- This topic has 84 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 10 months ago by
.
-
1 user thanked author for this post.
It’s because of the council elections, which aren’t far away.
To seek the votes of the frightened and angry, they have to make folk think about something other than the state of the NHS/schools/high energy prices/food shortages/dirty rivers/the cost of living and inflation/the consequences of Brexit…. and instead blame foreigners in general and refugees in particular, especially as they are so dramatically visible in small boats. Never mind the fact the Tories have had 13 years to sort this out.
Paradoxically,the biggest consumers of this red meat live in areas where immigration is low, such as north Lincs., compared to pretty much any big town/city. That’s because if you’ve been brought up in a classroom with kids from ten different countries around you, you’d think nothing of it. Yet if you were brought up in a classroom where the kids all looked like you, talked like you and so on, you’d be much more susceptible to all the anti-immigration rhetoric/lies put about in the popular press and by parties such as UKIP.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Are these the same free speech warriors who want to ‘cancel’ Lineker for making a fair observation?
1 user thanked author for this post.
I don’t think immigration control is wrong, I don’t think anyone with concerns are racist. I do think the means in which the government have pursued this is wrong, and worsened the situation, which will probably make me a usual suspect for disagreeing with Bucks. The rhetoric is demonising and it plays into the discord of those trying to attack those claiming asylum. No, I am not saying this represents a majority of people who have immigration concerns before any straw men are hurled in my direction.
If Andrew Neil was allowed to express his opinions over social media, I don’t see the issue with Linekar, no matter how unwise and crass the comparison was. It’s good news he isn’t losing his job, given how easy people turn against free speech, from left and right.
1 user thanked author for this post.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Who you trying to kid Bucks? It’s so blatantly obvious your Party are disgracefully wheeling out another dehumanising ‘solution’ in order to appeal to the selfish, bigoted racist vote in the run up to the local elections. Just as they have in the past, like when they courted the NF vote – what a lovely bunch you are. But that’s okay because your very own ‘I say what I like, and I like what I say’ Bernard Manning impersonator, Lee Anderson, apparently has an inbox flooded with views sympathetic his abhorrent ones. You must be ‘reet proud’ of that one, mate! ‘STOP THE BOATS’ on a lecturn – doesn’t that embarrass you?
1 user thanked author for this post.
What the f does impartial mean? It’s the reason the main BBC News reporting is crap and devoid of any meaningful analysis.
The number of migrants entering this country is well down the league table taken by other European countries.
The Government should spend their time sorting out the backlog of immigrants waiting more than a year for a decision. The vast majority have a right to remain. Instead we get more grandstanding from Sunak and Braverman with their 7th final solution that won’t work.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I will reiterate my own opinion that having concerns about immigration is not racist or xenophobic, necessarily. I don’t think the pressures on the system are insurmountable myself, but realise others think otherwise, and don’t think that’s an inherently racist or xenophobic argument. I understand the need to deal with people traffickers and that not everyone who comes over via boats or otherwise is an honest asylum seeker. Deterring people from crossing the Channel like this is as important for their lives as much as anything. However, I think that the government’s means of controlling it will worsen it and is truly pathetic. The reason why hotels are becoming more booked up with people claiming asylum (rightly or wrongly) is due to a slowdown in the processing, which their woeful solutions won’t address.
I do not think Tory ministers are necessarily doing it from the goodness of their own hearts, as they laughably claim. This issue needs careful consideration which can address public concerns, as well as the human beings who are coming over. I do not think Tory MPs who have outright lied about this, such as Braverman yesterday claiming legitimate asylum seekers can find another route (there isn’t another route, and these Tories are not interested in setting up such for asylum seekers), are being honest or moral. I think they are trying to use simplistic rhetoric to sure up support and are putting this above finding meaningful solutions.
Of course I have committed the cardinal sin of implying that some Tories are not darlings, so I must be some judgmental bigot. Well, I have railed against the worse of the left too, so I can sleep well in that I try my best to give a fair assessment of character and I am not obliged to think positively of people if I find their actions to be immoral. Evidently the real evil is hurting feelings of Tories by saying that some of them have bad traits, when I know not all or most are, and I need to learn compassion by not caring about the best outcome for all and seeing inhumane policy as wrong.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Historians will look back on this particular period of Tory rule and declare ‘the Conservatives became so right wing, bordering on deranged, that even ex-footballers felt compelled to publicly speak out about their inhumane actions’.
1 user thanked author for this post.
Compelling series for those who might not have seen it. Events around the world are worryingly close.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/p0dm3cbt/the-us-and-the-holocaust
1 user thanked author for this post.
‘Bravo!’ say the far right. The only illegality’ seems to be from Tory Party, that feckless bunch of loony toons who continue to steer the UK in to dirtier filthier mud!
For the record, read Lineker’s quote again below:
‘This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s’
‘language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s’ – yes that is an absolutely fair comparison. The only people who are manipulating that quote are Tories trying to claim it’s something it isn’t (I.e. claiming he was comparing it to the Holocaust) and people who have acquiesced too easily in my opinion. The actual quote and comparison has too easily got left behind by Tory media spin. The ‘language’, the ‘language’. He’s ñot apologising, and neither should he. People should stop being conned by these horrible lot of grifters. The sooner, the better.
1 user thanked author for this post.
“Actually, Siderite, I criticise the Tories a lot and if you check back over my posts you’ll see that to be the case.”
Where have I said you haven’ in this thread? I mean we can go into that if you want, but your previous condemnations have been weak, full of distracting what abouts to Labour and you always seem to damn anyone for making a critical argument of the Tories if you don’t agree with it. You have in this thread made out people critical of values seen as appalling
“What I don’t see are any comments on how to address the problem, other than saying it isn’t surmountable.”
It’s not my job to do so, I am not in government. However, I am allowed to have an opinion on whether it’s a good solution in a democracy. The Tory solution seems to be to deport everyone immediately, regardless, and then whine when people point out this might not be a moral solution. 76% of asylum seeker cases were accepted last year from boat crossings, so in Braverman’s world these people would be sent back. And I am not supposed to think ill of someone who rejects something I consider as moral? That’s what’s absurd.
“It’s also highly disingenuous to come out with absurd comments about Government ministers not caring”
I don’t think people like Braverman are being empathetic. Why is it ‘disingenuous’ of me to think this? Am I obliged to think the best of people when they have demonstrated what I see as poor moral values, because it might hurt precious feelings of those who support the government? If Braverman cared she would not toss red meat to sound like the problem is being sorted, when they know it might not pass through the courts. If she cared she’d know that 76% of asylum cases from such kind of arrivals were approved, and wouldn’t use the rhetoric she does to make out many are not worthy. I am supposed to have overreaching good faith towards some Tories seemingly, yet lefties can be bashed without care. Right. I mean, there’s plenty to bash about the left, but your aching concern is hidden by a lot of bias and agenda.
I am basing my opinion on this on my own interpretation, or is that not allowed? I am not saying all Tories are like this, but seemingly negative opinions of some makes me suspect. If Braverman is going to push forward policy which, in my view, harms humans they can expect negative opinions on them and their morals. I fail to see what’s so hideous about this, beyond the precious hurt feelings of some who like Braverman (hurt feelings matter more than human rights, seemingly). I certainly don’t see what’s disingenuous in taking a view that she doesn’t care based on her lack of care for an honest discussion on this for political gain.
It’s ok for you to cast your own self-righteous spiel about damn lefties, but when someone says something bad about the right it shows the judgemental nature of the left. Yawn. Hypocrisy. Fact is that I am not that left wing, and I am forever being damned as an evil righty by people of 64’s left wing nature, and you will say I am a gutter sniping lefty. Meh, I can live with it; it just shows the dogmatic nature of those launching such blanket statements to dismiss anything anyone else says, to me. Anything I can be said, which is critical can just be dismissed because of prejudice about my ‘left wing nature’ and nothing can be valid in any way, even if it’s disagreed with.
1 user thanked author for this post.
You can make as many reasoned points as you want Siderite. He will continue to ignore them, not address any of them, hurl abuse at you and write the same old phrases over and over again. Example below:
“Actually, Siderite, I criticise the Tories a lot and if you check back over my posts you’ll see that to be the case.”
The joke is that Cleverley (if ever there was a wrong name for a person, this is it) will be lecturing the French but he doesn’t want them anywhere near his constituency. Very caring!!
The answer is to speed up the processing, something they have deliberately failed to do for 13 years.
The backlog keeps getting bigger every year. It’s a crisis of their own making. Whatever happened to Patel’s plan to process them on French soil?
Another empty gesture from a desperate party.
2 users thanked author for this post.
shut down or make “safe” or “legal” routes impossible then you can call them illegal immigrants, which is a lie anyway but it doesn’t stop them using the term.
Is there a difference between them and a party of rich people bringing their yacht home to Brighton or Southampton Marinas,I see no customs officers there?
This obsession with immigration is historic and the reasons constantly changing to make them not look racist, it’s about packaging it as reasonable as Nick Griffin admitted years ago.
Same with Tommy Yaxley and his supposed child protection ideals,it’s a right wing trait,try and hide their bigotry behind noble ideals. They want their faults being laid out factually with them shut down as being partial on BBC while wanting freedom of speech so they can spew racist bile and hatred2 users thanked author for this post.
‘Lineker’s appalling comment about the Nazis, which of course he’s entitled to make but which I’m just as entitled to comment upon. Those attempting to defend him should think very carefully about the impact such comments have on diminishing the level of atrocities committed by the Nazis on millions of people. It really is repugnant and to say that it’s “fair” reveals a great deal about anyone making such a claim.’
As soon as you mention ‘Nazi’s’ the rest of your diatribe falls down. He didn’t once mention ‘Nazi’s’. Stick to the facts and stop lying and distorting the truth. Quite ironic that you demand that people ‘should think very carefully about the impact such comments have’. What, you mean like in a holier than though condemnation of words he didn’t use? Great PR, ‘bravo!’ as the far right say to Sunak and Braverman. You must be very proud of yourselves 👏👏👏
2 users thanked author for this post.
Everyone knew he was on about Nazi rhetoric though, even if not the Holocaust. I think it would have been wise to use another example. However, he shouldn’t lose his job over it.
1 user thanked author for this post.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.