• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Silly McSilly Face said:
In other news, Reform UK have hit a 10 point lead for the first time in Politico.EU's UK poll of polls for August 2025. There's a long way to go until the next election but a rapidly growing journey back for both Labour and Conservatives.....
Click to expand...
Maybe labour should stop trying to be a bad version of the Tories in response to reform's racist flimflam. Just an idea.
 
Rorschach said:
Maybe labour should stop trying to be a bad version of the Tories in response to reform's racist flimflam. Just an idea.
Click to expand...
Labour and Tories are both caught in a bind. They're both losing votes to Reform and on the other side they're both losing votes to the Greens, Lib Dems and others. They've both tortured themselves which way to go before flumping in an unsatisfactory middle. Both Labour and Tories (and I'll throw the SNP in as "the establishment" having governed in Scotland for a long time) have also utterly taken the p*ss out of the public for many years,.going back to before I could even vote there was cash for questions, cash for honours, with Blair threatening to resign if he became the first PM to be interviewed under caution (a trick which Starmer repeated after having a campaign party in Durham during covid restrictions), party gate, Michelle Mone and PPE Med Pro, the Alex Salmond scandals, SNP financial corruption, Lord Alli, freebies and expenses for labour ministers, Starmer appointing the niece and daughter of senior members of a corrupt despot regime as an anti corruption minister and then wondering why shes had to resign due to being charged with corruption, the minister for social housing having to resign because she evicted her tenants in order to double the rent on her rental property .........im sure ive forgotten tonnes of sh*t particularly from further back in the tory and Blair Labour eras .....f*ck just remembered the Iraq war and the dossier and the Hutton enquiry....jeez....the 2 main parties are done. The Tories are gone and labour actually got less votes in 2024 than in 2019. They won by default as prior tory voters didnt vote at all.

I predict Starmer will cling on in a minority government for a bit in 2029 with Reform the largest party in parliament. I think the government will collapse in short order and an early GE will be called which will represent the death of the labour party following the disappearance of the tories into irrelevance. Can only hope anyway!
 
Last edited:
Silly McSilly Face said:
Labour and Tories are both caught in a bind. They're both losing votes to Reform and on the other side they're both losing votes to the Greens, Lib Dems and others. They've both tortured themselves which way to go before flumping in an unsatisfactory middle. Both Labour and Tories (and I'll throw the SNP in as "the establishment" having governed in Scotland for a long time) have also utterly taken the p*ss out of the public for many years,.going back to before I could even vote there was cash for questions, cash for honours, with Blair threatening to resign if he became the first PM to be interviewed under caution (a trick which Starmer repeated after having a campaign party in Durham during covid restrictions), party gate, Michelle Mone and PPE Med Pro, the Alex Salmond scandals, SNP financial corruption, Lord Alli, freebies and expenses for labour ministers, Starmer appointing the niece and daughter of senior members of a corrupt despot regime as an anti corruption minister and then wondering why shes had to resign due to being charged with corruption, the minister for social housing having to resign because she evicted her tenants in order to double the rent on her rental property .........im sure ive forgotten tonnes of sh*t particularly from further back in the tory and Blair Labour eras .....f*ck just remembered the Iraq war and the dossier and the Hutton enquiry....jeez....the 2 main parties are done. The Tories are gone and labour actually got less votes in 2024 than in 2019. They won by default as prior tory voters didnt vote at all.

I predict Starmer will cling on in a minority government for a bit in 2029 with Reform the largest party in parliament. I think the government will collapse in short order and an early GE will be called which will represent the death of the labour party following the disappearance of the tories into irrelevance. Can only hope anyway!
Click to expand...
Just a word of advice mate. I read all that but didnt want to. Shorter posts mate would engender more engagement.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
The ones that come here irregularly are all criminals. They're dealing with and funding criminal gangs. Thats the only way they get on these boats in the first place. Do you think that people just rock up in France and say "can I go to England"? Not a single person gets on one of those boats without some form of connection (either established or developed) and trust (not to mention significant payment in cash or services) to serious criminals. And dont think for a minute those criminals dont call on those people to fulfil their debts and loyalty if they make it to the UK and get established here. And by extension this very lucrative trade fuels the trade in guns, drugs, human trafficking, slavery. And by entering the country without leave they are committing a direct criminal offence under this country's law also. So they are all technically criminals at that point.

Now if it was down to me I'd fund an asylum application process internationally in every British consulate and embassy. That way genuine refugees have a legal route to claim asylum in the UK without having to engage criminals and engage in extremely dangerous and exhausting journeys. You also then know that everyone that rocks up here irregularly can immediately be shipped back out.....
Click to expand...

You appear to be set on a path.

To be clear. I am not a fudging idiot and I understand how that system works and the various filthy debts that are incurred to nefarious gangs (BTW 'trust' to serious criminals'? It's DESPERATION!!!!!!!! Hey, if you REALLY wanted to be transparent in such 'revelations' (note they're NOT revelations to anyone over the age of 12) then why not call out the various politicians, customs agents and law enforcement bodies which are involced in allowing such 'businesses and criminals' to operate? Guns, drugs, human trafficking (which includes slavery) are all GREATLY ENHANCED by the white collar criminals and beaurocrats who profit off it happening. Where's your ire for them?

You seem to have some distant gauge of the fact that many who get on those boats are desperate for various reasons. Where you seem to not budge whatsoever is in terminf them 'technically criminals' when they are, in fact, victims.

By the way, to your idea...how long before such 'embassy' toures become rife with corruption and back-handers to 'jump' up lists and be 'seen faster' let alone at all?

I don't have any clear answers on the way forwards other than tackling from the top down (which won't happen in my lifetime).
What I DO know is that clinging onto 'technical terminology' will not help educate the public perception of what migrants on boats actually are versus your 'technical' definition.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
There is a place for flippancy when people are jumping on someone just trying to help with understanding and getting riled up. Its not laughing at the subject, its poking fun at the debate.....as I said, the legal guidance in respect of ruling out asylum applications pretty much applues to every douchebag arriving on a boat. Does that say every person arriving on a boat is a douchebag or does it say every douchebag arriving on a boat is a criminal? I think what's happened here is that some people haven't liked my explanation of the facts and have instead gone down the route of analysing language and words and finding stuff that offends them.
Click to expand...

Whatever.
Talk yourself in circles, I think it's a bricky subject to find any place for 'flippancy'. My opinion. You disagree. We probably shouldn't attend comedy clubs together as one of us won't be laughing.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I mean the way i see it is that i responded to someone actually saying they don't understand why they are referred to as illegsl immigrants and i'm simply trying to help based on my qualifications and experience explain the terminology and situation legally. This riles some of you up and you all pile in and it ends up in "youre an ignorant racist and you can't disguise your hate". I mean if you want to think that what they're doing is perfectly legal and i'm saying what i'm saying because I don't see them as people and I hate them then go for it. I can tell you i was just trying to help but this whole conversation has been turned into an emotion filled ideology debate.
Click to expand...

1. No one has called you 'an ignorant racist who can't disguise their hate' so far as I can see. You have been called out for using terminology you then tried to say was 'flippancy' and 'humour' to 'lighten' the discussion.

2. You continue to assume that legal definitions solely define illegal activity/criminals. In the world I live in, a certain degree of context is usually applied, and this is usually the case (thankfully) when someone feels their only avenue is to board a dinghy over-rammed with other people and try to survive a channel crossing in order to make landfall and immediately declare their asylum seeking status.

Here are some other 'legal defintions' which taken at face value (and without any context) makes the majority of people in the UK guilty of at least one act of criminal behaviour, quite possibly on a repeat basis. Round 'em up, the douchebags!!!!!

  • Being drunk in a pub: While pubs are synonymous with drinking, it's actually illegal to be found drunk on licensed premises in England and Wales.
  • Handling salmon suspiciously: Section 32 of the Salmon Act 1986 makes it an offence to handle salmon under suspicious circumstances. This law is aimed at addressing illegal fishing or poaching, not merely appearing suspicious while carrying a salmon.
  • Carrying a plank of wood along a pavement: The Metropolitan Police Act 1839 makes it illegal to carry planks of wood along a pavement in the Metropolitan Police District (essentially Greater London) unless it's for loading or unloading a vehicle.
  • Shaking a rug or carpet in the street: Under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, it's illegal to shake or beat any carpet or rug in the street after 8am, although shaking doormats before that time is allowed.
  • Paying with your phone at a drive-through while the engine is running: Using your phone while operating a vehicle is against the law, and if your car's engine is running while making a contactless payment at a drive-through, you could technically be considered in violation.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
It is illegal to enter the UK if you are a non-UK national and do not have leave to enter. There is no defence to the offence that relates to claiming asylum. FYI it is simply a matter of practicality that the majority of people arriving illegally are not prosecuted for the offence. The courts would have capacity for less than 1% of arrivals and therefore guidance to law enforcement is that prosecution should be reserved for those attempting re-entry after deportation only.
Click to expand...
That's just incorrect.
The UK is a signatory of the Refugee Convention, so the right to seek asylum is a legal right in UK law.
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
Labour and Tories are both caught in a bind. They're both losing votes to Reform and on the other side they're both losing votes to the Greens, Lib Dems and others. They've both tortured themselves which way to go before flumping in an unsatisfactory middle. Both Labour and Tories (and I'll throw the SNP in as "the establishment" having governed in Scotland for a long time) have also utterly taken the p*ss out of the public for many years,.going back to before I could even vote there was cash for questions, cash for honours, with Blair threatening to resign if he became the first PM to be interviewed under caution (a trick which Starmer repeated after having a campaign party in Durham during covid restrictions), party gate, Michelle Mone and PPE Med Pro, the Alex Salmond scandals, SNP financial corruption, Lord Alli, freebies and expenses for labour ministers, Starmer appointing the niece and daughter of senior members of a corrupt despot regime as an anti corruption minister and then wondering why shes had to resign due to being charged with corruption, the minister for social housing having to resign because she evicted her tenants in order to double the rent on her rental property .........im sure ive forgotten tonnes of sh*t particularly from further back in the tory and Blair Labour eras .....f*ck just remembered the Iraq war and the dossier and the Hutton enquiry....jeez....the 2 main parties are done. The Tories are gone and labour actually got less votes in 2024 than in 2019. They won by default as prior tory voters didnt vote at all.

I predict Starmer will cling on in a minority government for a bit in 2029 with Reform the largest party in parliament. I think the government will collapse in short order and an early GE will be called which will represent the death of the labour party following the disappearance of the tories into irrelevance. Can only hope anyway!
Click to expand...
Starmer wont be leader in 2029. He's always said he's too old to do a second term. Streeting or Burnham will take them into the GE
 
thfcsteff said:
1. No one has called you 'an ignorant racist who can't disguise their hate' so far as I can see. You have been called out for using terminology you then tried to say was 'flippancy' and 'humour' to 'lighten' the discussion.

2. You continue to assume that legal definitions solely define illegal activity/criminals. In the world I live in, a certain degree of context is usually applied, and this is usually the case (thankfully) when someone feels their only avenue is to board a dinghy over-rammed with other people and try to survive a channel crossing in order to make landfall and immediately declare their asylum seeking status.

Here are some other 'legal defintions' which taken at face value (and without any context) makes the majority of people in the UK guilty of at least one act of criminal behaviour, quite possibly on a repeat basis. Round 'em up, the douchebags!!!!!

  • Being drunk in a pub: While pubs are synonymous with drinking, it's actually illegal to be found drunk on licensed premises in England and Wales.
  • Handling salmon suspiciously: Section 32 of the Salmon Act 1986 makes it an offence to handle salmon under suspicious circumstances. This law is aimed at addressing illegal fishing or poaching, not merely appearing suspicious while carrying a salmon.
  • Carrying a plank of wood along a pavement: The Metropolitan Police Act 1839 makes it illegal to carry planks of wood along a pavement in the Metropolitan Police District (essentially Greater London) unless it's for loading or unloading a vehicle.
  • Shaking a rug or carpet in the street: Under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, it's illegal to shake or beat any carpet or rug in the street after 8am, although shaking doormats before that time is allowed.
  • Paying with your phone at a drive-through while the engine is running: Using your phone while operating a vehicle is against the law, and if your car's engine is running while making a contactless payment at a drive-through, you could technically be considered in violation.
Click to expand...
I am not describing a "technical term" only. Everyone, from the government, opposition, press, and most importantly the general public refer to these people arriving by boats and lorries as illegal immigrants. You lot on here are the exception, not I. I am explaining the technical terminology because one of you lot asked the question as to why everyone refers to them as illegal immigrants.
 
Last edited:
monkeybarry said:
That's just incorrect.
The UK is a signatory of the Refugee Convention, so the right to seek asylum is a legal right in UK law.
Click to expand...
Its not incorrect. The refugee convention is an international treaty, and constitutionally, international treaties do not have legal effect in the UK without an act of parliament and therefore parliament is the root of interpretation and application of treaty provisions within the UK. The UK's immigration legislation, passed by parliament makes it a criminal offence to enter the uk without leave and remain in the uk without leave.
 
thfcsteff said:
You appear to be set on a path.

To be clear. I am not a fudging idiot and I understand how that system works and the various filthy debts that are incurred to nefarious gangs (BTW 'trust' to serious criminals'? It's DESPERATION!!!!!!!! Hey, if you REALLY wanted to be transparent in such 'revelations' (note they're NOT revelations to anyone over the age of 12) then why not call out the various politicians, customs agents and law enforcement bodies which are involced in allowing such 'businesses and criminals' to operate? Guns, drugs, human trafficking (which includes slavery) are all GREATLY ENHANCED by the white collar criminals and beaurocrats who profit off it happening. Where's your ire for them?

You seem to have some distant gauge of the fact that many who get on those boats are desperate for various reasons. Where you seem to not budge whatsoever is in terminf them 'technically criminals' when they are, in fact, victims.

By the way, to your idea...how long before such 'embassy' toures become rife with corruption and back-handers to 'jump' up lists and be 'seen faster' let alone at all?

I don't have any clear answers on the way forwards other than tackling from the top down (which won't happen in my lifetime).
What I DO know is that clinging onto 'technical terminology' will not help educate the public perception of what migrants on boats actually are versus your 'technical' definition.
Click to expand...
Set on what path? The only path I was set on was explaining why politicians, press and public refer to these arrivals as "illegal immigrants". Pretty much all criminals are victims. Victims of their circumstances, upbringing, environment and emotions.
 
Last edited:
thfcsteff said:
You appear to be set on a path.

To be clear. I am not a fudging idiot and I understand how that system works and the various filthy debts that are incurred to nefarious gangs (BTW 'trust' to serious criminals'? It's DESPERATION!!!!!!!! Hey, if you REALLY wanted to be transparent in such 'revelations' (note they're NOT revelations to anyone over the age of 12) then why not call out the various politicians, customs agents and law enforcement bodies which are involced in allowing such 'businesses and criminals' to operate? Guns, drugs, human trafficking (which includes slavery) are all GREATLY ENHANCED by the white collar criminals and beaurocrats who profit off it happening. Where's your ire for them?

You seem to have some distant gauge of the fact that many who get on those boats are desperate for various reasons. Where you seem to not budge whatsoever is in terminf them 'technically criminals' when they are, in fact, victims.

By the way, to your idea...how long before such 'embassy' toures become rife with corruption and back-handers to 'jump' up lists and be 'seen faster' let alone at all?

I don't have any clear answers on the way forwards other than tackling from the top down (which won't happen in my lifetime).
What I DO know is that clinging onto 'technical terminology' will not help educate the public perception of what migrants on boats actually are versus your 'technical' definition.
Click to expand...

It amazes me that weekend cocaine abusers like the football first mob are not being a little more honest about how their drug habits are funding alot of this.

The money from the cocaine business in the UK can be clearly linked into organised crime and human trafficking and sexual exploitation, but they don't want to admit and or stop and or go after that element because then comes a period of self reflection.

TR is clearly a HUGE drug user, he was caught on film saying he used the money donated to him to fund his habit once, maybe start there
 
Silly McSilly Face said:
I am not describing a "technical term" only. Everyone, from the government, opposition, press, and most importantly the general public refer to these people arriving by boats and lorries as illegal immigrants. You lot on here are the exception, not I. I am explaining the technical terminology because one of you lot asked the question as to why everyone refers to them as illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...
Us 'lot'...let me guess what 'us lot' are...
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
Things out of their control have shifted about since coming in, and to some extent you should be prepared for that (although what's going on around the world is somewhat crazy and hard to foresee).
They had a contingency that's been gobbled up. But it's their self imposed fiscal rules that have backed them into a corner.
Undoubtedly we are at a re-invention point, undoubtedly most services are below par on a scale of 1-10, and that starting point has been handed to them.

The government services required for an adequate level of living (and I include things like water power rail ie not in full control of the gov) are more important than ever as more and more people are feeling the pinch and leaning on them as they can no longer bypass them within their household budget. It will be impossible to govern if you don't do something about it. I'm guessing that's what you would hope is a foundational plan.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong I think they have done some good stuff particularly around planning and taking some longer term decisions around infrastructure but I expected more of them. The talk in the election run up was that they'd be difference, take the tough decisions and be honest with people etc. The policies might be slightly different but ultimately it's more of the same spin going on and now we're going to be stuck in another doom loop waiting for the budget.

And yep that's exactly what I mean, we're still having the same debate about gold plated public services built on lower taxes. About time someone spelt out the choices available - I lean slightly right but am actually in favour of more public ownership of assets, they could still be run as some form of private company with the profits coming back to the public purse. I mean why not own the whole of Sizewell C, all the SMRs etc and take over Thames Water if it fails. Borrowing costs are higher but the govt can likely still borrow at cheaper rates than private companies and borrowing for infrastructure is a lot different than for day to day spending.

I just feel the way things are going we're going to end up with some serious public unrest over the next few years and likely some form of populist government down the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back