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?