing the system by taking more. I guess those people who are in support of this decision also support overwhelming the whole system? People entering this country by irregular means are given preferential treatment for housing, to such an extent the Home Secretary is under legal obligation to ensure this happens. The Home Secretary has no discretion, even when it disadvantages locals or the countries ability to manage the influx. Finally, our legal representatives have decided that local opinions and concerns should be pushed down as an a example to others who may have the same concerns. I can clearly see from the judgement that people who arrive here by irregular means are afforded protections and guaranteed services that go above and beyond what law abiding citizens can expect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the judges could not care less about the law. Their only interst is how much money they can put in their own pockets. " And I bet you smear Jam all over yourself and roll around in an ants' nest for sexual thrills. Doesn't make it true, does it. "The people being housed are hardly asylum seekers. They have entered the country illegally." They're by definition asylum seekers. I'd say that's the dumbest thing I've read on here but there's a lot of competition from your gammon chums. "The rights and interests of the families protesting vastly exceeds those of asylum seekers. The protestors are law abiding citizens who pay taxes. Many asylum seekers destroy their documentation prior to entering the UK in order to make it more difficult for the authorities to identify them. " All correct. I don't see you making a point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are right, and the what also matters is the sentiment behind those words. 4. Crucially, the judge failed to consider the systemic impact of closing one site—namely, that removing one hotel risks overwhelming the broader asylum accommodation system where alternative capacity is limited. 5. The Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, grounded in both national obligations and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was a significant public interest factor inadequately addressed. 6. The Court cited concerns that giving weight to public protests, even unlawful ones, as a rationale for planning enforcement sets a dangerous precedent—potentially incentivizing further protests and disorder. From the above we can draw some conclusions: One hotel closes and it risks overwhelming the asylum accommodation.. This alone should set the alarm bells ringing, we have no more room and we risk collapsing the system by taking more. I guess those people who are in support of this decision also support overwhelming the whole system?" No, because the decision was taken in part to avoid overwhelming the system. Try to keep up. "People entering this country by irregular means are given preferential treatment for housing, to such an extent the Home Secretary is under legal obligation to ensure this happens. The Home Secretary has no discretion, even when it disadvantages locals or the countries ability to manage the influx." All you're saying is there's an obligation to find somewhere to put people who arrive here. That's been the case and continues to be the case. This ruling doesn't affect that. "Finally, our legal representatives have decided that local opinions and concerns should be pushed down as an a example to others who may have the same concerns." I'd like to see a breakdown of the language that suggests the ruling us in any way designed to suppress dissent. "I can clearly see from the judgement that people who arrive here by irregular means are afforded protections and guaranteed services that go above and beyond what law abiding citizens can expect. " From having read many of your posts, you "clearly see" a lot of things that obviously aren't true. But taking a generous view of your conclusion, let's say that is the case. There are numerous protections and services guaranteed to certain demographics in this country that aren't offered to others. It's appropriate that you mention law-abiding, since technically prisoners receive services that you and I don't have access to. It's called adapting services to the needs of those in receipt of them. That's how government works. Now, you can argue that you don't think it's fair all you like, that's an opinion you're entitled to. But this whole "Enemies of the People" you and your far-right buddies go to as soon as a judge says something you don't like is just tired. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You are right, and the what also matters is the sentiment behind those words. 4. Crucially, the judge failed to consider the systemic impact of closing one site—namely, that removing one hotel risks overwhelming the broader asylum accommodation system where alternative capacity is limited. 5. The Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, grounded in both national obligations and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was a significant public interest factor inadequately addressed. 6. The Court cited concerns that giving weight to public protests, even unlawful ones, as a rationale for planning enforcement sets a dangerous precedent—potentially incentivizing further protests and disorder. From the above we can draw some conclusions: One hotel closes and it risks overwhelming the asylum accommodation.. This alone should set the alarm bells ringing, we have no more room and we risk collapsing the system by taking more. I guess those people who are in support of this decision also support overwhelming the whole system? No, because the decision was taken in part to avoid overwhelming the system. Try to keep up. People entering this country by irregular means are given preferential treatment for housing, to such an extent the Home Secretary is under legal obligation to ensure this happens. The Home Secretary has no discretion, even when it disadvantages locals or the countries ability to manage the influx. All you're saying is there's an obligation to find somewhere to put people who arrive here. That's been the case and continues to be the case. This ruling doesn't affect that. Finally, our legal representatives have decided that local opinions and concerns should be pushed down as an a example to others who may have the same concerns. I'd like to see a breakdown of the language that suggests the ruling us in any way designed to suppress dissent. I can clearly see from the judgement that people who arrive here by irregular means are afforded protections and guaranteed services that go above and beyond what law abiding citizens can expect. From having read many of your posts, you "clearly see" a lot of things that obviously aren't true. But taking a generous view of your conclusion, let's say that is the case. There are numerous protections and services guaranteed to certain demographics in this country that aren't offered to others. It's appropriate that you mention law-abiding, since technically prisoners receive services that you and I don't have access to. It's called adapting services to the needs of those in receipt of them. That's how government works. Now, you can argue that you don't think it's fair all you like, that's an opinion you're entitled to. But this whole "Enemies of the People" you and your far-right buddies go to as soon as a judge says something you don't like is just tired." I won’t get into a long back and forth, mainly because I believe yours and others views that are similarly blinkered, are providing the platform for far right politics to become the future of the country. I have nothing else to add. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I won’t get into a long back and forth, mainly because I believe yours and others views that are similarly blinkered, are providing the platform for far right politics to become the future of the country. I have nothing else to add. " You didn't have anything to add to begin with, mate. Doesn't usually stop you holding forth on subjects you're not equipped to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the judges could not care less about the law. Their only interst is how much money they can put in their own pockets. The people being housed are hardly asylum seekers. They have entered the country illegally. The rights and interests of the families protesting vastly exceeds those of asylum seekers. The protestors are law abiding citizens who pay taxes. Many asylum seekers destroy their documentation prior to entering the UK in order to make it more difficult for the authorities to identify them. " That’s all true and well documented. For balance I don’t see these protesters outside Prince Andrew’s house. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. The ruling does not give anyone a higher protection under the law.. That's what you said.. It's also not a valid brief for any further legal challenges to say we want to overturn the leftie judges decision.. Words really do matter in such things.. You are right, and the what also matters is the sentiment behind those words. 4. Crucially, the judge failed to consider the systemic impact of closing one site—namely, that removing one hotel risks overwhelming the broader asylum accommodation system where alternative capacity is limited. 5. The Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, grounded in both national obligations and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was a significant public interest factor inadequately addressed. 6. The Court cited concerns that giving weight to public protests, even unlawful ones, as a rationale for planning enforcement sets a dangerous precedent—potentially incentivizing further protests and disorder. From the above we can draw some conclusions: One hotel closes and it risks overwhelming the asylum accommodation.. This alone should set the alarm bells ringing, we have no more room and we risk collapsing the system by taking more. I guess those people who are in support of this decision also support overwhelming the whole system? People entering this country by irregular means are given preferential treatment for housing, to such an extent the Home Secretary is under legal obligation to ensure this happens. The Home Secretary has no discretion, even when it disadvantages locals or the countries ability to manage the influx. Finally, our legal representatives have decided that local opinions and concerns should be pushed down as an a example to others who may have the same concerns. I can clearly see from the judgement that people who arrive here by irregular means are afforded protections and guaranteed services that go above and beyond what law abiding citizens can expect. " Its becoming the norm from you to have a snipe at others who contribute and who don't share your opinions 100%.. Your ' I guess those who support this decision also support overwhelming the whole system' was unnecessary in replying to my above.. Apart from it being based solely on your own bias I never said I support the decision, I will say it doesn't surprise me given the issues faced by the current government which are because the last lot also failed to address.. I actually was going to ignore what you put purely because you feel the need to have a dig based upon something in your own imagination that others haven't said.. If that's what you think, that those who support the decision also support the system collapsing then feel free to post specifically on that point.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" For balance I don’t see these protesters outside Prince Andrew’s house. " That could be because the guy - who hasn't been convicted of anything yet - doesn't have a mother who can sling his accuser a quick twelve mil to drop tge charges. Or it could be that the sexual assault that one guy has been accused of was only a pretext for a mob to go harass him and the other 130 people who haven't been accused of anything. Who knows, really... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the judges could not care less about the law. Their only interst is how much money they can put in their own pockets. The people being housed are hardly asylum seekers. They have entered the country illegally. The rights and interests of the families protesting vastly exceeds those of asylum seekers. The protestors are law abiding citizens who pay taxes. Many asylum seekers destroy their documentation prior to entering the UK in order to make it more difficult for the authorities to identify them. That’s all true and well documented. For balance I don’t see these protesters outside Prince Andrew’s house. " that’s hardly a balanced comparison | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the judges could not care less about the law. Their only interst is how much money they can put in their own pockets. The people being housed are hardly asylum seekers. They have entered the country illegally. The rights and interests of the families protesting vastly exceeds those of asylum seekers. The protestors are law abiding citizens who pay taxes. Many asylum seekers destroy their documentation prior to entering the UK in order to make it more difficult for the authorities to identify them. That’s all true and well documented. For balance I don’t see these protesters outside Prince Andrew’s house. " Funny enough there were no protests by the usual mob about the three convictions of two groups and one pair of child ab#sers in Glasgow, Bolton area and I think the pair where down south.. Plus three ex officers from South Yorkshire have been charged with similar offences commited allegedly against some of the already victims of the Rotherham scumbags.. All white criminals.. Almost like their victims aren't worthy of the same anger if the perpetrator doesn't have brown skin.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. The ruling does not give anyone a higher protection under the law.. That's what you said.. It's also not a valid brief for any further legal challenges to say we want to overturn the leftie judges decision.. Words really do matter in such things.. You are right, and the what also matters is the sentiment behind those words. 4. Crucially, the judge failed to consider the systemic impact of closing one site—namely, that removing one hotel risks overwhelming the broader asylum accommodation system where alternative capacity is limited. 5. The Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, grounded in both national obligations and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was a significant public interest factor inadequately addressed. 6. The Court cited concerns that giving weight to public protests, even unlawful ones, as a rationale for planning enforcement sets a dangerous precedent—potentially incentivizing further protests and disorder. From the above we can draw some conclusions: One hotel closes and it risks overwhelming the asylum accommodation.. This alone should set the alarm bells ringing, we have no more room and we risk collapsing the system by taking more. I guess those people who are in support of this decision also support overwhelming the whole system? People entering this country by irregular means are given preferential treatment for housing, to such an extent the Home Secretary is under legal obligation to ensure this happens. The Home Secretary has no discretion, even when it disadvantages locals or the countries ability to manage the influx. Finally, our legal representatives have decided that local opinions and concerns should be pushed down as an a example to others who may have the same concerns. I can clearly see from the judgement that people who arrive here by irregular means are afforded protections and guaranteed services that go above and beyond what law abiding citizens can expect. Its becoming the norm from you to have a snipe at others who contribute and who don't share your opinions 100%.. Your ' I guess those who support this decision also support overwhelming the whole system' was unnecessary in replying to my above.. Apart from it being based solely on your own bias I never said I support the decision, I will say it doesn't surprise me given the issues faced by the current government which are because the last lot also failed to address.. I actually was going to ignore what you put purely because you feel the need to have a dig based upon something in your own imagination that others haven't said.. If that's what you think, that those who support the decision also support the system collapsing then feel free to post specifically on that point.. " I have written a reply to the number of comments posted that were calling out another poster because they said they didn't remember the legal wording and the point being immigrants arriving here have more protections than locals, which absolutely true when it comes to housing. I made a point that the judges overturned the original judgement because closing the hotel risks overwhelming the accommodation system, by default this would suggest further entrants would also overwhelm the system. How can we have one judgment and not the other if both things will overwhelm the system? It was a question to all who support the overturning, not you alone.. You should also see that I was referencing the judgement and the sentiment of it not your comments directly other than, agreeing that words are important as is the sentiment they create...! If you want to discuss this great, if not no problem but please don't jump to I'm sniping if I challenge your thinking. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have written a reply to the number of comments posted that were calling out another poster because they said they didn't remember the legal wording and the point being immigrants arriving here have more protections than locals, which absolutely true when it comes to housing. I made a point that the judges overturned the original judgement because closing the hotel risks overwhelming the accommodation system, by default this would suggest further entrants would also overwhelm the system. How can we have one judgment and not the other if both things will overwhelm the system? It was a question to all who support the overturning, not you alone.. If you want to discuss this great, if not no problem but please don't jump to I'm sniping if I challenge your thinking." As I pointed out, as and you are agreeing, overturning the high court injunction was in part designed to avoid overwhelming the system. Yes, if more asylum seekers come in it's likely to be overwhelmed anyway, if it hasn't been already, but the judges who overturned the Epping injunction aren't ruling on whether we should house immigrants in the first place, so your point is irrelevant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I have written a reply to the number of comments posted that were calling out another poster because they said they didn't remember the legal wording and the point being immigrants arriving here have more protections than locals, which absolutely true when it comes to housing. I made a point that the judges overturned the original judgement because closing the hotel risks overwhelming the accommodation system, by default this would suggest further entrants would also overwhelm the system. How can we have one judgment and not the other if both things will overwhelm the system? It was a question to all who support the overturning, not you alone.. If you want to discuss this great, if not no problem but please don't jump to I'm sniping if I challenge your thinking. As I pointed out, as and you are agreeing, overturning the high court injunction was in part designed to avoid overwhelming the system. Yes, if more asylum seekers come in it's likely to be overwhelmed anyway, if it hasn't been already, but the judges who overturned the Epping injunction aren't ruling on whether we should house immigrants in the first place, so your point is irrelevant." The judgment is clear that they concluded closing the hotel to immigrants would risk overwhelming the system. The exact point I'm making is we shouldn't be this close to failure, it is ridiculous that it is the case. Ideally we should find a way to pause any further arrivals until we have adequate places for them. I also know they can't rule on whether the we should or should not house, however as above we need a better way of dealing with this, it simply cannot go on like this forever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. No, don't forget the exact words. The exact words are important. Here's the press summary that is currently available: Court of Appeal Press Summary (29 August 2025) Case Details Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division Judges: Lord Justice Bean, Lady Justice Nicola Davies, and Lord Justice Cobb Appealing: Secretary of State for the Home Department and Somani Hotels Ltd Respondent: Epping Forest District Council Originated in the High Court: [2025] EWHC 2183 (KB) Summary of the Judgment 1. The appeals concern the temporary injunction granted by Mr Justice Eyre (on 19 August 2025) under section 187B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The injunction prohibited Somani from using The Bell Hotel in Epping to accommodate asylum seekers until the full trial, scheduled for October 2025. 2. The Court emphasized that the hearing did not challenge government policy on asylum accommodation but focused purely on the merits of granting the temporary injunction under planning law. 3. The judges found that Mr Justice Eyre made several legal errors in granting the injunction, fundamentally weakening the decision. 4. Crucially, the judge failed to consider the systemic impact of closing one site—namely, that removing one hotel risks overwhelming the broader asylum accommodation system where alternative capacity is limited. 5. The Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, grounded in both national obligations and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was a significant public interest factor inadequately addressed. 6. The Court cited concerns that giving weight to public protests, even unlawful ones, as a rationale for planning enforcement sets a dangerous precedent—potentially incentivizing further protests and disorder. 7. The Court highlighted that the council had previously tolerated the hotel’s use since 2020 with no enforcement action, undermining the rationale for a sudden injunction. 8. Conclusion: The interim injunction was overturned. The judge’s approach was deemed seriously flawed, and the Court allowed the appeals. The full judgment—with detailed legal reasoning—will be published after typographical checks. Have a read of that and see if it bears any resemblance to what MidnightRambler is saying. In my estimation, it does not." Look, the exact words, or even the reasons of the verdict are irrelevant here. It was an outright political outcome determined by the Labour government to save the face. It's so transparent that even die-hard leftists must see through it. Politically motivated judges like this betray the supposed independence we have vested in them. It's small wonder people have so little confidence in the law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. The ruling does not give anyone a higher protection under the law.. That's what you said.. It's also not a valid brief for any further legal challenges to say we want to overturn the leftie judges decision.. Words really do matter in such things.." Of course it does. The rights of illegal asylum seekers have been prioritised over residents. That's the net outcome. Why complicate it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Look, the exact words, or even the reasons of the verdict are irrelevant here. It was an outright political outcome determined by the Labour government to save the face. It's so transparent that even die-hard leftists must see through it. Politically motivated judges like this betray the supposed independence we have vested in them. It's small wonder people have so little confidence in the law." If you have to declare the letter and the justifications for the ruling irrelevant in order to make your point about the ruling, there's a good chance your point is complete bullshit. You have no confidence in the law because if your mind it only has legitimacy if it swings your way, and if you only trust institutions when they work in your favour you can't trust them at all. The rest of us have the intellectual flexibility to not cry conspiracy every time something happens that we don't like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. The ruling does not give anyone a higher protection under the law.. That's what you said.. It's also not a valid brief for any further legal challenges to say we want to overturn the leftie judges decision.. Words really do matter in such things.. You are right, and the what also matters is the sentiment behind those words. 4. Crucially, the judge failed to consider the systemic impact of closing one site—namely, that removing one hotel risks overwhelming the broader asylum accommodation system where alternative capacity is limited. 5. The Home Secretary’s statutory duty to house asylum seekers, grounded in both national obligations and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, was a significant public interest factor inadequately addressed. 6. The Court cited concerns that giving weight to public protests, even unlawful ones, as a rationale for planning enforcement sets a dangerous precedent—potentially incentivizing further protests and disorder. From the above we can draw some conclusions: One hotel closes and it risks overwhelming the asylum accommodation.. This alone should set the alarm bells ringing, we have no more room and we risk collapsing the system by taking more. I guess those people who are in support of this decision also support overwhelming the whole system? People entering this country by irregular means are given preferential treatment for housing, to such an extent the Home Secretary is under legal obligation to ensure this happens. The Home Secretary has no discretion, even when it disadvantages locals or the countries ability to manage the influx. Finally, our legal representatives have decided that local opinions and concerns should be pushed down as an a example to others who may have the same concerns. I can clearly see from the judgement that people who arrive here by irregular means are afforded protections and guaranteed services that go above and beyond what law abiding citizens can expect. Its becoming the norm from you to have a snipe at others who contribute and who don't share your opinions 100%.. Your ' I guess those who support this decision also support overwhelming the whole system' was unnecessary in replying to my above.. Apart from it being based solely on your own bias I never said I support the decision, I will say it doesn't surprise me given the issues faced by the current government which are because the last lot also failed to address.. I actually was going to ignore what you put purely because you feel the need to have a dig based upon something in your own imagination that others haven't said.. If that's what you think, that those who support the decision also support the system collapsing then feel free to post specifically on that point.. I have written a reply to the number of comments posted that were calling out another poster because they said they didn't remember the legal wording and the point being immigrants arriving here have more protections than locals, which absolutely true when it comes to housing. I made a point that the judges overturned the original judgement because closing the hotel risks overwhelming the accommodation system, by default this would suggest further entrants would also overwhelm the system. How can we have one judgment and not the other if both things will overwhelm the system? It was a question to all who support the overturning, not you alone.. You should also see that I was referencing the judgement and the sentiment of it not your comments directly other than, agreeing that words are important as is the sentiment they create...! If you want to discuss this great, if not no problem but please don't jump to I'm sniping if I challenge your thinking. " Poor response.. You didn't know my thoughts about something you assumed, tbh it's a pretty bizarre thing to even think that anyone apart from those intent on social disorder in their rabid imaginings might think is a good idea if the system collapses.. Has anyone ever said that on here, no.. Another poster had addressed your opinion more eloquently than I on the details of the ruling hence I didn't bother .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. The ruling does not give anyone a higher protection under the law.. That's what you said.. It's also not a valid brief for any further legal challenges to say we want to overturn the leftie judges decision.. Words really do matter in such things.. Of course it does. The rights of illegal asylum seekers have been prioritised over residents. That's the net outcome. Why complicate it?" Yeah man, why complicate knee-jerk opinion by testing it against the facts? If your opinion is definitely right, why let the fact that it's obviously wrong complicate that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the judges could not care less about the law. Their only interst is how much money they can put in their own pockets. The people being housed are hardly asylum seekers. They have entered the country illegally. The rights and interests of the families protesting vastly exceeds those of asylum seekers. The protestors are law abiding citizens who pay taxes. Many asylum seekers destroy their documentation prior to entering the UK in order to make it more difficult for the authorities to identify them. That’s all true and well documented. For balance I don’t see these protesters outside Prince Andrew’s house. that’s hardly a balanced comparison " Both predatory nonces. One protected by white privileged aristocracy with his victims out of court settlement paid by the British taxpayer via sovereign grant. The other a skint illegal migrant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Cue the right wing rags stirring up more hatred against the impartiality of our judicial system no doubt which will be lapped up by those who think such things are ok in a democracy..
History tells us such things don't go well.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The judgment is clear that they concluded closing the hotel to immigrants would risk overwhelming the system. The exact point I'm making is we shouldn't be this close to failure, it is ridiculous that it is the case. Ideally we should find a way to pause any further arrivals until we have adequate places for them. I also know they can't rule on whether the we should or should not house, however as above we need a better way of dealing with this, it simply cannot go on like this forever. " We agree that it's not sustainable. That's one point you made. But the system's capacity is not the purpose of the ruling, it's just one of its motivators, so that decision is pragmatic, not political. On your other two points that the ruling formalises preferential treatment for immigrants and that it suppresses local dissent, the text of the ruling does not support your allegations and nor does its context. The whole argument about immigrants getting preferential treatment is predicated on the standard of treatment the complainants would like them to have. Among certain groups it's clear that any provision whatsoever of shelter, food, safety and representation would constitute "preferential treatment", and that is skewing the debate. Similarly there are those who believe they should be allowed to just picket immigrant accommodation in large groups as much as they want, and any effort to dissuade them is a de facto suppression of legitimate protest. Neither of these issues get us any closer to regularising legitimate refugees or slowing the flow of immigration, but it is these issues that are being used to foment a sense of unease and instability among the electorate, in all camps. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I bet the judges could not care less about the law. Their only interst is how much money they can put in their own pockets. The people being housed are hardly asylum seekers. They have entered the country illegally. The rights and interests of the families protesting vastly exceeds those of asylum seekers. The protestors are law abiding citizens who pay taxes. Many asylum seekers destroy their documentation prior to entering the UK in order to make it more difficult for the authorities to identify them. That’s all true and well documented. For balance I don’t see these protesters outside Prince Andrew’s house. that’s hardly a balanced comparison Both predatory nonces. One protected by white privileged aristocracy with his victims out of court settlement paid by the British taxpayer via sovereign grant. The other a skint illegal migrant " Not keen on that whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing then, eh? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Appeal judging giving illegal immigrants higher protection under the law than native residents. This is the law gone mad. I don't remember that legal wording stating that. Could you post the exact exact words that state this, as we might have to help you Forget the exact words, this is a political decision by Labour supporting judges. Consider instead the case itself and the consequences. With good reason residents feared for their safety and took measures to protect themselves. A judge agreed and ruled in their favour. Labour got involved and went to appeal under a panel of leftist judges. The panel found in favour of the illegal asylum seekers and Labour party. No surprise there, but now the residents are exposed to criminality again. You know, the people who pay taxes to fund a judicial system that is supposed to afford them some protection. You can't post a falsehood then when asked what was actually said to clarify your false claim 'forget the exact words'.. There is a political element as the Home Secretary has to by the act passed in 1999 accommodate asylum seekers.. And the political element also exists as the current situation which is a mess left by the last government isn't fit for purpose at many stages of the process but the same people who lost control (and those on the right) have weaponized it.. No falsehood and no claim as to the exact words of the verdict, so your claims are wrong. But I maintain the impact of the appeal verdict is as I've stated, it's as simple as that. It's not legal niceties that matter, it's the impact on people's lives. The ruling does not give anyone a higher protection under the law.. That's what you said.. It's also not a valid brief for any further legal challenges to say we want to overturn the leftie judges decision.. Words really do matter in such things.. Of course it does. The rights of illegal asylum seekers have been prioritised over residents. That's the net outcome. Why complicate it? Yeah man, why complicate knee-jerk opinion by testing it against the facts? If your opinion is definitely right, why let the fact that it's obviously wrong complicate that?" The basic 'fact' here is that residents have been left worse off, with greater risk, and a facility nearby they don't want. The rest is just BS smoke and mirrors conjured up by politicians and the gullible to mask an issue they don't want to face up to. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Look, the exact words, or even the reasons of the verdict are irrelevant here. It was an outright political outcome determined by the Labour government to save the face. It's so transparent that even die-hard leftists must see through it. Politically motivated judges like this betray the supposed independence we have vested in them. It's small wonder people have so little confidence in the law. If you have to declare the letter and the justifications for the ruling irrelevant in order to make your point about the ruling, there's a good chance your point is complete bullshit. You have no confidence in the law because if your mind it only has legitimacy if it swings your way, and if you only trust institutions when they work in your favour you can't trust them at all. The rest of us have the intellectual flexibility to not cry conspiracy every time something happens that we don't like." The only bullshit here is the garbage being poured out by leftist apologists of criminality. As for 'intellectual flexibility' I think you mean 'intellectual duplicity' in which case we an agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The basic 'fact' here is that residents have been left worse off, " Unless you quantify how they are worse off and by how much, that's not a fact. "with greater risk," Again you'd have to say what the risk is, and how much it's gone up by, for it to be a fact. "and a facility nearby they don't want." Now we're getting somewhere. That's definitely true of some residents, but for it to be a fact you'd have to poll all of them and then show that whatever proportion say they don't want it is large enough to justify making a blanket statement about the entire population. "The rest is just BS smoke and mirrors conjured up by politicians and the gullible to mask an issue they don't want to face up to." Is it "just BS smoke and mirrors", or is it factors arising from the tension between the fact that asylum seekers are human beings deserving of a measure of care, dignity and respect, and the fact that people such as yourself begrudge them that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" leftist apologists of criminality." Be specific. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Now we're getting somewhere. That's definitely true of some residents, but for it to be a fact you'd have to poll all of them and then show that whatever proportion say they don't want it is large enough to justify making a blanket statement about the entire population. " While we don't have any polls specific to Epping, pretty much every poll across the country has made it clear that the majority do not like housing more asylum seekers like this. Reform is topping the polls for this reason. If you all want to bury your heads in sand and pretend like it's not the case, then don't be shocked when Reform wins the elections. If the mainstream parties fail to recognise people's will and act accordingly, people will go for the radical parties. " or is it factors arising from the tension between the fact that asylum seekers are human beings deserving of a measure of care, dignity and respect, and the fact that people such as yourself begrudge them that?" Sure we can say that about every human. But UK doesn't have the resources to provide this for everyone. As things stand, the country doesn't have resources to look after the citizens. Where do you think the resources to look after random people showing up in boats should come from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Now we're getting somewhere. That's definitely true of some residents, but for it to be a fact you'd have to poll all of them and then show that whatever proportion say they don't want it is large enough to justify making a blanket statement about the entire population. While we don't have any polls specific to Epping, pretty much every poll across the country has made it clear that the majority do not like housing more asylum seekers like this. Reform is topping the polls for this reason. If you all want to bury your heads in sand and pretend like it's not the case, then don't be shocked when Reform wins the elections. If the mainstream parties fail to recognise people's will and act accordingly, people will go for the radical parties. or is it factors arising from the tension between the fact that asylum seekers are human beings deserving of a measure of care, dignity and respect, and the fact that people such as yourself begrudge them that? Sure we can say that about every human. But UK doesn't have the resources to provide this for everyone. As things stand, the country doesn't have resources to look after the citizens. Where do you think the resources to look after random people showing up in boats should come from?" Neither of those things are the question. I'm talking to this guy about specifics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Now we're getting somewhere. That's definitely true of some residents, but for it to be a fact you'd have to poll all of them and then show that whatever proportion say they don't want it is large enough to justify making a blanket statement about the entire population. While we don't have any polls specific to Epping, pretty much every poll across the country has made it clear that the majority do not like housing more asylum seekers like this. Reform is topping the polls for this reason. If you all want to bury your heads in sand and pretend like it's not the case, then don't be shocked when Reform wins the elections. If the mainstream parties fail to recognise people's will and act accordingly, people will go for the radical parties. or is it factors arising from the tension between the fact that asylum seekers are human beings deserving of a measure of care, dignity and respect, and the fact that people such as yourself begrudge them that? Sure we can say that about every human. But UK doesn't have the resources to provide this for everyone. As things stand, the country doesn't have resources to look after the citizens. Where do you think the resources to look after random people showing up in boats should come from? Neither of those things are the question. I'm talking to this guy about specifics." I pointed out the specifics about your post. Your assumption that Epping residents are not bothered with having asylum hotels next to them doesn't make sense considering the polls around the country and Epping specifically being a predominantly right wing constituency. And making moral remarks about "caring" for asylum seekers without discussing the resource needed for it and the economic and social cost associated with it isn't any useful at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I pointed out the specifics about your post. Your assumption that Epping residents are not bothered with having asylum hotels next to them doesn't make sense considering the polls around the country and Epping specifically being a predominantly right wing constituency." That's not my assumption. You have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. "And making moral remarks about "caring" for asylum seekers without discussing the resource needed for it and the economic and social cost associated with it isn't any useful at all." In your opinion. If it troubles you, start a thread about it. Here we're talking about the implications of the injunction being overturned. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I pointed out the specifics about your post. Your assumption that Epping residents are not bothered with having asylum hotels next to them doesn't make sense considering the polls around the country and Epping specifically being a predominantly right wing constituency. That's not my assumption. You have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. " This what you said: "That's definitely true of some residents, but for it to be a fact you'd have to poll all of them and then show that whatever proportion say they don't want it is large enough to justify making a blanket statement about the entire population." The blanket statement is entirely justified given the national polls on this topic and Epping predominantly being a right wing constituency " If it troubles you, start a thread about it. Here we're talking about the implications of the injunction being overturned." One of the implications being the cost of housing them in hotels | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". I pointed out the specifics about your post. Your assumption that Epping residents are not bothered with having asylum hotels next to them doesn't make sense considering the polls around the country and Epping specifically being a predominantly right wing constituency. That's not my assumption. You have to be careful about jumping to conclusions. This what you said: "That's definitely true of some residents, but for it to be a fact you'd have to poll all of them and then show that whatever proportion say they don't want it is large enough to justify making a blanket statement about the entire population." The blanket statement is entirely justified given the national polls on this topic and Epping predominantly being a right wing constituency " Man up there called it a "fact". It's not a fact. It's an extrapolated estimate at best. This issue is what constitutes a fact. It's an important distinction that he doesn't seem to grasp. "If it troubles you, start a thread about it. Here we're talking about the implications of the injunction being overturned. One of the implications being the cost of housing them in hotels" Read the ruling summary, please, before you start saying things that aren't true. If after that you still want to talk about money, start another thread. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The blanket statement is entirely justified given the national polls on this topic and Epping predominantly being a right wing constituency Man up there called it a "fact". It's not a fact. It's an extrapolated estimate at best. This issue is what constitutes a fact. It's an important distinction that he doesn't seem to grasp. " Do you know for a "fact" that the men showing up in boats are indeed persecuted in their home country? Did you go and do background checks everywhere? Anyway as I said, you can bury your head in sand and pretend like you don't know anything for a "fact". Just don't be surprised when reform wins the election. " One of the implications being the cost of housing them in hotels Read the ruling summary, please, before you start saying things that aren't true. If after that you still want to talk about money, start another thread." The judgement says that there are problems with the original decision one of which is that other councils will do the same thing and the government doesn't have another option. This boils down to resources. So my point is very much related to the topic. If you don't have an answer, you can just not reply. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The basic 'fact' here is that residents have been left worse off, Unless you quantify how they are worse off and by how much, that's not a fact. with greater risk, Again you'd have to say what the risk is, and how much it's gone up by, for it to be a fact. and a facility nearby they don't want. Now we're getting somewhere. That's definitely true of some residents, but for it to be a fact you'd have to poll all of them and then show that whatever proportion say they don't want it is large enough to justify making a blanket statement about the entire population. The rest is just BS smoke and mirrors conjured up by politicians and the gullible to mask an issue they don't want to face up to. Is it "just BS smoke and mirrors", or is it factors arising from the tension between the fact that asylum seekers are human beings deserving of a measure of care, dignity and respect, and the fact that people such as yourself begrudge them that?" It's just endless requests for more details of clarification. If you can't read the room, by which I mean the national groundswell of discontent, no amount of facts nor proof will persuade you we have a crisis. This is like Thatcher all over again. When Farage gets into No.10 and starts dishing out the nasty medicine, the left will be spitting feathers of outrage. I'm no keener on that prospect than you probably are, but it's gonna happen the rate we're going. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I must say this thread is very entertaining. Keep it up chap's "Feelin the luv 🤣🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clowns, thugs and nutcases unhappy with the life they created whipped up into a frenzy by racists who would use anything or anyone to gain power." i see your talking about queertifa and hope not soap a very unpleasant bunch of peoole | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clowns, thugs and nutcases unhappy with the life they created whipped up into a frenzy by racists who would use anything or anyone to gain power.i see your talking about queertifa and hope not soap a very unpleasant bunch of peoole " Is that supposed to make sense 🤔 🤣🤣 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The blanket statement is entirely justified given the national polls on this topic and Epping predominantly being a right wing constituency Man up there called it a "fact". It's not a fact. It's an extrapolated estimate at best. This issue is what constitutes a fact. It's an important distinction that he doesn't seem to grasp. Do you know for a "fact" that the men showing up in boats are indeed persecuted in their home country? Did you go and do background checks everywhere? " That. Is. Not. What. We. Are. Talking. About. "Anyway as I said, you can bury your head in sand and pretend like you don't know anything for a "fact". Just don't be surprised when reform wins the election. " I gave a precise and specific explanation of what would be and would not be a fact. If to you that means the same thing as pretending to not know anything for a fact, do us all a favour and stop participating in arguments. At least the ones in English. "One of the implications being the cost of housing them in hotels Read the ruling summary, please, before you start saying things that aren't true. If after that you still want to talk about money, start another thread. The judgement says that there are problems with the original decision one of which is that other councils will do the same thing and the government doesn't have another option. This boils down to resources. So my point is very much related to the topic. If you don't have an answer, you can just not reply." That is not what the judgment says. If the ruling said anything about the cost of housing them in hotels you could just paste here the part of the text that is about the cost of hotels but you can't because there is no such text. You can't just wander into random threads and pick fights about shit people aren't even talking about, and it's fucking tiresome when you waste everyone's time persisting in claiming it is what they're talking about when it's obviously not. If you want to talk about small boats or money, go start your own thread. This is a thread about a ruling you either haven't read or aren't smart enough to understand. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's just endless requests for more details of clarification." That's because you haven't clarified anything. Everything you say is really vague and unsubstantiated. If you don't speak in evidenced specifics, you should expect to get questions. "If you can't read the room, by which I mean the national groundswell of discontent, no amount of facts nor proof will persuade you we have a crisis." You guys all talk like we don't know there's a crisis. We have a difference of opinion on how to manage and solve the crisis, and in some cases what the crisis actually is. Like this case where you seem to think there is a leftist conspiracy to disenfranchise the people of Epping. Which is a pretty wild thing to assert. "This is like Thatcher all over again. When Farage gets into No.10 and starts dishing out the nasty medicine, the left will be spitting feathers of outrage. I'm no keener on that prospect than you probably are, but it's gonna happen the rate we're going." You seem a lot keener on that prospect than I am, to be fair. And yes, we would I imagine be outraged by much of what Farage would do if he got into power. Not sure what your point is there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From where I see it, a British judge overruled a less senior British judge on a point of British law. What is the problem? " A complaint has been made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about Lord Justice Bean and his participation in the decision. Bean was a Labour Party member for 28 years. He is also a founder member of Matrix Chambers, where the Attorney General Hermer is a member. The complaint will go nowhere of course. The person who deals with the complaint will almost certainly be a Labour Party member or supporter too. Welcome to the UK administrative state in 2025. It looks remarkably like government in the Soviet Union. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" It's just endless requests for more details of clarification. That's because you haven't clarified anything. Everything you say is really vague and unsubstantiated. If you don't speak in evidenced specifics, you should expect to get questions. If you can't read the room, by which I mean the national groundswell of discontent, no amount of facts nor proof will persuade you we have a crisis. You guys all talk like we don't know there's a crisis. We have a difference of opinion on how to manage and solve the crisis, and in some cases what the crisis actually is. Like this case where you seem to think there is a leftist conspiracy to disenfranchise the people of Epping. Which is a pretty wild thing to assert. This is like Thatcher all over again. When Farage gets into No.10 and starts dishing out the nasty medicine, the left will be spitting feathers of outrage. I'm no keener on that prospect than you probably are, but it's gonna happen the rate we're going. You seem a lot keener on that prospect than I am, to be fair. And yes, we would I imagine be outraged by much of what Farage would do if he got into power. Not sure what your point is there." Well you seem routinely to 'miss the point'. It is this : Reform and Farage are destined for power unless Labour and it's hand-wringing supporters realise there is a crisis and actually do something about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From where I see it, a British judge overruled a less senior British judge on a point of British law. What is the problem? A complaint has been made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about Lord Justice Bean and his participation in the decision. Bean was a Labour Party member for 28 years. He is also a founder member of Matrix Chambers, where the Attorney General Hermer is a member. The complaint will go nowhere of course. The person who deals with the complaint will almost certainly be a Labour Party member or supporter too. Welcome to the UK administrative state in 2025. It looks remarkably like government in the Soviet Union." We've only just come out of a decade and a half of Tory rule, so less of the "soviet union" stuff. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From where I see it, a British judge overruled a less senior British judge on a point of British law. What is the problem? A complaint has been made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about Lord Justice Bean and his participation in the decision. Bean was a Labour Party member for 28 years. He is also a founder member of Matrix Chambers, where the Attorney General Hermer is a member. The complaint will go nowhere of course. The person who deals with the complaint will almost certainly be a Labour Party member or supporter too. Welcome to the UK administrative state in 2025. It looks remarkably like government in the Soviet Union. We've only just come out of a decade and a half of Tory rule, so less of the "soviet union" stuff." Oh yes I forgot Labour aren’t responsible for anything that happens while they are in government. I imagine that will be Starmer’s valediction when he gets booted out: “We did our best but the problems left by the Tories were just too great”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well you seem routinely to 'miss the point'. It is this : Reform and Farage are destined for power unless Labour and it's hand-wringing supporters realise there is a crisis and actually do something about it." That isn't the point, at least not in this thread, but I do agree that Reform anf Farage have a decent shot at power, and probably thanks to the immigration crisis. And I do think that Labour's recklessness in addressing concerns will be partly to blame for it, too. You know what else will be to blame? People who yell "Soviet Union!" and "Enemies of the People!" when a Judge does something they don't politically agree with. The utter lack of any sense of proportion, fairness or integrity from those on the right will always be the key driving factor in misleading the public towards the kind of quasi-fascism that Nige and his bigot brigade have in store for us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
". Oh yes I forgot Labour aren’t responsible for anything that happens while they are in government. I imagine that will be Starmer’s valediction when he gets booted out: “We did our best but the problems left by the Tories were just too great”." Not even gonna address that. Just gonna sit here and watch the point I made sail right over your head. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From where I see it, a British judge overruled a less senior British judge on a point of British law. What is the problem? A complaint has been made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about Lord Justice Bean and his participation in the decision. Bean was a Labour Party member for 28 years. He is also a founder member of Matrix Chambers, where the Attorney General Hermer is a member. The complaint will go nowhere of course. The person who deals with the complaint will almost certainly be a Labour Party member or supporter too. Welcome to the UK administrative state in 2025. It looks remarkably like government in the Soviet Union." Just looked into this. The complaint was made by Steven Barrett, a barrister and prolific media commentator who regularly appears on GB News. Remind me, in the Soviet Union, was it common for commercial lawyers to bring complaints against senior judges or to frequently appear on major current affairs outlets that were permanently critical of the establishment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well you seem routinely to 'miss the point'. It is this : Reform and Farage are destined for power unless Labour and it's hand-wringing supporters realise there is a crisis and actually do something about it. That isn't the point, at least not in this thread, but I do agree that Reform anf Farage have a decent shot at power, and probably thanks to the immigration crisis. And I do think that Labour's recklessness in addressing concerns will be partly to blame for it, too. You know what else will be to blame? People who yell "Soviet Union!" and "Enemies of the People!" when a Judge does something they don't politically agree with. The utter lack of any sense of proportion, fairness or integrity from those on the right will always be the key driving factor in misleading the public towards the kind of quasi-fascism that Nige and his bigot brigade have in store for us." C'mon this was clearly a politically motivated legal verdict from a biased judge. That's borderline abuse of our judicial system and serves none of us. In this case it's wrongdoing from the left not the right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" C'mon this was clearly a politically motivated legal verdict from a biased judge. That's borderline abuse of our judicial system and serves none of us. In this case it's wrongdoing from the left not the right." Absolutely, the judge reading of his notes like a homework correction. No head up verdict delivery with any conviction | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Well you seem routinely to 'miss the point'. It is this : Reform and Farage are destined for power unless Labour and it's hand-wringing supporters realise there is a crisis and actually do something about it. That isn't the point, at least not in this thread, but I do agree that Reform anf Farage have a decent shot at power, and probably thanks to the immigration crisis. And I do think that Labour's recklessness in addressing concerns will be partly to blame for it, too. You know what else will be to blame? People who yell "Soviet Union!" and "Enemies of the People!" when a Judge does something they don't politically agree with. The utter lack of any sense of proportion, fairness or integrity from those on the right will always be the key driving factor in misleading the public towards the kind of quasi-fascism that Nige and his bigot brigade have in store for us. C'mon this was clearly a politically motivated legal verdict from a biased judge. That's borderline abuse of our judicial system and serves none of us. In this case it's wrongdoing from the left not the right." Three appeal judges. One was right wing. They all had to agree on the outcome. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" C'mon this was clearly a politically motivated legal verdict from a biased judge. That's borderline abuse of our judicial system and serves none of us. In this case it's wrongdoing from the left not the right." I do understand that that seems to be clear to you, however other than (some of) the judges' stated political leanings, there is no evidence in the ruling that this was politically motivated rather than an assessment of an appeal case on the merits of the original injunction. The arguments for overturning the injunction are clear and stand up in law. You haven't made any arguments or shown any evidence that the ruling is a result of bias as opposed to satisfying a legal standard to overturn an injunction. The High Court judge who granted the injunction is a Tory, but have you seen any of us allege that it was a corrupt political decision rather than based on his own assessment of the case's merits? We might disagree with his ruling, but we aren't questioning his basic integrity. Would be nice if you showed a similar attitude of good faith rather than just assuming the ruling is necessarily some kind of left-wing plot. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Clowns, thugs and nutcases unhappy with the life they created whipped up into a frenzy by racists who would use anything or anyone to gain power.i see your talking about queertifa and hope not soap a very unpleasant bunch of peoole " "Queertifa"? Really? I mean, apart from being homophobic, it doesn't even work as a play on words. I suppose it's too much to expect that bigots display any kind of wit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From where I see it, a British judge overruled a less senior British judge on a point of British law. What is the problem? A complaint has been made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office about Lord Justice Bean and his participation in the decision. Bean was a Labour Party member for 28 years. He is also a founder member of Matrix Chambers, where the Attorney General Hermer is a member. The complaint will go nowhere of course. The person who deals with the complaint will almost certainly be a Labour Party member or supporter too. Welcome to the UK administrative state in 2025. It looks remarkably like government in the Soviet Union." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The asylum seeker at the centre of the Bell Hotel unrest, has now been found guilty on all five charges, including sexual assault of a 14 year old girl and a woman. One detail stood out when I was reading the comments from the judge post verdict, the judge acknowledged that “there is so little known about [Kebatu] and his circumstances”. That echoes what many people have said about the lack of checks and the risks of housing unknown individuals in their local communities. I'm not saying this verdict means every protest has been proven to be right, but it shows there were and are legitimate concerns." The unfortunate fellow obviously lost his licence to practise medicine on the arduous journey from France. Hopefully by the time he gets out of prison he will have obtained duplicate certification and will be able to take up his rightful position as a brain surgeon in RNHS saving thick British chavs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's tragic news for Fab's pro-paedophile team who are easily identifiable on the politics forum. The Moderators should ban them from this website. I'm not aware of anyone on here being "pro-paedophile". However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. " Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's tragic news for Fab's pro-paedophile team who are easily identifiable on the politics forum. The Moderators should ban them from this website. I'm not aware of anyone on here being "pro-paedophile". However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo" And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The asylum seeker at the centre of the Bell Hotel unrest, has now been found guilty on all five charges, including sexual assault of a 14 year old girl and a woman. One detail stood out when I was reading the comments from the judge post verdict, the judge acknowledged that “there is so little known about [Kebatu] and his circumstances”. That echoes what many people have said about the lack of checks and the risks of housing unknown individuals in their local communities. I'm not saying this verdict means every protest has been proven to be right, but it shows there were and are legitimate concerns." Not exactly an advert for fast tracking people through the system. Many people have legitimate concerns and will protest accordingly. Unfortunately as with many protests some use it as an excuse for violence on all sides. Still, the one in, one out, scheme has been in operation for a while now and maybe it's a roaring success sending dozens of not hundreds back to France. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. " Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here." So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱" If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it." The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it." Who suppressed voices calling out r@pe ? All "left wingers" all anti racists ? Sweeping statements.. wow | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. " Anyone who tries to suppress voices against it and obstructs justice is partly culpable of it too. " As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. " There is a thing called proportionality. If statistics showing men being guilty of most crimes against women implies that all men are dangerous to women, what do statistics which show that men from certain countries are highly represented in crimes against women? " Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. " Not true. " How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? " We are talking about grooming gangs. There is a reason why most, if not all of them happened in Labour councils. Today a Labour party racist councillor was suspended after he referred to grooming gang victims as "poor white trash from Rotherham". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg7d93kyndxo Looks like Labour neither cares about the working class nor about women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? " There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? " I don't believe there are any quick wins. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. " You avoided the other questions... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. You avoided the other questions..." Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You avoided the other questions... Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. " Doesn't that read like a lot of dust kicked up as a smokescreen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" You avoided the other questions... Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. Doesn't that read like a lot of dust kicked up as a smokescreen?" Not really. If you try to drill down into any aspect of sexual offences, the data quality is not adequate. I forgot to list victimology, repeat victims and repeat offenders. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not really. If you try to drill down into any aspect of sexual offences, the data quality is not adequate. " There needs to be a middle ground between the overly simplistic "immigrant=sex offender=bad" and the overly complex "sadly, we can never know the reasons, because the data just doesn't exist (but we do know that whites are probably the problem, somehow)". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not really. If you try to drill down into any aspect of sexual offences, the data quality is not adequate. There needs to be a middle ground between the overly simplistic "immigrant=sex offender=bad" and the overly complex "sadly, we can never know the reasons, because the data just doesn't exist (but we do know that whites are probably the problem, somehow)"." I agree that there needs to be a balanced view. Which is that men (and to a lesser extent, women) who commit sexual offences come from all demographics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not really. If you try to drill down into any aspect of sexual offences, the data quality is not adequate. " So why do you go around making statements that all men are bad and "Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men" It looks like you are trusting data only when it's convenient for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. You avoided the other questions... Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. " I'm not sure why you are failing to recognise a safeguarding risk that could be dealt with as simply as closing a door? Is it because you would need to challenge the asylum process and your views on it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. You avoided the other questions..." So did the other guy ✅ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not really. If you try to drill down into any aspect of sexual offences, the data quality is not adequate. So why do you go around making statements that all men are bad and "Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men" It looks like you are trusting data only when it's convenient for you." I have never said all men are bad. I have said that men are the main problem in terms of SA towards women and girls/children. I'm assuming you know the difference between a paedophile ring and a grooming gang? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. You avoided the other questions... Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. I'm not sure why you are failing to recognise a safeguarding risk that could be dealt with as simply as closing a door? Is it because you would need to challenge the asylum process and your views on it? " No. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Not really. If you try to drill down into any aspect of sexual offences, the data quality is not adequate. So why do you go around making statements that all men are bad and "Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men" It looks like you are trusting data only when it's convenient for you. I have never said all men are bad. I have said that men are the main problem in terms of SA towards women and girls/children. I'm assuming you know the difference between a paedophile ring and a grooming gang?" How did you arrive at the conclusion that men are the main problem in terms of SA towards women and girls/children? How did you arrive at the conclusion that Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the NPCC In 2023, the largest proportion of child sexual abuse suspects were white, accounting for 1,884 (83%), followed by 62 Pakistani suspects (2.7%), the NPCC’s data shows. From January to September 2024, there were 1,623 (85%) white suspects, and 75 Pakistani (3.9%). When data on abuse in institutions, such as within schools, churches and children’s homes, and offences committed within a family are removed, the figures for “group-based” child sexual exploitation show that in 2023, there were 224 (70%) white grooming gang suspects, compared with 22 Pakistani (6.9%). And from the Crown Prosecution Service. Sexual offences are prosecuted as part of the CPS Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy. This is an overarching framework to address crimes that have been identified as being committed primarily but not exclusively by men against women. These crimes include domestic abuse, r@pe, sexual offences, stalking, harassment, so-called ‘honour-based’ violence including forced marriage, female genital mutilation, child abuse, human trafficking focusing on sexual exploitation, prostitution, pornography and obscenity. " Do you know what under and over representation is? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the NPCC In 2023, the largest proportion of child sexual abuse suspects were white, accounting for 1,884 (83%), followed by 62 Pakistani suspects (2.7%), the NPCC’s data shows. From January to September 2024, there were 1,623 (85%) white suspects, and 75 Pakistani (3.9%). When data on abuse in institutions, such as within schools, churches and children’s homes, and offences committed within a family are removed, the figures for “group-based” child sexual exploitation show that in 2023, there were 224 (70%) white grooming gang suspects, compared with 22 Pakistani (6.9%). And from the Crown Prosecution Service. Sexual offences are prosecuted as part of the CPS Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy. This is an overarching framework to address crimes that have been identified as being committed primarily but not exclusively by men against women. These crimes include domestic abuse, r@pe, sexual offences, stalking, harassment, so-called ‘honour-based’ violence including forced marriage, female genital mutilation, child abuse, human trafficking focusing on sexual exploitation, prostitution, pornography and obscenity. " Have you compared the percentage representation in these crimes with their percentage in population? Do you think it's ok to criticise a group like men or white men, based on such statistics? Have you read the Casey report? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"From the NPCC In 2023, the largest proportion of child sexual abuse suspects were white, accounting for 1,884 (83%), followed by 62 Pakistani suspects (2.7%), the NPCC’s data shows. From January to September 2024, there were 1,623 (85%) white suspects, and 75 Pakistani (3.9%). When data on abuse in institutions, such as within schools, churches and children’s homes, and offences committed within a family are removed, the figures for “group-based” child sexual exploitation show that in 2023, there were 224 (70%) white grooming gang suspects, compared with 22 Pakistani (6.9%). And from the Crown Prosecution Service. Sexual offences are prosecuted as part of the CPS Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) Strategy. This is an overarching framework to address crimes that have been identified as being committed primarily but not exclusively by men against women. These crimes include domestic abuse, r@pe, sexual offences, stalking, harassment, so-called ‘honour-based’ violence including forced marriage, female genital mutilation, child abuse, human trafficking focusing on sexual exploitation, prostitution, pornography and obscenity. Have you compared the percentage representation in these crimes with their percentage in population? Do you think it's ok to criticise a group like men or white men, based on such statistics? Have you read the Casey report?" What are you not understanding? SA is a very gendered crime. Significantly more men than women are the perpetrators. The research available contradicts the current penchant for blaming asylum seekers for the unsafe environment for women and children. That's not a criticism, it's the product of research. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What are you not understanding? SA is a very gendered crime. Significantly more men than women are the perpetrators. The research available contradicts the current penchant for blaming asylum seekers for the unsafe environment for women and children. That's not a criticism, it's the product of research. " Doesn't answer my questions. Is it ok to make blanket statements about a group of people based on statistics that the group of people are overrepresented in a type of crime? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What are you not understanding? SA is a very gendered crime. Significantly more men than women are the perpetrators. The research available contradicts the current penchant for blaming asylum seekers for the unsafe environment for women and children. That's not a criticism, it's the product of research. Doesn't answer my questions. Is it ok to make blanket statements about a group of people based on statistics that the group of people are overrepresented in a type of crime? " I know you like your statistics in neat little boxes, but you omit to include qualitative data alongside quantative, which tends to make the statistics less reliable in isolation. But, even accounting for the population percentages, it's still British born men committing the majority of sexual assaults. Why do you think it's OK to ignore this threat to women and children, especially girls? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What are you not understanding? SA is a very gendered crime. Significantly more men than women are the perpetrators. The research available contradicts the current penchant for blaming asylum seekers for the unsafe environment for women and children. That's not a criticism, it's the product of research. Doesn't answer my questions. Is it ok to make blanket statements about a group of people based on statistics that the group of people are overrepresented in a type of crime? I know you like your statistics in neat little boxes, but you omit to include qualitative data alongside quantative, which tends to make the statistics less reliable in isolation. But, even accounting for the population percentages, it's still British born men committing the majority of sexual assaults. Why do you think it's OK to ignore this threat to women and children, especially girls? " What is qualitative data and quantitative data? And you still haven't answered my question. If we have good data to prove that people from some groups are overrepresented in a type of crime, is it ok to make statements about that group? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What are you not understanding? SA is a very gendered crime. Significantly more men than women are the perpetrators. The research available contradicts the current penchant for blaming asylum seekers for the unsafe environment for women and children. That's not a criticism, it's the product of research. Doesn't answer my questions. Is it ok to make blanket statements about a group of people based on statistics that the group of people are overrepresented in a type of crime? I know you like your statistics in neat little boxes, but you omit to include qualitative data alongside quantative, which tends to make the statistics less reliable in isolation. But, even accounting for the population percentages, it's still British born men committing the majority of sexual assaults. Why do you think it's OK to ignore this threat to women and children, especially girls? What is qualitative data and quantitative data? And you still haven't answered my question. If we have good data to prove that people from some groups are overrepresented in a type of crime, is it ok to make statements about that group?" LOL! You've changed the wording of the question! We haven't got robust data in terms of offender and victim demographics, repeat offenders and repeat victims, serial offenders etc., but the data we do have clearly states that men commit overwhelmingly the majority of sexual offences in England and Wales. So yes, it's OK to make statements about the data. If you are referring to all men in an earlier post, I followed it up with "How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which are not?" (which no one has answered.) They can't, and on the statistics already quoted, they have every right to be wary of all men until the men can that they (the men) are trustworthy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" What is qualitative data and quantitative data? And you still haven't answered my question. If we have good data to prove that people from some groups are overrepresented in a type of crime, is it ok to make statements about that group? LOL! You've changed the wording of the question! " Because you were talking about "qualitative" data " We haven't got robust data in terms of offender and victim demographics, repeat offenders and repeat victims, serial offenders etc., but the data we do have clearly states that men commit overwhelmingly the majority of sexual offences in England and Wales. " The data we do have, also states that men with foreign nationality are overrepresented in sexual crimes. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/10/foreigners-commit-up-to-quarter-of-sex-crimes/ This is even if we assume that all the criminals with "unknown nationality" are British As I pointed out in another thread, in Sweden close to two third of sexual assault convicts are from foreign countries. In both UK and Sweden, Afghans are at the top when it comes to conviction rates. Not surprising considering that they come from a culture that forces women to wear a tent that covers every inch of their body with a letter box just for their eyes. " So yes, it's OK to make statements about the data. " So, is it ok to make statements about Afghan men? " If you are referring to all men in an earlier post, I followed it up with "How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which are not?" (which no one has answered.) They can't, and on the statistics already quoted, they have every right to be wary of all men until the men can that they (the men) are trustworthy. " Based on the statistics above, do they have every right to be wary of Afghan men specifically? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have never said all men are bad." Yes you have. Up above you said "As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls". | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The same old posters spouting their usual crap. Now I am suppose to believe that most offenders are people from abroad or those who arrive in small boats. What a crock." What seems to be said above is this: Imagine you have 100 people of whom 10% are green and 90% are purple. 5% commit a crime. 2 green and 3 purple. One person is arguing that more purple people commit crimes. The other is arguing that a green person is more likely to commit a crime. Both statements are correct. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The same old posters spouting their usual crap. Now I am suppose to believe that most offenders are people from abroad or those who arrive in small boats. What a crock. What seems to be said above is this: Imagine you have 100 people of whom 10% are green and 90% are purple. 5% commit a crime. 2 green and 3 purple. One person is arguing that more purple people commit crimes. The other is arguing that a green person is more likely to commit a crime. Both statements are correct." If the number of green people increases exponentially, what is the most likely outcome? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have never said all men are bad. Yes you have. Up above you said "As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls"." Which is different from all men are bad. All men are a threat, because how can women and girls identify the safe from the not safe?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up the article by Infomigrants - UK: Is there an increasing number of sexual assaults committed by male migrants? And also Sky news Fact Checking Farage - Are foreigners more likely than Britons to commit sexual offences? " They all deal with Farage's specific claims that Afghans are 20 times more likely to convicted of sexual crimes. The numbers I shared above aren't based on that. And the numbers I shared about Sweden are published through proper research. I don't know why you have to do all these mental gymnastics. Women are treated like sl&ves in Afghanistan. Do you think that all the men coming from there to UK will magically change their views about women? Is the air in UK mixed with some medicine that brings about this change? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have never said all men are bad. Yes you have. Up above you said "As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls". Which is different from all men are bad. All men are a threat, because how can women and girls identify the safe from the not safe?! " You are a couples profile. Should all the women see the male as a threat? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. You avoided the other questions... Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. I'm not sure why you are failing to recognise a safeguarding risk that could be dealt with as simply as closing a door? Is it because you would need to challenge the asylum process and your views on it? No. " I assume by saying "no" you are agreeing we should not be allowing people into the country who we have no background information on and certainly not housing them amongst communities. This lack of background information was noted by the judge in the case of the asylum seeker housed in Epping, who will be sentenced for sexual assault against a child and a woman in October. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. You avoided the other questions... Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. I'm not sure why you are failing to recognise a safeguarding risk that could be dealt with as simply as closing a door? Is it because you would need to challenge the asylum process and your views on it? No. I assume by saying "no" you are agreeing we should not be allowing people into the country who we have no background information on and certainly not housing them amongst communities. This lack of background information was noted by the judge in the case of the asylum seeker housed in Epping, who will be sentenced for sexual assault against a child and a woman in October. " You assume wrongly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up the article by Infomigrants - UK: Is there an increasing number of sexual assaults committed by male migrants? And also Sky news Fact Checking Farage - Are foreigners more likely than Britons to commit sexual offences? They all deal with Farage's specific claims that Afghans are 20 times more likely to convicted of sexual crimes. The numbers I shared above aren't based on that. And the numbers I shared about Sweden are published through proper research. I don't know why you have to do all these mental gymnastics. Women are treated like sl&ves in Afghanistan. Do you think that all the men coming from there to UK will magically change their views about women? Is the air in UK mixed with some medicine that brings about this change?" And those claims were found to be incorrect. Do you think all men in Afghanistan treat women badly? And only the ones who do seek asylum? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Look up the article by Infomigrants - UK: Is there an increasing number of sexual assaults committed by male migrants? And also Sky news Fact Checking Farage - Are foreigners more likely than Britons to commit sexual offences? They all deal with Farage's specific claims that Afghans are 20 times more likely to convicted of sexual crimes. The numbers I shared above aren't based on that. And the numbers I shared about Sweden are published through proper research. I don't know why you have to do all these mental gymnastics. Women are treated like sl&ves in Afghanistan. Do you think that all the men coming from there to UK will magically change their views about women? Is the air in UK mixed with some medicine that brings about this change? And those claims were found to be incorrect. " Statistics have proven them to be correct. You haven't proven anything incorrect. " Do you think all men in Afghanistan treat women badly? And only the ones who do seek asylum? " Not all. But disproportionately high numbers. It's not rocket science. The statistics are clear on this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have never said all men are bad. Yes you have. Up above you said "As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls". Which is different from all men are bad. All men are a threat, because how can women and girls identify the safe from the not safe?! You are a couples profile. Should all the women see the male as a threat?" Yes, until proven to be trustworthy, as I said above (although I missed the word trustworthy out in my earlier post). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have never said all men are bad. Yes you have. Up above you said "As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls". Which is different from all men are bad. All men are a threat, because how can women and girls identify the safe from the not safe?! You are a couples profile. Should all the women see the male as a threat? Yes, until proven to be trustworthy, as I said above (although I missed the word trustworthy out in my earlier post). " How does one prove to be trustworthy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have never said all men are bad. Yes you have. Up above you said "As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls". Which is different from all men are bad. All men are a threat, because how can women and girls identify the safe from the not safe?! You are a couples profile. Should all the women see the male as a threat? Yes, until proven to be trustworthy, as I said above (although I missed the word trustworthy out in my earlier post). How does one prove to be trustworthy? " How would you prove yourself to be trustworthy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have never said all men are bad. Yes you have. Up above you said "As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls". Which is different from all men are bad. All men are a threat, because how can women and girls identify the safe from the not safe?! You are a couples profile. Should all the women see the male as a threat? Yes, until proven to be trustworthy, as I said above (although I missed the word trustworthy out in my earlier post). How does one prove to be trustworthy? How would you prove yourself to be trustworthy? " You are the one who says that all men must prove that they are trustworthy before they are stopped being considered a threat. So you are the one who must explain how to prove. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. You avoided the other questions... Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. I'm not sure why you are failing to recognise a safeguarding risk that could be dealt with as simply as closing a door? Is it because you would need to challenge the asylum process and your views on it? No. I assume by saying "no" you are agreeing we should not be allowing people into the country who we have no background information on and certainly not housing them amongst communities. This lack of background information was noted by the judge in the case of the asylum seeker housed in Epping, who will be sentenced for sexual assault against a child and a woman in October. You assume wrongly. " Oh, that’s a shame. Why would you consider undocumented males, who we have no background information on, safe to house in communities? By your own logic you have already said all men are a threat. These men are actually a greater risk because we lack any traceable history or checks. Yet out of virtue you would rather turn a blind eye ignore local feeling, encourage integration without safeguards, put local women at risk, and then still bang the drum that indigenous white men are the largest problem and all men are a threat. That’s inconsistent and ends up defending only one group, undocumented males entering the country by irregular means. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have never said all men are bad. Yes you have. Up above you said "As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls". Which is different from all men are bad. All men are a threat, because how can women and girls identify the safe from the not safe?! You are a couples profile. Should all the women see the male as a threat? Yes, until proven to be trustworthy, as I said above (although I missed the word trustworthy out in my earlier post). How does one prove to be trustworthy? How would you prove yourself to be trustworthy? You are the one who says that all men must prove that they are trustworthy before they are stopped being considered a threat. So you are the one who must explain how to prove. " Ahhhh, so you are unable, or unwilling, to use critical thinking to consider why women consider men to be their main threat in life? Patriarchy Misogyny Sexual assault Physical assault Murder That does not mean that women do not do the same to men (replace misogyny with misandry), and we do not live in a matriarchy. However, the crimes listed above are significantly gendered to men being the perpetrators. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. You avoided the other questions... Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. I'm not sure why you are failing to recognise a safeguarding risk that could be dealt with as simply as closing a door? Is it because you would need to challenge the asylum process and your views on it? No. I assume by saying "no" you are agreeing we should not be allowing people into the country who we have no background information on and certainly not housing them amongst communities. This lack of background information was noted by the judge in the case of the asylum seeker housed in Epping, who will be sentenced for sexual assault against a child and a woman in October. You assume wrongly. Oh, that’s a shame. Why would you consider undocumented males, who we have no background information on, safe to house in communities? By your own logic you have already said all men are a threat. These men are actually a greater risk because we lack any traceable history or checks. Yet out of virtue you would rather turn a blind eye ignore local feeling, encourage integration without safeguards, put local women at risk, and then still bang the drum that indigenous white men are the largest problem and all men are a threat. That’s inconsistent and ends up defending only one group, undocumented males entering the country by irregular means." You are making assumptions again! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Oh, that’s a shame. Why would you consider undocumented males, who we have no background information on, safe to house in communities? By your own logic you have already said all men are a threat. These men are actually a greater risk because we lack any traceable history or checks. Yet out of virtue you would rather turn a blind eye ignore local feeling, encourage integration without safeguards, put local women at risk, and then still bang the drum that indigenous white men are the largest problem and all men are a threat. That’s inconsistent and ends up defending only one group, undocumented males entering the country by irregular means. You are making assumptions again! " Not unrefuted deductions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The same old posters spouting their usual crap. Now I am suppose to believe that most offenders are people from abroad or those who arrive in small boats. What a crock. What seems to be said above is this: Imagine you have 100 people of whom 10% are green and 90% are purple. 5% commit a crime. 2 green and 3 purple. One person is arguing that more purple people commit crimes. The other is arguing that a green person is more likely to commit a crime. Both statements are correct." imagine 100 green (people of colour) people whom are 10% whilst the purple are 90% (white or the indigenous population) right ok. both are correct, ok Well for me a small number of people at 10% causing the general amount of whatever crime, being larger than the 90% is impossible. So for me it is still a crock. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I have never said all men are bad. Yes you have. Up above you said "As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls". Which is different from all men are bad. All men are a threat, because how can women and girls identify the safe from the not safe?! You are a couples profile. Should all the women see the male as a threat? Yes, until proven to be trustworthy, as I said above (although I missed the word trustworthy out in my earlier post). How does one prove to be trustworthy? How would you prove yourself to be trustworthy? You are the one who says that all men must prove that they are trustworthy before they are stopped being considered a threat. So you are the one who must explain how to prove. Ahhhh, so you are unable, or unwilling, to use critical thinking to consider why women consider men to be their main threat in life? Patriarchy Misogyny Sexual assault Physical assault Murder That does not mean that women do not do the same to men (replace misogyny with misandry), and we do not live in a matriarchy. However, the crimes listed above are significantly gendered to men being the perpetrators. " That's not what I am asking you about though. You say that all men must prove their trustworthiness and would be considered a threat until then. You seem to be very sure about it. How do you prove your trustworthiness? And statistics also show that Afghan men are more of a threat than other women. Yet you do not want to trust statistics on that matter. Misogyny and patriarchy are even worse in Afghan culture today compared to any European country. Are you going to ignore that? If you really care about women, you won't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The same old posters spouting their usual crap. Now I am suppose to believe that most offenders are people from abroad or those who arrive in small boats. What a crock. What seems to be said above is this: Imagine you have 100 people of whom 10% are green and 90% are purple. 5% commit a crime. 2 green and 3 purple. One person is arguing that more purple people commit crimes. The other is arguing that a green person is more likely to commit a crime. Both statements are correct. If the number of green people increases exponentially, what is the most likely outcome? " If the number of green people increases exponentially, what is the most likely outcome? what would be the most likely outcome? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The same old posters spouting their usual crap. Now I am suppose to believe that most offenders are people from abroad or those who arrive in small boats. What a crock. What seems to be said above is this: Imagine you have 100 people of whom 10% are green and 90% are purple. 5% commit a crime. 2 green and 3 purple. One person is arguing that more purple people commit crimes. The other is arguing that a green person is more likely to commit a crime. Both statements are correct. imagine 100 green (people of colour) people whom are 10% whilst the purple are 90% (white or the indigenous population) right ok. both are correct, ok Well for me a small number of people at 10% causing the general amount of whatever crime, being larger than the 90% is impossible. So for me it is still a crock." It's called proportionality. If you look at Sweden, you don't even have to rely on proportionality. Two-thirds of sexual assault convicts come from other countries. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" However, conducting an AI search on British born grooming gangs vs non British born grooming gangs provides some interesting reading. Try it. Why rely on unreliable AI? How about the latest Casey report on this matter? https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyyqdnrdo And therein lies the problem. The Casey report data was inadequate. Ethnicity wasn't collected for two thirds of the cases. For cases where it's collected, we know that men with certain national background are disproportionately represented. Going by the news articles on people who have been shown guilty in courts, it's not easy to guess, unless you want to dig your head in the sand and pretend like it's not happening. The left wingers have been partly culpable in the r&pe of young girls as they used every trick available to shut down voices on this matter by brandishing those people racists. One would expect them to have learned a lesson here. So you say people who are against racism support r#pe WOW 😱 If someone suppresses voices calling out r&pes and thereby obstructing any action on the matter, no matter what justification they use, they are culpable of it. The person culpable of r@pe is the man that commits it. I am in no way condoning any subsequent actions by others, but if that man did not r@pe anyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. As mentioned in another thread, all men are the main threat to women and girls. Especially men they know. Paedophile rings are made up of predominantly white men. How are women and girls to know which men are safe and which men are not? There is no foolproof system. But people raised or settled here through legitimate means build a traceable history that authorities can check. Those arriving by small boat come predominantly with no history and no background checks. Question: If "you" want to reduce the risk of unknown predatory males, what would you do, where are the quick wins, where are the risks? I don't believe there are any quick wins. You avoided the other questions... Not really. Acknowledging there are no quick wins encompasses the other two questions. Why are there no quick wins is a better question. Gaps in data. Research. Understanding the dynamics of gender based violence. Whether there are any biases due to ethnicity. Where those biases are based. What are the commonalities, what are the differences. Predictors to predatory behaviours. Potential interventions. Those are off the top of my head. The list is not exhaustive. I'm not sure why you are failing to recognise a safeguarding risk that could be dealt with as simply as closing a door? Is it because you would need to challenge the asylum process and your views on it? No. I assume by saying "no" you are agreeing we should not be allowing people into the country who we have no background information on and certainly not housing them amongst communities. This lack of background information was noted by the judge in the case of the asylum seeker housed in Epping, who will be sentenced for sexual assault against a child and a woman in October. You assume wrongly. Oh, that’s a shame. Why would you consider undocumented males, who we have no background information on, safe to house in communities? By your own logic you have already said all men are a threat. These men are actually a greater risk because we lack any traceable history or checks. Yet out of virtue you would rather turn a blind eye ignore local feeling, encourage integration without safeguards, put local women at risk, and then still bang the drum that indigenous white men are the largest problem and all men are a threat. That’s inconsistent and ends up defending only one group, undocumented males entering the country by irregular means. You are making assumptions again! " There’s no assumption here. Your argument is flawed to the point of being dangerously close to expediting the very thing you claim to care about, exposing women to sexual assault by men. Dismissing the safeguarding risk of undocumented males with no background checks, you have undermined your own position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The same old posters spouting their usual crap. Now I am suppose to believe that most offenders are people from abroad or those who arrive in small boats. What a crock. What seems to be said above is this: Imagine you have 100 people of whom 10% are green and 90% are purple. 5% commit a crime. 2 green and 3 purple. One person is arguing that more purple people commit crimes. The other is arguing that a green person is more likely to commit a crime. Both statements are correct. imagine 100 green (people of colour) people whom are 10% whilst the purple are 90% (white or the indigenous population) right ok. both are correct, ok Well for me a small number of people at 10% causing the general amount of whatever crime, being larger than the 90% is impossible. So for me it is still a crock. It's called proportionality. If you look at Sweden, you don't even have to rely on proportionality. Two-thirds of sexual assault convicts come from other countries." I do not live in Sweden, for me and it will always be the case is by size of indigenous population vs immigration it will always be the indigenous population who cause the most crime simply by size. To mention other nationalities are creating the most crime is stupid and mindless thinking, when one looks back at this thread they will read the excuses used by certain posters. To divide us. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The same old posters spouting their usual crap. Now I am suppose to believe that most offenders are people from abroad or those who arrive in small boats. What a crock. What seems to be said above is this: Imagine you have 100 people of whom 10% are green and 90% are purple. 5% commit a crime. 2 green and 3 purple. One person is arguing that more purple people commit crimes. The other is arguing that a green person is more likely to commit a crime. Both statements are correct. imagine 100 green (people of colour) people whom are 10% whilst the purple are 90% (white or the indigenous population) right ok. both are correct, ok Well for me a small number of people at 10% causing the general amount of whatever crime, being larger than the 90% is impossible. So for me it is still a crock. It's called proportionality. If you look at Sweden, you don't even have to rely on proportionality. Two-thirds of sexual assault convicts come from other countries. I do not live in Sweden, for me and it will always be the case is by size of indigenous population vs immigration it will always be the indigenous population who cause the most crime simply by size. To mention other nationalities are creating the most crime is stupid and mindless thinking, when one looks back at this thread they will read the excuses used by certain posters. To divide us. " I don't know why it's so hard to understand. We are talking about specific type of crime here - sexual assault against women. Different cultures have different attitudes towards women. Men who grow up in a culture that has told them that women who don't cover every inch of their body are bad women end up doing crime against women in countries where women don't follow those stone age rules. That's what the statistics are showing. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The same old posters spouting their usual crap. Now I am suppose to believe that most offenders are people from abroad or those who arrive in small boats. What a crock. What seems to be said above is this: Imagine you have 100 people of whom 10% are green and 90% are purple. 5% commit a crime. 2 green and 3 purple. One person is arguing that more purple people commit crimes. The other is arguing that a green person is more likely to commit a crime. Both statements are correct. imagine 100 green (people of colour) people whom are 10% whilst the purple are 90% (white or the indigenous population) right ok. both are correct, ok Well for me a small number of people at 10% causing the general amount of whatever crime, being larger than the 90% is impossible. So for me it is still a crock. It's called proportionality. If you look at Sweden, you don't even have to rely on proportionality. Two-thirds of sexual assault convicts come from other countries. I do not live in Sweden, for me and it will always be the case is by size of indigenous population vs immigration it will always be the indigenous population who cause the most crime simply by size. To mention other nationalities are creating the most crime is stupid and mindless thinking, when one looks back at this thread they will read the excuses used by certain posters. To divide us. " If a smaller group is committing more sexual assault crimes as a % of their population, as that group grows, the number of crimes will grow too. Should that group ever equal the size of the indigenous population, the crime levels would be magnitudes higher, a huge problem,. If this concept isn’t familiar, it’s worth looking into, the maths is straightforward. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
