Election Year or Fear!

[ramAnag]

Agreed

Although whats more peaceful than a bit of painting in the derbyshire countryside, probably at night!!

I see the planned Waterloo rally for 13-09 (hopefully peaceful too but I fear not: if Im Swaleish for a moment it will likely be infiltrated by left wing agitators who will ensure it isnt), is being stymied by a surprise rash of suddenly planned engineering works on railways across the country .

Well I said someone would be daft enough to defend them. Just didn’t expect it to be you and it isn’t a ‘bit of painting in the Derbyshire countryside’.
Bennerley viaduct is between Cotmanhay (Ilkeston) and Awsworth and I suggest you ask the ‘Friends of Bennerley Viaduct’ how they feel about having the vast amount of effort they have put into its recent restoration defaced in this way.
Also the full piece of graffiti suggests ‘Stop the Boats. Save our children’, which is a piece of exaggerated nonsense on a par with what was being put about just over a year ago in the wake of the Southport atrocity.

All for free speech and if people are in favour of stopping the boats they have a right to say so. They do not, imo, have a right to add exaggerated lies and deface public property in this way.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Im not defending it at all, its the same in a sense of throwing soup or paint at old masters. Not the way to do it, but it attracts attention for sure. My observation about doing some painting in the peaceful derbyshire countryside was merely tongue in cheek that I didnt think needed explaining to most (as swale would say) sentient beings! Hmm Im in a bit of a Swaleic mood today.

The mention of "save our children" I hadb=nt seen but would interpret it very diiferently. Your interpretation seems to infer more killings of the nations children. Mine would be "save our country (from Islamic invasion) for future generations" which is a very different and much wider perspective. Who knows who is right....

[Geoff Parkstone]

It's strange isn't it. Why do those protesting become offended if labeled as violent racist thugs?

Probably because most of them arent, aside from the public facing elements who are leading the movement. Anecdotally most people I know who have indicated that they plan to protest at Waterloo etc are just normal reasonable people who see inactivity allowing illegal actions to be in effect forgiven, as well as being concerned that scarce economic and infrastructural resources are being even more strained. At a time when even a labour government had planned on cutting the cost of the benefits system (subsequently thwarted) it seems to many unacceptable that benefits are handed out to people arriving illegally. This aspect is likely very exaggerated - I doubt that all arrivals are handed a new iphone etc - but as with most things will have a basis in fact.

[SithHappens]

Probably because most of them arent, aside from the public facing elements who are leading the movement. Anecdotally most people I know who have indicated that they plan to protest at Waterloo etc are just normal reasonable people who see inactivity allowing illegal actions to be in effect forgiven, as well as being concerned that scarce economic and infrastructural resources are being even more strained. At a time when even a labour government had planned on cutting the cost of the benefits system (subsequently thwarted) it seems to many unacceptable that benefits are handed out to people arriving illegally. This aspect is likely very exaggerated - I doubt that all arrivals are handed a new iphone etc - but as with most things will have a basis in fact.

Agree, most probably aren't. But then most asylum seekers aren't rapists or terrorists yet that's the message that is spread by the far right.

You even had TR posting images of an innocent black guy in a park with white gils who were from his own family, but suggesting that there was more to it.

If its OK to label one set of people because a minority have done wrong, it's OK to surely label another set based on the actions of the minority.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I would suggest neither are OK...

its interesting though, Im actually not sure peopes objection to illegal immigrants is due to a fear of terrorism or ***ual abuse. the legal ones seem pretty adept at that already . To me its two things (1) the acceptance of illegality and the way it seems to be exonerated and then conversion to being legitimised. To me these people are coming from an existing country of safety (France) and so not legitimate asylum seekers at all - they are illegal econommic migrants whose qualifications and skill sets debar them from legitimate routes of migration. (2) Financial (and I accept that this may well have been overegged by media) but there are many people in this country in need of economic, educational, housing, heath support etc who struggle to get that help. Adding more to the waiting lists - and possibly prioritising the new arrivals - is not acceptable.

I think many fail to distinguish between legitimate migration which I have no problem with. Its a necessity. This country has a need for certain skill sets and seeks incomers to fill those role. No problem, appropriately qualified individuals (and families) are allowed to migrate. The country has appropriate vetting processes before approving such migration. My problem is illegal migration where the incomers likely lack the necessary skills (even language probably) so get round the rules by sneaking in under the radar and disappearing into the murk of grey employment.

The companies that employ these individuals also should be sanctioned as they too are part of the process that legitimises the "crime does pay" culture.

[ramAnag]

Im not defending it at all, its the same in a sense of throwing soup or paint at old masters. Not the way to do it, but it attracts attention for sure. My observation about doing some painting in the peaceful derbyshire countryside was merely tongue in cheek that I didnt think needed explaining to most (as swale would say) sentient beings! Hmm Im in a bit of a Swaleic mood today.

The mention of "save our children" I hadb=nt seen but would interpret it very diiferently. Your interpretation seems to infer more killings of the nations children. Mine would be "save our country (from Islamic invasion) for future generations" which is a very different and much wider perspective. Who knows who is right....

Well if perhaps, just for once, you could act like a ‘sentient being’ and make your point properly without the infantile and slightly asinine attempts at humour it would be easier to understand what you actually stand for.

I mean, did you actually mean a few boats should be blown up when you suggested that course of action? Do you actually believe that approximately 7% of the population being Muslim equates to some sort of ‘Islamic invasion’? Do you not recognise that only around 4% of migrants are ‘illegal’ and that those on the extreme Right are seeking to create racial tension for all migrants via their actions?

You’re the guy who, the night before the Referendum spent the evening making anti Brexit placards and the next nine years defending it. Just for once, make your mind up and tell us what you really think. In your own words, ‘sentient being’ or Farage fan in disguise?

[Geoff Parkstone]

I've never made an anti Brexit placard in my life or for that matter any placard of any sort.

I think my views are clear from the previous post. I have no issue with legal immigration from wherever. We need the 'manpower'. I have a huge problem with illegal migration eg boat people. I have an equal problem we ith those who facilitate or excuse illegal migration eg people traffickers, grey employers, Keir Starmer etc.

Put simply I support people going into a shop to legally uy things, I abhor (illegal) shoplifters.

The boat people should understand international law claim asylum in the first safe place of arrival. If they got a boat direct from the middle east or Africa direct to Kent etc., then fair do's. But they don't. They make an economic choice because they know the benefit system is a soft touch here. Hence yes, If support sinking a few boats of it discouraged the illegal activity. I'm shocked that people like you seem to approve of c those vomitting crime
Is that clearer

[ramAnag]

I've never made an anti Brexit placard in my life or for that matter any placard of any sort.

I think my views are clear from the previous post. I have no issue with legal immigration from wherever. We need the 'manpower'. I have a huge problem with illegal migration eg boat people. I have an equal problem we ith those who facilitate or excuse illegal migration eg people traffickers, grey employers, Keir Starmer etc.

Put simply I support people going into a shop to legally uy things, I abhor (illegal) shoplifters.

The boat people should understand international law claim asylum in the first safe place of arrival. If they got a boat direct from the middle east or Africa direct to Kent etc., then fair do's. But they don't. They make an economic choice because they know the benefit system is a soft touch here. Hence yes, If support sinking a few boats of it discouraged the illegal activity. I'm shocked that people like you seem to approve of c those vomitting crime
Is that clearer

Not what you told me at the time.

I don’t think anyone is in favour of illegal immigrants, some are just more sympathetic and the analogy with shop lifters makes no sense at all.

People like me ‘seem to approve of c those vomitting crime’ makes nothing at all clearer.

[SithHappens]

I might be wrong but I didn't think there was a requirement for those seeking asylum to do so in the first safe country they arrive in?

[Geoff Parkstone]

There's none so blind as those who choose not to see.

[SithHappens]

I agree illegal immigration is a problem. It's not sustainable, it's a shame the likes of farage, Johnson and the 52% who voted brexit have put us in this position by reducing our ability to return those on the boats to where they came.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Sith+ the 1951 Convention doesn't but EU Law and the Dublin Regulations require it as do UK Inadmissibility rules (brought in post Brexit I think)

[Geoff Parkstone]

I agree illegal immigration is a problem. It's not sustainable, it's a shame the likes of farage, Johnson and the 52% who voted brexit have put us in this position by reducing our ability to return those on the boats to where they came.

Yes it's an unfortunate consequence of Brexit that I'm sure (a) 51.9% of those 52% didn't appreciate and (b) 100 % of the politicians involved chose not to mention even if they realised. Spilled milk for sure

[SithHappens]

Yes it's an unfortunate consequence of Brexit that I'm sure (a) 51.9% of those 52% didn't appreciate and (b) 100 % of the politicians involved chose not to mention even if they realised. Spilled milk for sure

It's obvious it's what Farage thrives on. If Starmer and Labour make headway into solving the problem Farage has no case to argue, he becomes irrelevant.

[ramAnag]

There's none so blind as those who choose not to see.

Except perhaps, for those who first need to cast the beam out of their own eye.