Stupid World

[sugilite:Me]

One is illegal, the other is not.

Pretty simple really.

In addition, entering illegally constitutes a form of Queue jumping, which is the most grievous sin in Britain.

So your moral compass extends to simply - is it legal or not? Noted.

[TheDemonLord]

So your moral compass extends to simply - is it legal or not? Noted.

Not entirely - but you are trying to conflate two wildly different things:

I accept the Media is allowed to lie.

This is the foundational premise of Free Speech. I would like the Media to lie less, I would at least like the 'main' media to be more neutral (like the BBC was prior to Brexit) - but Media, in general can lie. They can mislead, they can be mistaken, they can do all these things... And that is the price we pay to live in a free society.

Likewise - should anyone want to come into a country, the local population (or, Indigenous if you'd like - since the British are native to Britain) have ever right to decide who gets to come in. They get to set standards and they get to reject people who fail to meet those standards.

So, if you are fleeing from a War, we get to ask about it, we get to ask why here and not elsewhere (where you might share a number of cultural similarities) and if we aren't satisfied with that answer, we get to say 'No, go away'.

To be clear - both of these are Right, Moral and Just not because the Law says so, but because they are an extension of Natural Rights.

[TheDemonLord]

Just to add to this - here's a Swedish article on this subject.

In particular - there's this line (using Google Translate):

https://bulletin.nu/bulletin-novus-n...n&_x_tr_pto=sc

Among those who came as family migrants, 92 percent have traveled back to their country of birth for vacation at least once, while the figure is 79 percent among those who came as refugees.

Now, let's just remind ourselves of the Legal definition of a Refugee, shall we?

https://communitylaw.org.nz/communit...-as-a-refugee/

You will be recognised as a refugee if:

you’re outside your country of nationality or habitual residence because you have a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of your race, religion, nationality, social group or political opinion, and
you’re unable, or because of that fear, unwilling, to return to that country.

Now, it seems to me, we have a bit of a contradiction. See, if you have a well-founded fear of persecution and unwilling to return to your country you can't be going back to visit for a fucking holiday.

79%.

nearly 4/5th of Refugees definitionally aren't Refugees.

[FJRider]

They were talking about this on the BBC the other day. It's common for a family to scrape together enough money to send one son to seek asylum, the hope being they will get a job and start sending money home. Sometimes it works.

As I have already stated (in case you missed it) ... those in the small boats trying to cross the English channel ... carrying no immigration paperwork (and usually no means of personal identification) ... are not seeking asylum.

[pritch]

As I have already stated (in case you missed it) ... those in the small boats trying to cross the English channel ... carrying no immigration paperwork (and usually no means of personal identification) ... are not seeking asylum.

I didn't miss it, I disagreed with it.

Britain being an island creates its own problems. None of which means the people arriving in boats are not asylum seekers. Would you prefer them to travel by train or parachute in?

[pritch]

Meanwhile back at the BBC...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...tch-of-the-day

[TheDemonLord]

Meanwhile back at the BBC...

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...tch-of-the-day

Tells you how deeply the BBC has been captured, doesn't it.

Jeremy Clarkson, heading the most profitable TV show, gets fired (arguably justifiably) for punching a producer.
Gary Linekar, ex-Footballer and seller of Walkers crisps, gets welcomed back for breaching the BBC's charter on impartiality.

Also to point out - when MoTD was broadcast without Gary, viewership went up.

If you go to a Working Class, Centre-Left newspaper outlet (The Daily Mirror) - and see the reactions to this - let's just say most people weren't sad to see Gary absent.

[onearmedbandit]

Also to point out - when MoTD was broadcast without Gary, viewership went up.

To be fair, I had never heard of MoTD prior to this, so had it been easy to access I would've tuned in to see what was taking place that evening.

[TheDemonLord]

To be fair, I had never heard of MoTD prior to this, so had it been easy to access I would've tuned in to see what was taking place that evening.

I can still hear the theme tune in my head.

One of the British sources I regularly watch did an entire segment on this - and made a point that for a certain generation (basically My Parents generation) MoTD is/was a Sunday Institution.

[pritch]

To be fair, I had never heard of MoTD prior to this, so had it been easy to access I would've tuned in to see what was taking place that evening.

Yeah I'd have had a peek too.

Sports announcers get criticised on Twitter if they venture to comment on matters outside sport. Lineker cops it, so too Brian Moore former England and Lions prop, and MotoGP journo Mat Oxley. "Stick to sport!" the A holes say. Although posting their disapproval is unlikely to relate to whatever their occupation is. Sadly they are too dim to realise that.

If a political commentator posted comments about a football team that wouldn't be a problem. Sports commentators should be able to make political comments on their private social media accounts and that shouldn't be a problem either. That government ministers may be upset is tough.

One thing this little storm in a tea cup has done is focus attention on the Chairman of the BBC Board, Richard Sharp. While he was applying for the job it's reported that he donated 400 thousand quid to the Tory party coffers. He also arranged an introduction for Boris Johnson, then PM, that resulted in BJ getting an 800 thousand quid line of credit. That doesn't smell fishy at all. Much.

[FJRider]

I didn't miss it, I disagreed with it.

Britain being an island creates its own problems. None of which means the people arriving in boats are not asylum seekers. Would you prefer them to travel by train or parachute in?

When the COVID-19 pandemic all but halted rail, air and ship travel and disrupted freight transport in 2020, people-smugglers began to put migrants into inflatable dinghies and other small boats. In 2018, only 300 people reached Britain that way. The number rose to 8,500 in 2020, 28,000 in 2021 and 45,000 in 2022.

What percentage of those entering Britain of those numbers ... would you say are genuine "Asylum Seekers" .. ??

[pritch]

What percentage of those entering Britain of those numbers ... would you say are genuine "Asylum Seekers" .. ??

At a quick guess 100%. The increased numbers probably reflect the situation in Syria and Afghanistan?

[pritch]

Polling in the USA shows the majority of the population views being "woke" as a positive thing. Only 39% view being woke as a negative. On the other hand 56% view "anti woke" as being negative.

The 'war on woke" does not seem a great idea for attracting votes. Anybody here who has used the term in a pejorative sense should pause for reflection and consider what it means. Not what you think it means, what it normally means. Having said that, racists are using it as a dog whistle to denigrate things that people of colour like.

It's just one more thing to keep the Republican base riled up, fortunately they are still a minorityr.

[TheDemonLord]

At a quick guess 100%. The increased numbers probably reflect the situation in Syria and Afghanistan?

If I borrow the Swedish numbers and there's no evidence to presume any great difference between the UK and Sweden - then I'd say 80% aren't legitimate.

If I look at the Asylum seekers for Ukraine - how it's almost all Women and Children and then compare to who is coming to the UK, I'd say again it's 90% who aren't legitimate.

[pritch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMrfUxwS7pM