OT Border Control State of Emergency

[Stovicmiller]

Any rape of a child is appalling. The immigration status of the offenders has no bearing on that.

Or are rapes by people with settled status less serious in your view?

it?s a rape that could have been avoided if they weren?t given entry into the country, you are a ****ing idiot , you are everything that is wrong with this country.****er .

[Eternal Optimist]

Any rape of a child is appalling. The immigration status of the offenders has no bearing on that.

Or are rapes by people with settled status less serious in your view?

I pray to God that it's not your daughter/grand daughter next.

[millersrus]

Any rape of a child is appalling. The immigration status of the offenders has no bearing on that.

Or are rapes by people with settled status less serious in your view?

after seeing this post I remember a piece I read a few weeks ago, it pretty much sums up the mindset of such people. I?ve posted the link to the story and extracts if no access available.

Opinion: It?s time to face the truth: Britain is being destroyed from within
The do-gooders who think of this country as a charity aren?t just making us poorer ? they?re also putting us at risk of violent unrest
Read in The Telegraph: https://apple.news/A0BOQKA9WRNeVGOAC2Wging



If you?re looking for a story that sums up why Britain is in such a godawful mess, try this. At an Oxford college dinner in spring, 2011, the political author David Goodhart found himself seated next to Sir Gus O?Donnell, at that time the most senior civil servant in the land.

Mr Goodhart happened to mention that he was writing a book about immigration. And here?s what he says Sir Gus ? now Lord O?Donnell ? told him: ?When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration,? he said. Why? ?I think it?s my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.?

That last sentence ? reported in The Road to Somewhere, Mr Goodhart?s acclaimed book of 2017 ? is critical. Because it?s the key to understanding the mindset of our 21st-century elites ? not just in Whitehall but in Parliament, broadcasting, academia, the public sector and the arts.

To put it simply: these people don?t think of Britain as a country, they think of it as a charity.
The Canadian author and professor Gad Saad calls this mindset “suicidal empathy” – a form of high-minded compassion so delusionally naive that it leads to serious social damage. And it helps to explain any number of the mind-boggling stories we read about our nation’s decline.

For example: the fact that, as we learnt this week, there are now more than a million foreign-born people in this country claiming Universal Credit (most of them unemployed); the fact that almost half the taxpayer-subsidised social housing in London has a foreign-born head of household; the fact that our Government has so generously agreed to pay Mauritius up to ?30bn of taxpayers’ money to take the ***** strategic asset of the Chagos Islands off Britain’s hands.

Indeed, I’ve no doubt it also helps to explain the Afghan resettlement scandal, finally disclosed to the public this week, which saw our governing class offer asylum to tens of thousands of Afghans at a cost of billions – and then use the courts to hush up the whole affair for almost two years.



We could add to this list all day. The point is that these things are happening principally because our elites believe that they have a moral duty to “maximise global welfare not national welfare”. In other words, to put others first; to let them have what we have – even if it means that we end up with less.

I’m not saying this type of mindset is new. Charles Dickens skewered it in Bleak House, through his depiction of Mrs Jellyby – the virtue-signalling English philanthropist so obsessively fixated on her harebrained schemes to aid Africa that she neglects the cries of her own children. That novel was written in the early 1850s, yet never have there been so many Mrs Jellybys as there are today, 175 years later. And never has her world view been so influential, so rampant or so dangerous.

Which is why it’s time to face the truth: Britain is being destroyed from within. Not by people who wish to destroy it, but by people who solemnly believe that they’re doing good. People who believe that they’re tackling global poverty, fighting racism, promoting “inclusivity” and (perhaps above all) atoning for historic injustices.

But it’s in large part thanks to attitudes like theirs that we’ve ended up with grooming gangs, hate marches by Hamas apologists, rocketing immigration from wildly different and often hostile cultures, and, potentially, de facto blasphemy laws (for one religion only). The “Britain as a charity not a country” mindset, therefore, is not just making us poorer, it’s also making us less safe, more divided – and at ever-growing risk of violent unrest.

This has to change. Otherwise Britain will soon be in desperate need of charity herself.

[Timbertop]

Great post millersrus. Shame you have a limited audience on here and that you can't broadcast it to our nationwide public who are sleepwalking into an Islamic takeover.

[Spuddy Speight]

after seeing this post I remember a piece I read a few weeks ago, it pretty much sums up the mindset of such people. I?ve posted the link to the story and extracts if no access available.

Opinion: It?s time to face the truth: Britain is being destroyed from within
The do-gooders who think of this country as a charity aren?t just making us poorer ? they?re also putting us at risk of violent unrest
Read in The Telegraph: https://apple.news/A0BOQKA9WRNeVGOAC2Wging



If you?re looking for a story that sums up why Britain is in such a godawful mess, try this. At an Oxford college dinner in spring, 2011, the political author David Goodhart found himself seated next to Sir Gus O?Donnell, at that time the most senior civil servant in the land.

Mr Goodhart happened to mention that he was writing a book about immigration. And here?s what he says Sir Gus ? now Lord O?Donnell ? told him: ?When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration,? he said. Why? ?I think it?s my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.?

That last sentence ? reported in The Road to Somewhere, Mr Goodhart?s acclaimed book of 2017 ? is critical. Because it?s the key to understanding the mindset of our 21st-century elites ? not just in Whitehall but in Parliament, broadcasting, academia, the public sector and the arts.

To put it simply: these people don?t think of Britain as a country, they think of it as a charity.
The Canadian author and professor Gad Saad calls this mindset “suicidal empathy” – a form of high-minded compassion so delusionally naive that it leads to serious social damage. And it helps to explain any number of the mind-boggling stories we read about our nation’s decline.

For example: the fact that, as we learnt this week, there are now more than a million foreign-born people in this country claiming Universal Credit (most of them unemployed); the fact that almost half the taxpayer-subsidised social housing in London has a foreign-born head of household; the fact that our Government has so generously agreed to pay Mauritius up to ?30bn of taxpayers’ money to take the ***** strategic asset of the Chagos Islands off Britain’s hands.

Indeed, I’ve no doubt it also helps to explain the Afghan resettlement scandal, finally disclosed to the public this week, which saw our governing class offer asylum to tens of thousands of Afghans at a cost of billions – and then use the courts to hush up the whole affair for almost two years.



We could add to this list all day. The point is that these things are happening principally because our elites believe that they have a moral duty to “maximise global welfare not national welfare”. In other words, to put others first; to let them have what we have – even if it means that we end up with less.

I’m not saying this type of mindset is new. Charles Dickens skewered it in Bleak House, through his depiction of Mrs Jellyby – the virtue-signalling English philanthropist so obsessively fixated on her harebrained schemes to aid Africa that she neglects the cries of her own children. That novel was written in the early 1850s, yet never have there been so many Mrs Jellybys as there are today, 175 years later. And never has her world view been so influential, so rampant or so dangerous.

Which is why it’s time to face the truth: Britain is being destroyed from within. Not by people who wish to destroy it, but by people who solemnly believe that they’re doing good. People who believe that they’re tackling global poverty, fighting racism, promoting “inclusivity” and (perhaps above all) atoning for historic injustices.

But it’s in large part thanks to attitudes like theirs that we’ve ended up with grooming gangs, hate marches by Hamas apologists, rocketing immigration from wildly different and often hostile cultures, and, potentially, de facto blasphemy laws (for one religion only). The “Britain as a charity not a country” mindset, therefore, is not just making us poorer, it’s also making us less safe, more divided – and at ever-growing risk of violent unrest.

This has to change. Otherwise Britain will soon be in desperate need of charity herself.

Awesome post, millersrus.

[Spuddy Speight]

UK Government, RNLI and others please note?

Re "Section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971
Violations of said Section 25 can result in severe penalties, including imprisonment and substantial fines.

Facilitating unlawful entry:
The offence focuses on actions that help someone who is not a British citizen enter the UK illegally, or attempt to do so.

Knowledge or reasonable belief:
A person must know or have reason to believe that their actions are facilitating an immigration breach and that the individual is not a British citizen.

Examples of facilitation:
This can include providing false documentation, transportation, shelter, or any other form of aid that enables illegal immigration.

Consequences:
The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 increased the maximum penalty for facilitation offences under the Immigration Act 1971, including Section 25, to life imprisonment. "

[Stovicmiller]

This was passed onto my daughter when she was a psychologist practitioner, this fellow practitioner had a appointment with a husband and wife and the wife was pregnant, the practitioner said the wife was nervous bout something so the practitioner said she wanted to speak to the wife alone. The wife then explained that she was frightened for the welfare of her unborn baby girl because the husband was going to perform basically female curcumsion with a hot iron . That’s what we are letting into the country. Do you know the husbands job , he’s a consultant on the nhs .

[KerrAvon]

Any rape of a child is appalling. The immigration status of the offenders has no bearing on that.

Or are rapes by people with settled status less serious in your view?

Crikey. That seems to have touched some nerves.

The point is this: There are rapes and ***ual offences committed every day in this country and yet the only allegations that appear to prompt press conferences by Reform are those against people who may or may not be asylum seekers. Similarly, just about the only allegations that attract the wrath of some Millers Mad posters are those against such people (I say only just as I recall a thread were a couple of posters expressed anger at a C of E cover-up).

It seems to me that my question is perfectly valid even if some people find it uncomfortable

What’s going on here? It’s almost as though those who seem intent upon whipping up anger against irregular migrants (who make up only about 4% of the immigration into this country) actually want disorder and public disquiet instead of any reasoned discussion and actions.

Maybe the attitude is that ‘if our women are going to be abused it should be us who does it’. There is some evidence to support that:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jul/26/two-in-five-arrested-for-last-summers-uk-riots-had-been-reported-for-domestic-abuse

[KerrAvon]

Ah the white people commit crimes too brigade.
We?re important criminals and rapists I know you don?t mind that but hey I do.
It?s only a WHITE 12 year old though they don?t matter.

I don't care about the ethnicity or immigration status of either the victim or offender, Yak. That was the point of my post. I was curious about why the alleged immigration status of the alleged offender seems to be the only issue for you.

I don't think we know much about the victim (which it is how it will stay given the reporting restrictions that apply to victims of ***ual offences – unless, of course some of the warriors of the right choose to spread her details over social media). Would it have made a difference to you if the victim turned out to be not white?

[Stovicmiller]

Crikey. That seems to have touched some nerves.

The point is this: There are rapes and ***ual offences committed every day in this country and yet the only allegations that appear to prompt press conferences by Reform are those against people who may or may not be asylum seekers. Similarly, just about the only allegations that attract the wrath of some Millers Mad posters are those against such people (I say only just as I recall a thread were a couple of posters expressed anger at a C of E cover-up).

It seems to me that my question is perfectly valid even if some people find it uncomfortable

What’s going on here? It’s almost as though those who seem intent upon whipping up anger against irregular migrants (who make up only about 4% of the immigration into this country) actually want disorder and public disquiet instead of any reasoned discussion and actions.

Maybe the attitude is that ‘if our women are going to be abused it should be us who does it’. There is some evidence to support that:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...domestic-abuse

. You cannot even call them illegal migrants , you are the same as that lefty from London. You are all for diversity and probably think that women can have a ***** , must have been quite a shock to you when you slipped your hand into your wife’s knickers and found a fanny. If you are a migrant you are a guest in that country and should obey the laws of the land and make an effort to integrate. Any illegal migrant that commits a crime is avoidable because they shouldn’t be here.

[Yak]

I don't care about the ethnicity or immigration status of either the victim or offender, Yak. That was the point of my post. I was curious about why the alleged immigration status of the alleged offender seems to be the only issue for you.

I don't think we know much about the victim (which it is how it will stay given the reporting restrictions that apply to victims of ***ual offences – unless, of course some of the warriors of the right choose to spread her details over social media). Would it have made a difference to you if the victim turned out to be not white?

Kerr I?m sure you know me well enough to know that if it was a black girl it would be just as severe. Don?t cheap shot me. I?ve also been very open about being mixed race so I?m not sure I can be called racist. We have a problem importing rapists and criminals. The government advice has been don?t travel to Somalia but we will happily let them in and put them in hotels free to roam and commit crimes. I?m sick of people saying it?s a right wing thing. Are the women protesting all right wing? They are concerned for their children?s safety. How many more children have been attacked, raped that we aren?t aware of? The police, politicians, and other professions seem keen to cover it up so I would guess the answer is more rapes have probably happened. How many is too many or is it all part of a bigger picture?

[Yak]

When I was in Afghanistan the biggest fear for female squaddies was getting raped. Yet we have imported loads of them who think it?s ok to have *** with underage girls what could possibly go wrong?

[KerrAvon]

Kerr I?m sure you know me well enough to know that if it was a black girl it would be just as severe. Don?t cheap shot me. I?ve also been very open about being mixed race so I?m not sure I can be called racist. We have a problem importing rapists and criminals. The government advice has been don?t travel to Somalia but we will happily let them in and put them in hotels free to roam and commit crimes. I?m sick of people saying it?s a right wing thing. Are the women protesting all right wing? They are concerned for their children?s safety. How many more children have been attacked, raped that we aren?t aware of? The police, politicians, and other professions seem keen to cover it up so I would guess the answer is more rapes have probably happened. How many is too many or is it all part of a bigger picture?

Don’t cheap shot you? Take a look at your post 178. I will happily not cheap shot you if you afford me a similar courtesy - in other words, think twice out handing it out if you don’t like it coming back.

Yes, the FCO advise against all travel to Somalia. It is a failed state – destroyed by years of post-colonial civil war and cold war proxy conflicts. With that being the position, it is hardly surprising that some people want to leave and have crack at a better life. I would do the same and I think that you would too. Correct me if I am wrong, but that does not make either of us any more or less prone to be rapists.

The same applies to Afghanistan. I can well understand why service women would fear rape if captured – that is the nature of conflicts:

https://ehne.fr/en/encyclopedia/themes/gender-and-europe/when-war-disrupts-gender/***ual-violence-in-times-war

https://mh.bmj.com/content/48/1/94

Where do you stand on Somali and Afghan women who manage to make it to the UK. Are you happy for them to be forced to return?

With the way that the 4% of immigration that enters the country via small boats (or similar routes) has been weaponised by the like of Farage, Yaxley-Lennon and the Daily Mail, I think even the most liberal of Labour politicians will be aware that it may well cost them the next election. Because of that, I doubt whether anyone can be said to be happily letting them in. The point is that it is impossible to stop people entering the country that way, unless, of course, you want to gun them down in The Channel. I suspect that there are some on the far right who would support that, but I do not believe that a country as a whole would accept it.

It is entirely natural for people (women or otherwise) to be concerned for their children and I have never labelled people who engage in peaceful protest as right wing, left wing, centrist or in any way at all. My worry is that they are the victims of the weaponisation described above. In other words, I am concerned that they have fallen for the narrative that you are advancing – without any evidence that I have seen - that asylum seekers are any more likely to commit ***ual offences than other men.

The protests that have taken place outside hotels have certainly been certainly hijacked by people who are not intent on peaceful protest. I have no qualms about labelling some of them far right (I may have the advantage there as I have met a few of them in a professional capacity).

[Yak]

Don’t believe the 4% figure at all. If you believe that you are deluded.
It’s isn’t women what are coming from these countries it’s young males.
Your insistence that everyone is influenced by Farage etc is yet another way to label everyone and deem them all misguided.
I think I can speak from experience in Afghanistan that women and under age girls were raped every day. You aren’t an expert in everything I was there for 2 years.
The idiots in these marches also include antifa hooliganism who are being heavily funded.

[frogmiller]

Crikey. That seems to have touched some nerves.

The point is this: There are rapes and ***ual offences committed every day in this country and yet the only allegations that appear to prompt press conferences by Reform are those against people who may or may not be asylum seekers. Similarly, just about the only allegations that attract the wrath of some Millers Mad posters are those against such people (I say only just as I recall a thread were a couple of posters expressed anger at a C of E cover-up).

It seems to me that my question is perfectly valid even if some people find it uncomfortable

What’s going on here? It’s almost as though those who seem intent upon whipping up anger against irregular migrants (who make up only about 4% of the immigration into this country) actually want disorder and public disquiet instead of any reasoned discussion and actions.

Maybe the attitude is that ‘if our women are going to be abused it should be us who does it’. There is some evidence to support that:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...domestic-abuse

You are out of touch man! That that you had quoted is exactly the stick the lunatic left have been closing down conversations with for years.

You?ve argued so much using the same method that your head is well and truly stuck up your arse.