The crowd may have looked a novel sight, but it points to a rationale that is increasingly gaining ground this summer: asylum seekers are a danger to British women and girls.
Tens of thousands of young men arrive from places not notably feminist. It’s a rational fear, no? May or may not be one bourne out by the evidence but it is rational.
Aha, aha:
Tim Naor Hilton, the chief executive of Refugee Action, outlined the facts in black and white. “There is no clear or credible evidence that people seeking asylum commit more crimes, and any data suggesting that must be viewed in the context of systemic bias, including in policing.”
That’s not what we call evidence, that’s what we call “Getting your excuse in early”.
And that is the only evidence offered too.
Try harder, Honey.
If Ryan thinks this lot are coming over to take part in and improve the liberal, progressive, progressive, society that she dreams of then she should invite them to move in next door to her:
The old BLM scam tactics; “Any evidence which contradicts what I’m saying is a lie!”
“Tim Naor Hilton, the chief executive of Refugee Action”
He sure doesn’t look like Paris …
Toxic masculinity is a thing and all men are potential rapists.
Except for the illegal immigrant men.
That’s *some* doublethink going on.
“There is no clear or credible evidence that people seeking asylum commit more crimes”
The proportion of these people in prison seems to factually prove otherwise. In Sweden half of those serving life sentences are not of European origin.
Denial is not just an African river. The figures that show that immigrants are over-represented in UK prisons, that muslim asylum seekers commit more sexual offences and that jungle bunnies are much more stabby must be explained away somehow….So it’s down to “systemic bias in policing and judicial processes”, and “violent crime is decreasing” anyway and “non-immigrants may be more likely to report crimes when they believe the offender is an an immigrant” and the use of “racial profiling by the police is racist” and whitey “still commits most crime”…cont’d p.94…
It’s not just these so-called ‘asylum seekers’ – the British people are sick of all third-world immigration: the Muslim rape and torture gangs, the terrorist attacks, the black drug and murder gangs, they’re fed up to the back teeth with it all and they’re becoming angry.
A pet peeve of mine, someone please correct me if I have this wrong – people are entitled to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. So, are all these boats reaching Britain’s shores from West Africa? Or are they passing through quite a few safe countries on the way?
I’m very much of the impression that it’s the latter, and, if so, they are not entitled to seek asylum in Britain and shouldn’t be called “asylum seekers”.
A frequent trick of the left, misleading people through subtle, but important, changes in wording.
The Devil is in the details.
Esteban:
“In broad terms, asylum claims may be declared inadmissible and not substantively considered in the UK, if the claimant was previously present in or had another connection to a safe third country, where they claimed asylum, or could reasonably be expected to have done so”.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/inadmissibility-third-country-cases/inadmissibility-safe-third-country-cases-accessible#background
They could deny every single claim for asylum. The problem is they don’t want to.
And see my comment on another thread regarding whether people ‘enter’ or ‘arrive’ in the UK. Weasel words.
The French Resistance discovered that people who collaborate with invaders have homes, family members and pets.
They could deny every single claim for asylum. The problem is they don’t want to.
‘They’, the part-time immigration judges, are part-time immigration lawyers who believe in open borders…
Every immigration judge in the country could be immediately replaced, or forced to deny every asylum claim, in a single line Act of Parliament passed in an afternoon.
Our country’s problems are not that difficult to solve, they’re mostly flabby, middle aged cowards who don’t want to be hanged.
What is the law? It’s whatever the people who control the State’s tools of violence say it is.
And BTW, since immigration is a national security issue, the government has the right to take extremely harsh and intrusive measures against, say, “charities” that promote immigration.
Is “Refugee Action” working with human traffickers or grooming gangs or terrorists or Russia?
I have no idea, but a thorough criminal investigation of all of their executives and major donors, whilst we freeze their assets and get HMRC to audit their last 20 years of accounts, would not be unreasonable.
Anybody see what I mean? Noone ever has since the age of 19. Up in North Airstrip One they made it illegal to pray in your own house. Organisations like Britain First or Palestine Action can be banned at the drop of a hat. Ofcom is now trying to censor the global internet.
Contra sniggering Tories like Baron Goodman of Losershire, who was recently boasting about his party’s failure to take down the pedo-BLM flag from Home Office hq, the British government can indeed govern when it feels like it. It doesn’t need to ask permission. When we gain control of the Ring, the last thing we should do is cast it into the fire. We should wield it like Sauron.
These people are colonists, plain and simple and should be reffered to as colonists in any refference you make about them.
Indeed. They are invaders and “settler colonists”, to borrow a phrase. BTW, the word invaders will get your comment pulled from the Telegraph and Times.
As to the original topic, these men hail from nations where women must appear in public dressed head to toe in shapeless black bags or be considered fair game for rape. That is all you need to know.
the word invaders will get your comment pulled from the Telegraph and Times.
The flak is always heaviest above the target.
Re: the OP though, it’s a hugely positive sign that women are joining the protests now. Absolutely yuge.
When the girls are on board, it means we’ve won. It means the tides have turned.
Steve,
“Every immigration judge in the country could be immediately replaced, or forced to deny every asylum claim, in a single line Act of Parliament passed in an afternoon.”
Yarp.
“And BTW, since immigration is a national security issue, the government has the right to take extremely harsh and intrusive measures against, say, “charities” that promote immigration.”
Most of their money, like so many activist charities, comes from Local authorities. £1.3m from Liverpool, £3m from Birmingham, £900K from Solihull and a few others. These LAs are paying for certain sorts of services. So, it’s purely a grift by the charity. They want more immigrants because they’re fucked if we turn off the tap.
Imagine if it goes back to 1980s levels and we get a few thousand a year. Mostly leaders, intellectuals, writers.
WB – look at the sea change since President Trump (PBUH) killed US AIDS. It’s killing leftist third column orgs across the entire planet.
Yes, you’re correct about the local government to anti-British scumbag ratline. That makes it almost trivially easy to solve, since Westminster can and should simply ban them from giving a penny to these “charities”.
Something the Tories (deliberately) refused to learn, but anybody who has ever achieved anything in life knows: there’s always flesh and blood people behind every decision, every policy, every seemingly faceless organisation.
So, identify those people, identify their pain points, and either sack them or apply maximum pressure to achieve results.
There’s a million and one ways we can fuck the Left, if we acquire power and the government has the imagination and balls to use it. Just off the top:
* Windfall taxes on companies and individuals who have profited from the invasion
* Assign criminal and civil liability to same for every single crime committed by the rapefugees. If Shitco houses rapists, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t prosecute Shitco’s board of directors and sue them into bankruptcy.
* Prohibition of “pro-migrant” orgs and/or remove them from the charity register on national security grounds
* Force the police to become auxiliaries of Border Force (illegal immigration is a crime after all)
* Public inquiry into the mass immigration scandal – why did Labour and the Tories decide to “rub our noses in it”, and how should they be punished?
They try to demoralise us by pretending this can’t be fixed, but it’s easier to fix than most people imagine.
Imagine if it goes back to 1980s levels and we get a few thousand a year. Mostly leaders, intellectuals, writers.
Good point.
Not all immigrants are rapefugees. Many are fine, upstanding, hardworking people, and we don’t want them either.
“… and any data suggesting that must be viewed in the context of systemic bias, including in policing.”
Absolutely, systemic bias!
The police turn a blind eye to foreign criminals, and use a heavy hand on locals who object.
I wonder if we refused to entertain all these doctors and engineers from shithole countries whether the shit holes would become a little less shitty.
Every immigration judge in the country could be immediately replaced, or forced to deny every asylum claim, in a single line Act of Parliament passed in an afternoon.
Given the separation of powers in our unwritten constitution, Parliament could not replace “every immigration judge”, even if other judges were willing to step in (which they wouldn’t be!); so that is pure fantasy.
But Parliament could abolish asylum – though the Lords would resist it (unless it was a manifesto commitment) and then the usual suspects would seek judicial review. Governing from the right in a left-liberal set up would require the passing of a Great Repeal Act to remove all the left-liberal impediments to right-wing policies; and that would take months of consultation on a White Paper, then careful drafting and wide debate. The only other alternative is the Pinochet model…
Given the separation of powers in our unwritten constitution, Parliament could not replace “every immigration judge”,
That’s not quite right. We didn’t have the separation of powers until Blair set about his constitutional vandalism and set up the Supreme Court. Up to that point to highest court was the law lords and they sat in the HoL. In this way Parliament remained supreme.
Theo – Given the separation of powers in our unwritten constitution, Parliament could not replace “every immigration judge”, even if other judges were willing to step in (which they wouldn’t be!); so that is pure fantasy.
No, I’m sorry, you are 100% gloriously wrong on this Glorious Twelfth.
There’s no separation of powers in our “unwritten constitution”, and the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy has been an established fact of English law since the Civil War.
This is not a crank theory of mine (I have those too), it’s a foundational fact you will find in the textbooks. The example they use to illustrate it in law schools is that Parliament has the right, should it so desire, to ban smoking in Paris. Obviously, enforcing it would be another matter.
Parliament is the supreme law making body in this country, and primary legislation they pass cannot be overruled by the Supreme Court or any court. Being the supreme law making body does indeed mean that they could abolish every court in the land if they passed an Act to that effect. The Supreme Court is merely a creature of statue, it’s Parliament that makes the statutes. D’ye see?
But Parliament could abolish asylum – though the Lords would resist it (unless it was a manifesto commitment)
Parliament, or to be more specific, the House of Commons, can also override or abolish the Lords any time it sees fit.
The mechanism for doing so would likely involve appointing 1,000 new Reform life peers, for example, because that’s the fastest way.
Why do I keep banging on about this? Because it’s true. Because we’re being capriciously conned by the cuntish can’ts.
If anybody tells you otherwise, ask them to cite the case law. They won’t be able to, because I’m only telling you what the law is.
Governing from the right in a left-liberal set up would require the passing of a Great Repeal Act to remove all the left-liberal impediments to right-wing policies
A one sentence Act would suffice.
NB – there used to be an important exception to the above. When we were in the EU, judges could and were sometimes compelled to privilege Community law over Parliamentary statute.
We are no longer in the EU. 🙂
And bear in mind that courts still had to rely on the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy in order to override Parliament. Specifically, they had to interpret the 1972 European Communities Act in a particular way in order to permit legal decisions in favour of EU law in case of conflicts.
It was a kludge. And now it’s gone.
There are of course practical and political limitations on the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. But there are no legal restrictions whatsoever.
Think on that for a moment, and I’m sure you’ll understand the reasons why. In any constitutional order there must be a sovereign. The King-in-Parliament is our sovereign. The majority in the House of Commons gets to decide what the King-in-Parliament wants. It’s wonderfully simple, unlike the American system where there are indeed real checks and balances.
@ Steve
Just how could the HoC appoint umpteen new judges in two shakes of a bee’s knee?
Please think before answering with a wave of Voldemort’s wand
Steve at 9:34 pm says ‘A one sentence Act would suffice.’
‘The Shoot Them Act’ Steve???
@steve
“When we gain control of the Ring, the last thing we should do is cast it into the fire. We should wield it like Sauron.” – we did, the home secretary wields it, but it has corrupted and betrayed us just as it did Isildur. Thus we have the modern Home Office. The race of Men are not strong enough to hold that power, only a Hobbit can possess the one ring and yet not succumb to its power.
You just have to look at how *European* young men act when they’re outside their own country.
Young men on their own among strangers are notoriously sexually aggressive – the Euros are just controlled enough to not rape.
Esteban, I’m afraid you do have it wrong. It’s a common misconception that people are required to claim asylum in the first safe country; they’re not. They are not allowed to be passed to a second country but the one they claimed asylum in.
As to the original point, it makes no difference what the rates of offending are between indigenous amd immigrant. We have no choice but to deal with the former, we absolutely don’t the latter.
Let’s get this straight.
Anyone can apply for asylum anywhere they like. Any place can grant asylum to anyone they like. The first safe place rule is that people can “claim”, as of right, asylum in the first safe place. Claim as in “asylum must be granted” in the first safe place.
Is that really the case? Sounds absolutely nuts.
1) An Albanian nips over the border to Greece
2) He claims asylum
3) Greece “must” grant asylum
“Must”??
Once he’s claimed, then you look at whether Albania is safe or not. If it isn’t, then yes, Greece must. Of course, if the finding is that Albania is safe then fuck’im, back he goes.
Tim,
So we’re absolutely clear, the ‘first’ in ‘first safe place’ means the first place they claim it, not the first country they get to that is deemed safe.
No.
You have the ability to try to claim asylum anywhere you like. It *must* be granted in the first safe place you reach – assuming, of course, that it is true that home is dangerous. The *must* is not determined by the first place you try to claim it, but the first safe place you reach.
To illustrate.
Someone from Eritrea. Say, just an example. Lifetime conscription into the army is still a thing there. Extrajudicial killings etc. OK, let us assume that an Eritrean qualifies for asylum. Just imagine that part. A ‘plane flies from Eritrea to London, bloke gets off, claims asylum. He must be granted it. First safe place (yes, I know, the airline gets charged for allowing him on without a visa etc but this is an example of the logic here). Same bloke, same fear of home etc. Crosses the Channel from France. He can be granted asylum, sure. UK can grant asylum to whoever they like for whatever reason. But because France is safe for an Eritrean our laddie does not gain asylum *as of right* at Dover.
… so:
1. The seeker is not obligated to claim asylum in the first (temporally and geographically) safe country they reach.
2. If they do, that country is obligated to consider their application.
3. If they don’t, the next country is not obligated to consider their application.
Steve,
“Why do I keep banging on about this? Because it’s true. Because we’re being capriciously conned by the cuntish can’ts.
If anybody tells you otherwise, ask them to cite the case law. They won’t be able to, because I’m only telling you what the law is.”
I generally like to mention Michael Gove and free schools in this. Because unlike most of the Conservatives at that time, Gove actually cared about this thing. He wanted it done. And it took a bit of having to navigate EU law and hiring some shit hot lawyers to make sure it would, but he did it.
The average minister doesn’t give much of a shit. My MP was minister for the courts. I know the courts system is pretty fucked. But he’s at a school on a Friday talking to a load of kids. Not getting a supplier in and telling them to get the fucking email fixed or they’ll find someone else. MPs love making a speech and well, that’s great, but you get the job done.
What they then do is lie to you about the civil service, who in my experience, generally don’t give that much of a fuck.
Steve
The courts can’t overturn primary legislation, but they can interfere with the secondary legislation governing implementation of the primary legislation – which is enough for them to frustrate the replacement of immigration judges. And judges are selected by the Judicial Appointments Commission, based on their merit: Parliament cannot veto their choices.
A Great Repeal Act could be passed, but it’s the replacement of all the Statutory Instruments and guidance related to (say) the HRA and Equality Act that would take time and would be challenged extensive.y in court.
The latest news about the immigration hotel is that one of the inmates is a danger to men and boys rather than women.
Obviously he has to flee from any Muslim country because he would be executed if he was caught.
But isn’t France deemed a “safe country”? Put him on the first one-for-one return boat.
A Great Repeal Act could be passed, but it’s the replacement of all the Statutory Instruments and guidance related to (say) the HRA and Equality Act that would take time and would be challenged extensive.y in court.
Huh?
Why would that take a while?
Surely an act that repeals a previous law and says “The HRA and Equality act is now to be disregarded.” Would make all the Statutory Instruments null and void? Any law that referenced the HRA would then also be nullified.
If not, why not?
Let’s play a game and pretend I’m a spanner jockey who doesn’t know all that much about law when you explain it to me…
CD
It would take quite a long while because the public sector could/would not operate properly without adequate (non-)statutory guidance to cover the full implementation of new legislation. (See how the Supreme Court’s decision on trannies is being ignored by quangos and councils, as they await “guidance”…) Drafting that guidance and making it legally watertight would take time and effort….And if it isn’t watertight, it could face judicial review…
Governing is hard – very hard. The permanent Government (aka the civil service) regards politicians with contempt, and each CS department has its own policies – regardless of what politicians are supposedly elected to implement. Many of the executive’s levers are, in effect, made of chocolate. I have sat in a meeting (observer status only) where oily civil servants have told a minister that they couldn’t do what his government was elected to do…because, in effect, that’s not how we do things here, because…reasons..
Any seriously right-wing government needs to prepare thoroughly to confront the inevitable lawfare challenges and the institutional reluctance to implementing right-wing policies. One line Parliamentary Acts just ain’t gonna cut it!