- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,982
- Reaction score
- 1,397
Depends what you mean by "the Irish people"
Keir Starmer
- Thread starter Delaney
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
i think they’re concerned that the amount of people who could qualify for asylum and those through law fair, who would achieve it (lying about age, country of origin, sexual status, etc..) means that we, a small north west european island, on the far reaches of north west europe, would have to accept millions of potential refugees.
So many in fact, the indigenous population would become a minority, much faster than is already predicted (by 2070).
As with all left wing ideals, there needs to be some sort of guard rails. One example would be to put the cap on how many refugees are allowed in as a % of native population.
Unfortunately any such sensible idea would be met with howls ‘racism’ and ‘far right extremeism’ when in reality, the extremist position is on the left.
In the end what happens is the left get their way, because they’re more activistic and motivated, until things start to go seriously wrong. That’s when the right snaps and things start getting ugly.
The left then says ‘see we told you about these far right extremists’ not having the self awareness that they caused the problem, because they don’t consider the concerns from their fellow countrymen as valid.
It’s their way, or the high way.
I would imagine he means the native Irish?
I did find it funny that Hypnotic Chimera should cite the military as an example of some sort of probity.
How many scandals have we seen in recent years, many currently on going, concerning racism, sexual harassment and so forth across our armed forces, some victims being driven to suicide.
Very often actively covered up or denied by those in senior positions. And let us not forget the many servicemen exposed to harm in various atomic tests. How many times we were told that this was nonsense, by both senior figures in the military and politicians.
Ditto contaminated blood, horizon etc. Similar behaviour found within the NHS. Lucy Letby being a prime example. Senior figures at hospitals where concerns were raised were more interested in reputational damage than the welfare of arguably their most vulnerable patients.
The "observable reality" is that we are lied to repeatedly by people in senior positions in various organisations, and by senior politicians.
I think there is a lot to be said for the view taken by the likes of Mr Hislop, that if a politician looks you straight in the eye and tells you that something absolutely didn't happen, or that they had absolutely nothing to do with something, that is virtually a guarantee that it did happen, and that they were up to their neck in it.
Some might view that as too cynical. I would suggest that the "observable reality" is that it is, very sadly, a pretty sensible view to take, if only because it has so often proved to be the case.
Not UK obviously but Nixon's famous "I am not a crook" broadcast possibly takes the biscuit.
The idea that politicians can't interfere with policing because the law says so is frankly laughable.
Firstly because making something illegal has never stopped it happening, nor will it. Our prisons are full of people who are evidence of that.
Secondly because we have seen plenty of evidence of the contempt politicians can have for the law, and rules in general. The idea that they might see the law in this area as somehow sacrosanct is not really very logical.
I stress that I am not saying, nor have I said, that this is what happened in the case of Taylor Swift, merely that to say it couldn't possibly have happened because the law forbids it is just plain daft.
None of us can possibly know what actually happened.
To take the view that it definitely cannot have been the result of political interference is every bit as illogical as it would be to conclude that it absolutely must have been.
The fact is that the latter view is seen by many as having a degree of credibility. That is down to the very poor reputation for honesty enjoyed by politicians in general, an issue entirely of their own making.
Last edited:
Don't let that stop you, Tony - all you need is a positive attitude and you can sort it all out.
Billy_wizz
Established Member
It's a known fact that having money increases how attractive you are !
Never underestimate a short king lol
Hardly bland.
A date with Boris would be like walking around in public with an unpinned hand grenade.
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2003
- Messages
- 7,982
- Reaction score
- 1,397
And who are the native Irish then? I'm asking out of genuine curiosity.
Was it Taylor Swift, or an organisation that has anything to do with Taylor Swift, that gifted the tickets?
Lol
sploo
Somewhat extinguished member
For Johnson, I was referencing the part of the comment "no redeeming features along with no desirable characteristics"
Two possible viewpoints exist.
First viewpoint is backed up by factual evidence. Either of these two parts is sufficient in isolation:
- the independence of the Police to make Operational Decisions is sacrosanct and enshrined in legislation. (Bearing in mind a proven bully had tried to coerce Police in the past but had evidently been unsuccessful)
- recently revealed evidence of known terror plot against a target is taken into account.
Second viewpoint requires that ALL of the following need to be true.
- Police chiefs pass selection by Home Office "because they are susceptible to pressure"
- Home Office/Home Sec/PM/Mayor exerted "undue" influence/pressure.
- Police relented to said pressure.
The First viewpoint can be substantiated with verifiable evidence on both points. Either of which is sufficient on its own merit.
The Second needs all three bullets to be true. None of those bullets can be verified, even individually.
Subscribing to the Second viewpoint is, I would strongly suggest, absurd.
Until such times as verifiable substantiating comes to light, it is just a tinfoil hat viewpoint.
ey_tony
Established Member
I would have thought that was pretty obvious in the context of my reply hence I asked out of interest for examples of why Irish people should mistrust the British judiciary.
If it's widespread then there must be plenty of examples.
I'm not refuting any claims as I have my own criticisms of the British justice system myself.
There are accusations of two tier policing in the UK....one has to wonder if there is some truth in the argument in the light of a failure by the CPS to charge and prosecute the violent Manchester airport thugs injuring police officers doing their duty when the full force of the law with virtually instant justice was handed out to those who wrote a few harsh words let alone rioted after the Taylor Swift child killings.
They authorities were very quick to use the full force of the law in those instances but it would seem that the video evidence showing the extent of the violence in the airport case is not sufficient to charge and prosecute the offenders in case it upsets certain communities. It was however sufficient to suspend the police officer shown kicking the suspect. We saw similar examples of the police and local authority's reluctance to prosecute the racist child rape gangs which resulted in thousands of children's lives being ruined just in case it upset the same communities.
It's little wonder that there is a growing belief that there is a culture of two tier policing certainly in England if successive governments are afraid to prosecute in case it upsets certain minorities.
There will never be social cohesion in the UK until those issues are addressed and failure only fuels far right groups like those we are seeing rising in many nations across Europe.
That is not something I'd like to see in the UK and no we're not talking about such as Farage's Reform party. They're not far right but there is the potential for the true far right to emerge if it continues.
I don’t think you’re being very genuine actually.
The people decided. The people, for whatever reasons, chose Brexit and the government chose to honour the result and acted accordingly. Those are the decisions we all have to live with, like it or not.
If the people could never understand the reasons and consequences behind a vote then, surely, all elections and referendums are unnecessary.
But, when I voted in the Brexit referendum, I had read what there was to read and see and listen to the auguments. I soon realised that, if Brexit won, we'd go through a period of disentanglement which wouldn't be easy. There would still be financial obligations to the EU that would need many years to determine.
All in all, what I read previously happened. The pandemic, of course, introduced complications and delays in the process, a process, that even now, isn't complete and will not stop so much as fade.
Freedom of movement has been replaced by control of movement.
Lawmaking has been returned to the UK.
Businesses are free to trade with whoever they like.
Businesses can tender worldwide without having to favour the EU.
Our borders have become a hot topic but not such a hot topice than is evident in the EU.
The UK, once one the EU's major contributors, won't be pouring money into those EU countries looking for major financial aid.
The savings from not being in the EU will, when the costs of the pandemic and world recession die down, help to clear the national debt, and leave the UK in a better position to invest in public services including the NHS, once it sorst out its inefficiencies and wasteful practices.
selectortone
Still waking up not dead in the morning
I'm half Irish and spent a few very happy holidays at my Uncle's farm near Youghal in Co Cork. Trust me, the Irish don't trust the British - both the judiciary and generally.
- and I would have thought it was pretty obvious why to anyone with even a small familiarity with the history of that island.
I liked Boris. He was charismatic, unlike any of the major politicians now, and he got a lot done under his term in office. He was called a lot of things but he achieved a lot of what the people wanted, and was in the ascension...until the pandemic, and the world economic dowturn. He was was blamed, by some, for that too. He had already upset the Remainers, mostly businessmen so, on top of that the pandemic and economic downturn that was enough to force him out before his time.
I'd vote for him again since, nobody has proved to be any better so far, and he had a style that endeared him more to the people than to the ruling classes. That is reason enough in my book.
Isn’t it the CPS that decides to prosecute, not the police?
ey_tony
Established Member
I did mention that in my post but the police are arguably the people who decide or believe if a crime has been committed in the first place and there was plenty of evidence through young women coming forward to verify that racist pedophile gangs were grooming and procuring young girls for sexual exploitation but the police and the authorities together with the CPS failed those young girls miserably.
I'll wager if those girls had been from middle class families or even girls from the same ethnic communities being abused by white pedophile gangs then there would have been something done immediately.
ey_tony
Established Member
Starmer has clearly had a charisma bypass unlike Boris who had ship-loads of it and deserved the title of charismatic even if he wasn't one's cup of tea as a politician.
They likened Liz Truss to a lettuce well I'd say Starmer is the equivalent of the donkey in the equine world.
Having said that, it's not fair to donkeys as they at least most look visually appealing.
Starmer even makes John Major look dashing plus he's not a man who actually knows how to wear a suit even if they are expensive and freebies.
- Status
