14 hours ago, T Boy said:

But there you have yet another example of someone born and bred in Britain who turned out to be dodgy. He didn’t come here on a boat, he has white skin. You’re preaching safety but the truth is there is no way of knowing if anyone is safe. Being born on these isles doesn’t mean someone cannot commit these crimes.

Exactly what I was just about to say!

It’s like the whole Trans women shouldn’t be in women’s spaces because one trans women in prison sexually assaulted another women… so therefore no bio women in prison have ever sexually assaulted another woman, no?

Prejudice is definitely clouding rational judgement.

19 hours ago, Liam Sota said:

Your position is it’s prejudicial to judge unvetted people before they do anything and it’s just dangerous and out of touch for me.

No, that isn't my position, broadly. (Although - if you yourself do believe in judging people before they do anything, I question what the limitations on that are?)

My position actually doesn't have anything at all to do with prejudice, but moreso about logic and proof. These protests against asylum seekers are based on judging an entire group of people based on the actions of a small minority.

Now, if that's what someone wants to do, I think fine - as long as they're logically consistent.

If they really believed for example in the safety of women and girls above all else, all men should be locked up or deported from this country, because men are time and time again the single largest and dominant determining factor of who is killing people, raping people, and in the vast majority of cases, being serial killers, serial sex assaulters, paedophiles, and all manner of other sadistic and controlling behaviours.

But generally, the people of the country (spearheaded of course by men who have a vested interest in it) judge that that would be ridiculous, and so it doesn't happen.

Likewise we could ban cars to immediately halt all road deaths. Ban the use of electricity to immediately stop all electrical fires and electrocutions. And so on and so forth.

Now, when it comes to asylum seekers, my primary position on it all is legal, rather than wishy washy sympathy based etc.

The UK as a country has signed legal agreements to take X number of asylum seekers. If it were to break these agreements it would lose the trust of the countries it has those agreements with; which would have immediate knock-ons to other things the UK - especially as an island nation - has a dependency on; food; electricity; trade routes, as well as things like reciprocal defence agreements, use of airspace and sea etc. etc.

So therefore the UK is somewhat stuck regarding taking asylum seekers, so that is already baked in.

Then what does it do with them? Well, the Tories already cut a bunch of processing plants and their staff, and over their administration closed a lot of general institutions like barracks and hospitals, promising to replace them with new and improved buildings that never materialised. So infrastructure wise, the country only barely already has enough bed spaces for grievously ill patients, never mind patients with minor conditions or mental health struggles, and beyond those, certainly no space for asylum seekers.

So that begs the question of where to put asylum seekers, and hotels are pretty much the only available source left of beds that aren't already ringfenced for a vital public-facing function. So, they've put asylum seekers in hotels that are mostly more like dorms, ok, fine. So what happens once they're in the hotels?

19 hours ago, Liam Sota said:

Unvetted is unacceptable as too dangerous since we don’t know who they are.

Well, in the background at that point, government workers while the asylum seekers are housed in the hotels then start the process of doing the vetting and the background checks. Do people not realise this? The hotel placement isn't the end of the process, it's the closest thing available for the government to use as a kind of 'holding pen' while they process them. The reason that they are held in one place like this and have to sign in and out etc. is so that the government doesn't lose track of them while this is going on. That's the entire purpose of the hotels.

Now, meanwhile, we have protests against the hotels. Why?

Because Farage, Robinson and co are lying about the purpose of them. They're making out that it's some kind of luxury hotel experience paid for by the British taxpayer, not something as it actually is, a step down from student halls.

And you know what? I'm not even complaining about that. It's basic, and basic is probably better than where they came from if they escaped somewhere like Gaza or similar to come here.

Now, the world is getting hotter and more dangerous between climate change and other war and hate-filled situations. The issue of asylum seekers isn't going to change, and at present the West and the UN have binding agreements about taking a certain percentage of them in.

So really, complaining about them and even prejudging them and trying to start a drama isn't actually going to do anything in the short term.

The best thing someone who has an issue with asylum seekers or a concern that they might not follow or understand the laws of this country can do is campaign for something actually practical like making them take a civics program or something similar to 'life in the UK' test or even something like community service, while they are going to be just sitting around in the hotels twiddling their thumbs anyway.

Just to note before I sign off this essay. The attitude towards asylum seekers and refugees used to be in this country 'good! we're taking heathens out of their backwards countries and making them civilized British people'. While that attitude is somewhat demeaning and negative towards other cultures today - I think we could do with something more of that kind of spirit as a nation. The framing that Reform are giving - and the emotions they want their followers to feel - are resoundingly, over and over again, negative. There could well be an alternate take here of Britain the hero, Britain the rescuer, helping new people become patriots.

And just to close. Once the processing has been done of those asylum seekers. If any have committed crimes during the process. Or if they seem to be behaving in a threatening manner. Or if a background check shows up that actually they aren't fleeing persecution and they were the persecuter. I would like to see that punished to the full extent of the law. And you know what? Probably so do their fellow asylum seekers because these guys are causing them all to be painted with the same bad brush.

Where are the actual voices of asylum seekers in this? They're the centre of this topic and yet are only talked about as if they were animals or a natural disaster. Interview them through a translator and let's hear what they really think and what they really want to be doing.

On 26/08/2025 at 19:00, Liam Sota said:

54% say justified

34% say unjustified

As a counterpoint to this one:

Obvious of course but incredibly funny the minute they start talking actual policy on this incredibly over-discussed subject it's worse than the Tories' Rwanda.

There seems to be the assumption that the only reason someone votes for Reform is because they want to stop immigration and that they don't know what they're really voting for. Sure some people do fit that category but different people have different reasons for voting for a given party. You will also have those who know exactly what they're voting for and those who don't whether they vote Reform or someone else.

I guess you could slightly argue that not every potential reform voter is a racist but it’s quite clear that every racist is a reform voter.

11 minutes ago, T Boy said:

I guess you could slightly argue that not every potential reform voter is a racist but it’s quite clear that every racist is a reform voter.

Robert Jenrick might disagree.

1 hour ago, My Random Music said:

There seems to be the assumption that the only reason someone votes for Reform is because they want to stop immigration and that they don't know what they're really voting for. Sure some people do fit that category but different people have different reasons for voting for a given party. You will also have those who know exactly what they're voting for and those who don't whether they vote Reform or someone else.

It's probably worse if they do know what they're voting for tbh

1 minute ago, Suedehead2 said:

Robert Jenrick might disagree.

True, I overlooked that there is always an exception to the rule.

BBC News

Reform UK Nottinghamshire council leader bans local newsp...

The Nottingham Post describes the ban as "concerning" and "unprecedented".

“Free speech” apart from what you say what we dont like. Wonder how any of the Reform fans can stick up for this?

Why are people so offended by St George’s cross flags that they have to constantly take them down? And they’re trying to outlaw flying a flag. Pathetic

Yeah I don't understand the flag thing at all. From what I read there's no law against flying flags unless they're an obstruction so I'd like to know on what grounds police can demand they be taken down.

I'm not sure why it's become such an issue in the UK as well. You go to pretty much any country in the world and the national flag is a symbol of pride. For them to be viewed as a political weapon is bewildering.

How is that "we should protect our own" thing going?

https://news.sky.com/story/man-59-arrested-after-racist-and-abusive-messages-sent-to-england-football-star-jess-carter-13419935

Edited August 29, 2025Aug 29 by Hassaan

With regards to the Union Jack, I have no strong opinion on them myself.

You'd have to be living under a rock to be unaware of the sentiment around them though.

There's only one group of people to blame for it being viewed as some kind of far-right symbol.

1 hour ago, Dobbo said:

Yeah I don't understand the flag thing at all. From what I read there's no law against flying flags unless they're an obstruction so I'd like to know on what grounds police can demand they be taken down.

I'm not sure why it's become such an issue in the UK as well. You go to pretty much any country in the world and the national flag is a symbol of pride. For them to be viewed as a political weapon is bewildering.

Flags can be used as weapons that’s why. In NI there’s union flags/UVF/UDA flags flying in every town apart from the obvious non-unionist towns - they are used to mark territory and intimidate people. And NI is obviously a divided society in which there’s a mix of identities. (British/Irish/neither/none)

These flags are flying in England in response to the rascism upheaval over the past year!

Edited August 29, 2025Aug 29 by Steve201

Fair enough, I think it's problematic if every single person who flies a flag is seen as an extremist though and in fact a shame that a small portion of individuals have tainted what it actually represents.

I think back to that news story a few months ago about that schoolgirl who got suspended for wearing a Union Jack dress and labelled a far-right extremist by some! But it's always good to hear other opinions on a sensitive subject. I feel it's just another distraction from bigger issues tbh.

I like the idea of reclaiming the flag from the far right, as it's a shame they've tainted the symbolism of it over the decades, but unfortunately this campaign literally has donors from far right groups pushing a divisive agenda so the intention doesn't seem in the right place.

The flags are being taken down as apparently the ones tied to lamp-posts are a health and safety risk. I haven't actually seen any flags or roundabout graffiti in my area yet, have had two driving lessons this week and didn't spot any during those, although my nan said she's seen a lot in hers.

Yeh I’d agree, they aren’t all extremists but painting a England flag into a roundabout is just not needed or sensible. This is why laws unfort have to be created for such nonsense.

Also the flying of paramilitary flags in NI goes back decades so it was pretty galling when Starmer banned a group like Palestinian Action when UDA flags flying every summer in NI and the UDA literally killed hundreds of people here during the troubles (same goes for the other side of the coin btw). They are not comparable in the slightest.

4 minutes ago, Jade said:

I like the idea of reclaiming the flag from the far right, as it's a shame they've tainted the symbolism of it over the decades, but unfortunately this campaign literally has donors from far right groups pushing a divisive agenda so the intention doesn't seem in the right place.

The flags are being taken down as apparently the ones tied to lamp-posts are a health and safety risk. I haven't actually seen any in my area, have had two driving lessons this week and didn't spot any during those, although my nan said she's seen a lot in hers.

I heard the council are taking them down, it’s a pity this sensible action wouldn’t happen in NI as the council workers would be too scared to do their job due to intimidation.

1 hour ago, Dobbo said:

Yeah I don't understand the flag thing at all. From what I read there's no law against flying flags unless they're an obstruction so I'd like to know on what grounds police can demand they be taken down.

I'm not sure why it's become such an issue in the UK as well. You go to pretty much any country in the world and the national flag is a symbol of pride. For them to be viewed as a political weapon is bewildering.

9 hours ago, Hadji said:

Why are people so offended by St George’s cross flags that they have to constantly take them down? And they’re trying to outlaw flying a flag. Pathetic

It actually is a crime to erect a flag without permission of the person or organisation who owns the land. So people are more than free to raise a flag outside their own house like they do during football tournaments or on VE Day, etc which no one ever has an issue with.

I don’t want to say that I’m seeing wilful ignorance here but it sure feels like it. I find it very difficult to imagine any of you don’t understand why people may have an issue with what has been going on.

The current place of St George and Union flags being erected is technically vandalism along with painting the cross on roundabouts and signs, etc. none of this has been done because people want to show pride in their country. It is being done by extremists who want non English people to be fearful in England. That is what it is. Whether you like it or not, these flags have been appropriators by right wing extremists and weaponised. They will actually strike fear in some people whether you understand that or not.

You mention other countries being able to fly flags with no issue and that’s true. But Spanish flags are not flown in Spain to signal that only the Spanish are welcome here and with there is no intent to make English people there feel unwelcome. Here in Wales, our flags are flown often but they don’t make people feel uncomfortable in the same way. If anything we dislike the Union flag being flown because it reminds us that we’re stuck with our English overlords. Some Welsh language signs have been painted over with a St George cross this week. Do you honestly think that’s ok and not intimidating?

It smacks of little Englanders wanting to portray themselves as victims once again. Next someone will mention they got arrested for saying the word bacon or something ridiculous like that. It’s so ironic we have people in the same thread where posters have argued that asylum seekers should all be treated as dangerous and deported because they weren’t born here, whinging that it’s unfair to call anyone with a St George flag a right wing extremist.

The flags are flown in plenty of places and there is no issue. I was in London last week and there were union flags everywhere and not one person complaining about it.

Take on the people who are making your flags a symbol of extremism, not the people who fear it. Reclaim your flags from the worst people, don’t criticise the people who feel in comfortable. Find a way to show them you’re one of the good guys.

17 minutes ago, Dobbo said:

Fair enough, I think it's problematic if every single person who flies a flag is seen as an extremist though and in fact a shame that a small portion of individuals have tainted what it actually represents.

I think back to that news story a few months ago about that schoolgirl who got suspended for wearing a Union Jack dress and labelled a far-right extremist by some! But it's always good to hear other opinions on a sensitive subject. I feel it's just another distraction from bigger issues tbh.

If you do your research though, that girl has been invited to speak at Tommy Robinson’s rally and her father’s social media suggests heavy support of Robinson. Make of that what you will.