https://x.com/BillboardChris/status/1822056518155694396
20 months in prison for a social media post.
6 months for killing a teen with a machete.
The UK has gone mad.
British posters defending their government in 3...2......1
share>6 months for killing a teen with a machete.
No. The killers were arrested in November 2022, and convicted 6 months ago. They've already been in jail for nearly two years. Only one of them is eligible for early release.
Learn to read.
Point still stands... 2 years in jail for murdering someone. 20 months for a social media post.
share*Manslaughter
And sure, it's due to prison overcrowding. It's not great at all, but the Twitter post is completely misleading. It's also got nothing to do with their race. It's just cherrypicking examples.
They are letting murderers out to make room for the people who post memes.
shareNot technically convicted of murder. And other rioters and violent criminals. And the early release stuff wasn't done specifically to replace them with internet shitposters. It predates the riots.
And no, this dude didn't "post memes".
He killed the kid with a machete you retard.
sharehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-68510380#:~:text=to%20open%20violence.-,Carlos%20Neto%20and%20Lawson%20Natty%2C%20both%2018%2C%20were%20found%20guilty,%22%20death%20was%20%22devastating%22.
Going by the official ruling.
This is why people make fun of you. They hacked the kid with a machete over hurt feelings and you want to argue that it wasnt murder.
shareThese terms do have official definitions, I'm afraid.
In any case, this isn't really evidence of "two-tier policing". It's evidence of the UKs prison overcrowding issues. It has nothing to do with the riots.
They murdered the kid and they planned it you autistic retard. That is first degree murder. They should be serving life in prison, thats what happens in the U.S.
And we've never had sentences like that in the UK, unfortunately. And the early release guy didn't actually do the killing, from what I read.
Again: This is a general prison overcrowding problem, and has nothing to do with 'two-tier policing'. It also derives from the Conservatives before they left office. Nothing to do with Keir Starmer.
I read elsewhere it was manslaughter for the youngster who was released. He gave the killer a machete illegally, but wasn't involved in the act. The killing.
shareAlso in context of the rioting:
https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uk/2024/08/09/first-muslim-men-jailed-over-violence-at-uk-riots/
People involved in counter-riots are also being jailed.
https://x.com/AlanBuchbach/status/1822074240763621738
What do we have here.
Due to the defendants age at the time.
More context:
The men, the first three of whom must sign the sexual offenders' register for life and Al Soaimi for 10 years, received the following sentences:
Omar Badreddin, 26, for five counts of rape, jailed for 18 years
Mohamed Badreddin, 23, for six counts of rape and one count of assault by penetration, jailed for 13 years
Huzaefa Aleboud, 23, for assault by penetration, two counts of rape and assault occasioning actual bodily harm, jailed for five and a half years
Hamoud Al Soaimi, 21, for three counts of sexual assault and one assault by penetration, jailed for two years suspended for two years with 180 hours unpaid work (He was 15 at the time of the events)
https://x.com/Bubblebathgirl/status/1821935308578976249
Watch out americans, they're coming for us next. What a bunch of fucking tyrants.
This is obviously absurd. UK has no power there and won't happen. Also he didn't commit to the reporters question there, he evaded it.
shareI didnt claim the UK has any power here. It must be standard procedure to be a tyrant if you hold any position of power in the UK.
shareHe also didn't really say the UK would seek extradition. He dodged it.
shareYou know damn well he'd say yes if he had the option.
shareI doubt it. You could say the same about any police chief anywhere.
shareIf I lived in the UK you could call the police on me for calling you gay. Wouldnt that be great.
shareNo, I couldn't. If you harassed me over and over though, I could possibly do that.
Incidentally: I really, really don't get the instinct you have to behaving so childishly.
How long would you have me sentenced for? and dont say "it wouldnt be up to me, it would be up to the court" Just answer how long I should be sentenced.
shareI don't think you should be sentenced at all for anything. But I am trying to speak to you here honestly... why do you behave like this?
shareHow am I behaving?
shareJust generally childish to me, you throw insults at me whenever you can, lob accusations at me. I really don't get the impulse.
shareDoes it hurt your feelings?
shareIt baffles me. Like do you think it makes you look like a good guy? Is it that fun to behave like that? Liberals/leftists/progressives on here are characterised consistently, fairly and unfairly of being immoral, evil, etc etc. And often from the same people who behave like that.
shareYou didnt answer my question. Dont start the hatchling shit.
shareYou never answer any of my questions. Why do you think I should answer yours? Also, I fail to see how your questions are somehow less "hatchling" than mine.
No, I'm not hurt over it personally.
Are you retired?
shareI refuse to answer a single question from you until you answer some of mine. I am also telling you nothing about my personal life.
shareNot every discussion has to be high noon. People on this board can have normal discussions. You dont always have to be in attack mode.
shareI'm constantly attacked by posters like you all the time. I don't see why you think I should want to have a casual discussion with you with how you've treated me.
shareI've called you gay. What else have I said about you?
shareYou also joined in the insinuations about why I'm on here as posted by another user.
But even then, the gay allegations are just a lie. You don't know me - yet you insist on spreading it around the site. Why would I want to engage with you socially?
Look, I dont care if you're gay, you just be the best damn gay guy you can be, bro.
shareYou didn't even just call me gay anyway, as I've answered. You suggested I'm on here to try and pick up men specifically.
You also seemed to endorse the insinuations that I am a pedophile.
Why would I want to do small talk or conversational chatter with you?
"You also seemed to endorse the insinuations that I am a pedophile."
Link or STFU
It's interesting that you require a link from me to demonstrate that claim, but never asked for a source regarding the lies about me. Why are you inconsistent here?
The main posts in that other thread have been deleted, but bigmike was insinuating that I target 16 year olds.
But to be clear, are you thus repudiating those claims? Is it wrong to accuse people of being pedophiles with no evidence?
I admit to calling you gay and anything gay related during that discussion.
I never said or implied you were a pedophile.
Isn't 16 legal age of consent in the UK?
>I admit to calling you gay and anything gay related during that discussion.
And why do you do this?
>Isn't 16 legal age of consent in the UK?
Yes, but someone who is older (as the other user also accused me of) trying to get with 16 year olds would very much be accused of grooming.
Now you're being self righteous. Did you think I'd bite on that shit?
Dude, it's a simple question. I'm asking you why you behave like this to me. We don't agree on much, sure, but I don't know why that means you should automatically behave as you do. I don't know what this has to do with being self-righteous.
shareinfact i've never called him a pedophile, i've said (based on his reddit history) that he has a thing for young immigrant MEN, and we know he likes these "boy love" tv shows...
wherever that leads us..
the fact he uses the word "pedophile" in every sentence is a little worrying.
>infact i've never called him a pedophile,
https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/66b22e6219dbba4c48687671/Whats-going-on-with-the-user-Skavau?reply=66b5684de0a24c310d836f99
What's this then? What was the purpose of this if not to suggest that I am a pedophile?
>i've said (based on his reddit history) that he has a thing for young immigrant MEN
This is an outright lie. You fabricated posts about my reddit history. You outright invented posts that I never said.
If you are truthful, if you are honest, provide the direct sources of those reddit pages from me. You won't do it because you are full of shit, and a nasty hateful liar.
>and we know he likes these "boy love" tv shows...
No, you do not. I've explained this over and over. You are a hateful nasty liar.
Are you going to address my points in the post here, or not?
shareANother take on same issue. 18 minutes but worth it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RsQnoALcHk
Reading the transcript and responding to actionable points:
Starmer announced measures to protect mosques during the riots because mosques were targeted by the rioters. Churches weren't being targeted. The vast majority of the rioting in this round was conducted by.... angry white men. That's just the reality of the situation. There were some counter-riots, and there have been some arrests there:
https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/uk/2024/08/09/first-muslim-men-jailed-over-violence-at-uk-riots/
There will be more to come.
A Labour councillor was also arrested for inciting violence against white people: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/credz9gl92yo
Keir Starmer did not threaten anyone other than rioters and people trying to incite riots. No-one has been arrested purely for protesting or voicing an opinion.
And of course, no comment on the reason for the riots, nor the clear hostility that hte government is showing to the English people.
There were reasons behind the BLM riots. Did you run apologetics for them?
The reasons for the UK riots was literally fake news as spread by right-wing influencers in the UK about the identity of the Southport killer. They rioted over the claims that it was a Syrian asylum seeker. It was not.
There's no hostility shown towards the English people by the government.
Interesting.
1. My point was that YOU didn't discuss the reason for the riots. And you immediately jump to comparing these riots to the blm riots. Or would you prefer "mostly peaceful protests"?
2, I didn't run apologetics for them, because a. their reasons were shit, and b. they have peaceful means of redress.
3. The man was not a syrian asylum seeker. That is true. He was instead a second gen immigrant. THus, the english people who's children had been murdered and the governemnt didn't care, were angry.
4. THe hostility shown by the UK government and you, to the english people is clear. Your denial is you being a fag.
1. The reason is a lie. I don't recall ever calling the BLM riots "mostly peaceful protests". I was making that point to you. Presumably you would call the BLM riots riots - and say there was no excuse for them. So it is in the UK with these riots.
2. And so do the UK rioters if they're aggrieved.
3. How did the government "not care"? The guy was arrested and is likely looking down a life sentence.
4. No, it is not clear. What you insist without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I live here. You do not. I know much more about the UK than you do. Is that clear, fuckface?
1. The English clearly do not have any legal or peaceful means of redress.
2. THe government has dismissed the issues of the english population as illegitimate and is mostly concerned with crushing and terrorizing them, while protecting the nonwhite population.
3. The actions of the UK government, consistently shows their hostility to the native english population. YOur denial is you being a fag.
1. How do you know this, exactly? We are a democratic society and hold elections: National, Local, Devolved, Police Commissioner elections. Anyone can set up political parties and run for office and people do. We literally just had an election a month ago. I live here. You do not. Do not presume to lecture me about my own country.
2. How has the government dismissed those issues? How is the government "crushing" and "terrorising" them?
3. What actions of the UK government are you referring to, shitbrains?
I live here. You do not. You know fucking nothing about the UK government or how it works.
You are sad pathetic ignorant little man who knows nothing about the world. You are a piece of shit scumbag.
1. Because these things keep happening, and the ENGLISH people of England, seem to never be considered. EVERYTIME, it is like all the other shit never happened.
2. in every way. From labeling them far right to arresting them to standing by and watching while mobs of third world thugs beat english people to the ground like the serfs that they are.
3. Oh, so you didn't watch the tape? As I expected. The clips of our prime minister is pretty clear. He is on the side of hte muslims vs the english.
1. What things "keep happening"? What are you even referring to?
2. The rioters absolutely are mostly far-right. Show me some examples of the police "standing by and watching" as asian-origin (the term you really mean) people were beating white people.
Care to explain why some non-white people have been arrested over the disorder?
3. What tape? Keir Starmer? Yes, I've watched him. In none of the things you are referring to did he say anything like you're saying.
How is he "on the side of the Muslims"?
1. The continuing conflicts between native English/scots and the immigrant communities from the mass sex slave rings, to the random acts of violence and terrorism to London becoming less "british", ect. ect.ect. Every time the power elite of your nation sides with the hostile aliens vs the actual NATIVES of your culture. That is deeply sick. Suicidal even.
2. It was included in the link I proved. Thanks for demonstrating that providing links to you lefty trolls is useless.
3. He didn't SAY it. Not clearly. He IMPLIED it and then demonstrated it with his actions.
1. There's no more /general/ "continuing conflicts" than any other country that has notable immigration communities across the country. Yes, we have integration problems - but we just had an election and people voted accordingly.
>Every time the power elite of your nation sides with the hostile aliens vs the actual NATIVES of your culture. That is deeply sick. Suicidal even.
How so? What is it we should be doing in order for the "power elite" of our nation to not side with the "hostile aliens" in our country exactly?
2. You didn't provide a fucking link. You never provide a fucking link. If you're referring to that clip where Keir Starmer talked about the rioters being thugs, he was right.
3. No, he did not. His actions were to arrest the rioters and quickly charge and convict them. Why is that bad? What should he have done?
The vast majority of your post was retarded faggotry, this is the only thing resembeling a point.
"Every time the power elite of your nation sides with the hostile aliens vs the actual NATIVES of your culture. That is deeply sick. Suicidal even.
How so? What is it we should be doing in order for the "power elite" of our nation to not side with the "hostile aliens" in our country exactly?"
1. STOP IMMIGRATION FOR A GENERATION OR TWO.
2. DEPORT ALL HOSTILE ALIENS.
3. PROTECH NATIVE ENGLISH/SCOT PEOPLE FROM VIOLENCE AND DISCRIMINATION.
1. There's no democratic mandate for this. People want immigration reduced. There's no evidence that it is wanted to be stopped entirely.
2. Who do you call the "hostile aliens"? Illegal immigrants. There's been some movement here:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/yvette-cooper-immigration-boats-channel-b2583272.html
3. How is it you think that is not happening now?
1. Tell me when the people were given a chance to vote on this issue. Or is it, like here, that the political class just refuses to address the concerns and interests of their people.
2. English is both of our primary languages. I said nothing of ILLEGAL aliens. I said HOSTILE. Please do not play retard and act like you do not understand english.
3. Because you can see from the various scandals and polices that your government is on the side of the hostile aliens than their own people. YOru denial is just you being a fag.
1. We literally just had an election in July 2024. I know you're unbelievably ignorant about the UK, but you must know this. Starmer has been in office for a month.
2. So you mean deport anti-british non-UK citizens? What specifically would qualify as being anti-British to you?
3. What scandals are you referring to here? The riots in question resulted in the mass arrest of rioters.
1. Interesting. I ask if the people ever got to vote on this issue and instead of answering, you answer a completely different question on, when was the last election. That is the action of someone who knows that they cannot make their case at all. just admit that I am right.
2. First. That was simple enough for you wasnt? So what the FUCK was the last post about when you pretended to need clarification?
3, And nothing about the policy that led to the murder of children in the schools.
1. What do you think general elections are? The UK political parties all run candidates for MPs, 650 MPs. Each party presents a manifesto. The party (or parties that can form a coalition) that win the most seats form the next government. Labour won that election.
2. No, it wasn't. Because you did not specify. Okay, we should deport anti-British non-citizens who commit criminal offences. We actually do this.
3. What policy led to the specific Southport murder of the children in schools? Did a policy lead to the crossbow killer less than a month before that killed 3 women in a family (mother, two daughters) because he was dumped? Or does that not matter to you because the assailant in that case, was white?
1. So, let's just not dance around it. Like here, teh political parties, at best talk shit on the issue, but never actually represent the English people.
2. Where did "criminal" come from? NOt from me. What word did I use, that you are ignoring?
3. The high level of third world immigration from shit hold countries in the third world.
1. Labour party was not elected on a mandate of freezing all immigration for a generation or two. It's that simple.
2. So what things should get people deported?
3. The parents of the killer were Rwandan refugees that arrived prior to the era of mass immigration.
1. Where the people given a real choice on the issue, and if so when?
2. I already told you. EVERY TIME YOU PLAY THE RETARD, TO AVOID ADDRESSING MY QUESTION, YOU ARE ACTING RETARDED.
AND, YOU ARE ADMITTING THAT YOU KNOW YOU ARE LOSING THE DEBATE.
3. The rwandan genocide was in 94. We knew already at that point, that Third world immigration was bad for the actual citizens of our western nations and it was our decadent and degenerate political class(s) that continued the policy in opposition to the wishes and interests of our people.
1. Yes. The general election held on July the 4th 2024. It's the equivalent to your Presidential Election. I've just explained this. Labour, Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform all set out their immigration policies in their manifestoes. Why can't you understand this? Labour won, and they did not promise to freeze immigration.
2. No, you did not. "hostile alien" is vague and doesn't explain what behaviour you consider hostile and worthy of deportation.
3. No, that was not remotely the ethos then. We've always accepted some level of refugees from wartorn countries. There's neve been any universal objection to that. And his parents may have arrived in 1994.
1. And was labour honest about their position on it? Was there an anti-immigration party and if so, were they given a free and fair chance to get their message out?
2. For the purposes of this discussion, it is fine. You are whining like a fag to avoid actually addressing the issue. I support deporting hostile aliens and you support not only NOT doing that, but continuing to import them by the millions. So, that's the reality of the situation that you are playing thee fag, trying to avoid discussing.
3. How'd that work out for your people?
1. It's been one month.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/yvette-cooper-immigration-boats-channel-b2583272.html
And yes, Reform party were active campaigners. They were in multiple debates.
2. No, it's not. I want details from your claims. What behaviour from a non-citizen that is apparently not criminal should get them deported? What makes someone a "hostile alien" if they haven't committed a crime?
1. And how much negative press did your lapdog media give them?
2. No, you don't want that. What you want is to avoid admitting your position, ie that you are fine with immigrants being anti-British, or anti-western, because YOU are anti-british and anti-western. So, you try to bog the discussion down in fag talk.
1. Some. The Conservatives also got tons of negative press because of the dire straits they were in. So did Labour across the campaign. In general all parties here get negative press.
But again, I've answered your point. A more hardline anti-immigration party was on offer.
2. Yes, I do. That's why I've asked it repeatedly. What behaviours expressed constitute being anti-british, or anti-western?
How am I anti-british and anti-western? What views have I express that show that?
1. Yeah, I don't believe you. I know how the media works. The link I gave contained some good stuff on how your media is as anti-UK as our is anti-American.
2. You are anti-british, anti-American and anti-western. Which is why you support the anti-british and anti-western policies of your government.
1. I live here. You do not. You posted Sargon of Akkad who is hardly a balanced observer in any of this.
2. That's not an answer. That's just you repeating myself. How am I anti-british? How am I anti-western? What policies of the current government in the UK do I specifically support? Can you even name any?
I think wanting to suppress free expression, as you do is fundamentally anti-western. Can I call you anti-western?
You are anti-British as you reflexively side against british people and for the people against them.
shareWho are these "anti-british" people I am supposedly siding with, exactly?
Who are the people against these anti-british people that I'm supposedly siding against?
Why not stopping? Why reduce?
shareBecause we don't have a good enough birth rate, I don't believe in an ethnostate, and we do have skill shortages in certain sectors, and I do support people coming here for legitimate reasons of asylum. The rate coming in are too much though.
share1. Not good enough birth rate? The proper response to this, is not to import hostile third world populations but to investigate why you society is discouraging your own people from forming families.
2. No ethnostate? explain/
3. Skill shortages? TRAIN YOUR OWN PEOPLE AND PAY THEM MORE. Don't import hostile aliens.
4. Asylum my ass. Any nation has a limit to what can be successfully assimilated. You people have choosen to exceed that with mass third world immigration. It was YOUR choice to do that.
5. Of course the rate is too much. The answer is not to just slow the rate, to reverse the flow. Reducing the rate doesn't solve anything.
1. I didn't say it should be to completely import, but specifically that our own native birth rate is not good enough in the long-run. And it's not a specific UK thing. Almost every country on earth, if not every country on earth is seeing birth rate declines. USA included.
2. I don't support the UK becoming an ethnostate.
3. Yes. We should do that too. But there will always be some skill shortages in various sectors.
4. When did I say we should accept everyone who might want to come here?
5. No, that's your answer. That's not my answer. You don't get to dictate to me, or the UK what we should or should not.
It is not your fucking country.
1. The answer is to address the problem(s) hurting your people, not just replace them.
2. Was it wrong when england was more english?
3. But you aren't doing it. You are instead importing hostile replacement population.
4. Your nation's ability to assimilate has been massively exceeded. That was your choice to do. Now you have to wait two generations to try to digest the hostile populations in your nation.
5. It is not my answer. It is the only answer. Anything else is just fucking your own people for reasons that you will not explain.
1. It's no specific problem. It's birth rates in general. Nowhere has managed to successfully reverse those trends.
2. No.
3. No, we're not. Or not effectively enough. Lets skill-up Brits **and** allow some level of immigration.
4. Again: The answer is to reduce. I don't even think you get the issues here. It's chiefly a problem with Islam. We have much less a problem with Hindus, Sikhs, or Jews. Or any other religious or cultural minority.
5. It is not "the only answer". We just had an election. The results were clear.
1. What you just said was stupid. It is a "specific" problem. It likely has many CAUSES. Yes, nowhere has managed to reverse it. A good government would be TRYING. The policy of just ignoring it and just replacing their dying out people with shitty third world immigrants, is the reaction of a completely decadent and degraded political class.
2. So, why the shit talk about an "ethnostate"?
3. Or better yet, skill up the brits and deport the hostile invaders.
4. No, YOU don't get the math. If the population of invaders is too large to assimilate SLOWING the flow on additional invaders is not a solution. You need to REDUCE the amount HERE, to acceptable levels.
5. The results show that the interests and wishes of the native population of brits and scots are not represented in national policy.
1. Yes, it does. Many of these causes are completely outside of the governments hands. Birth rate decline is due to social, economic and cultural reasons. We can try some things, but it will likely not be enough.
2. Because it also wasn't inherently better. I have no problem with non-white people living in the UK and becoming citizens, or being born in the UK.
3. We should deport any 'hostile invader' (non-citizen) who commits a crime and tighten up our asylum rules.
4. The people coming here, in totality, are not all inherently "hostile invaders". I fundamentally reject your framing. The reasons we need to mitigate immigration, as much as anything else, are to do with housing, jobs, strain on public services. Nothing directly to do with integration - although that is a factor sometimes.
5. How do they do that? Do you even know the wishes of the native UK population? Do you even know wgat the UK election results were?
1. Success or failure is not the point. THey are not even TRYING. They just let their people suffer these problems and the effects and move to replace them with immigrants. That is a massive failure of your nation, specifically your political elite.
2. What you've stated as your reasons for mentioning "ethnostate" would justify a neutral position. It does not explain why you cited it as a reason to NOT halt immigration. It seems that you were just "race baiting" to try to undermine my position with...shit talk.
3. Which you know wouldn't really change anything. The massive populations already imported would remain and continue to outbreed the native born population, giving you ever increasing harm to the interests of brits and scots, which seems to be your goal.
4. Remember when you lefties tried to cancel that elderly actor for mentioning that London was "less british"?, If you people were serious about not being hostile then a realistic discussion of the impact of the immigration would be allowed. Instead, a white guy making a minor complaint, was treated as a scandal. That is massive hostility.
5. No people are so simp that they want to be invaded, have their children raped and enslaved and be second class citizens in their own homeland.
1. How the fuck would you know if the UK government are trying or not?
2. We can't just stop immigration without causing severe economic issues, and nor would I want to do that. Brits get into relationships and want to live together, bring their partners over. That's immigration. This is a global world.
3. No. The birth rate amongst immigrant communities also declines too. Excluding Palestine, the birth rates in the Gulf are not immense. Birth rates are also declining in the Islamic world. It's declining almost everywhere.
4. What actor? Are you referring to John Cleese? How was he almost cancelled?
It is allowed. People talk about immigration all the time here. How the fuck would you know that we don't? You don't fucking live here.
5. That's not an answer to my question. Can you tell me how the wishes of the white British population are not respected in national policy, and how you claim to know this?
1. I am interested in this issue and I have followed the discussion on this issue somewhat. If the UK government was even trying to address this, I would have heard about it.
2. You mentioned your opposititon to "ethnostate", but when I want an explanation of what you mean, you change the subject to economics. Just admit that you were race baiting to bolster your weak position.
3. Eventually. Slowly. And of course, you know that after a few years, you lefties would get into power again and allow illegal immigration to rise again. So your "consession" on this point, isn't really...real.
4. I saw the attacks on him and the hostility from the left on the BBC. If the UK was as reasonable about this issue as you pretend, that would not have happened. It would have been admitted and the discussion would have been about whether that was ok or not, not the hysterical attacks on him for daring to be a white man and speak out of turn.
5. That is my answer. I am making an assumption about the brit and scot population of the uk.
No people are so simp that they want to be invaded, have their children raped and enslaved and be second class citizens in their own homeland.
1. I don't believe you. You didn't even seem to be aware the UK had an election in July 2024, and asked me who the main anti-immigration party was.
2. I don't support the idea of expelling people because of their race, or implementing policies designed to convert the UK into an ethnostate.
3. What are you on about? What concession did I make? I simply stated that the birth rate is declining everywhere, including large parts of the Muslim world. Poverty decline and uplifting of women is a huge causer of birth rate declines.
4. So he made a comment and was heavily criticised. Was he arrested?
And you do realise that John Cleese is not the only person in the UK to ever make comments about immigration, right?
5. And you're wrong in your assumptions, specifically in how you characterise the general interpretation of immigration here from many people.
A good thing that the government does not have a policy to allow the rape or enslavement of children, nor any policy that makes White British people second-class citizens.
Would you like to see some post-riot opinion polling?
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/809529709024378890/1272527661910196357/612d5735-c8b4-42d0-b6d0-a6e1d18f87b0_660x571.webp?ex=66bb4d3d&is=66b9fbbd&hm=a5a3679c2cc73df078f9d2941e480be9168fcdc12f4e5e55481d47fad153d14b&;
Explain this please.
1. Ok, Soooooo, what major and innovative polices has the UK government done to try to address this problem?
2. Dude. You're clearly just using that word as some form of race baiting. Stop that.
3. Irrelevant twaddle.
4. As I said, if your nation was as reasonable on this issue as you pretend, he would not have been criticized and attacked. People are allowed to discuss changes in their country and complain about them. If not, that means something.
5. No people are so simp that they want to be invaded, have their children raped and enslaved or killed and be second class citizens in their own homeland. That your polling says otherwise, tells me that, most likely your people have been LIED to massively about what is going on.
1. It's been a month. And the government was sidetracked by riots for the last couple of weeks.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/channel-government-rwanda-yvette-cooper-home-office-b2581264.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/yvette-cooper-immigration-boats-channel-b2583272.html
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/work/uk-may-be-planning-to-tighten-visa-rules-for-hiring-foreign-techies/articleshow/112457976.cms?from=mdr
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77l41z8yn7o (also from previous government)
Two things of specific note so far.
2. Many users on here fundamentally call for an ethnostate in every country.
3. How is disagreeing with your claim about birth rates from the Islamic world "irrelevant twaddle"?
4. Every public figure who makes statements of some kind gets criticised and attacked. Immigration is bought up all the time by the media and public figures here.
And who said that people are not allowed to discuss changes in their country in the UK? Was John Cleese arrested?
5. A good thing that the government does not have a policy to allow the rape or enslavement of children, nor any policy that makes White British people second-class citizens.
>That your polling says otherwise, tells me that, most likely your people have been LIED to massively about what is going on.
That polling is a response to the riots and how the UK public views the rioters. Do you dispute that polling?
And here we are then, completely unfalsifiable. We're just too stupid to know what we think. You do know that the net migration figures in the UK are public knowledge then?
1. The problem has been an known issue for quite some time. I said that your government has done nothing. YOu sort of disagreed. So, WHAT HAVE THEY DONE?
2. "Fundementally", that lefty code for, well no, they didn't say it, but I want to race bait, ,so I will pretend that they did.
3. Because it wasn't relevant to the point I made about the large, hostile populations already inside the uk.
4. IF the UK political and cultural elite was as reasonable on this issue as you are pretending a man that claimed that london was getting less english, as it got less english, would not have been attacked. That he was vilified by race baiting lefties like yourself, demonstrates that your pretense of reasonableness is a LIE.
5. i explained my position. It is based on faith in the LACK of simpness of the brit and scot population. i do NOT believe that any population would support the abuse and oppression that has been done to the brit and scot population. I just do not believe it.
1. I just gave you multiple examples of what the outgoing government, and new new incoming government plans to do. Why did you ignore the multiple links?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/channel-government-rwanda-yvette-cooper-home-office-b2581264.html
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/yvette-cooper-immigration-boats-channel-b2583272.html
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/work/uk-may-be-planning-to-tighten-visa-rules-for-hiring-foreign-techies/articleshow/112457976.cms?from=mdr
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77l41z8yn7o (also from previous government)
2. I can directly name at least two users active on here that call for it: maixiu and curiousmind.
3. Yes it is. You claimed that the immigrants will continue to have way more kids than the white population. This is not backed up by actual real-world data regarding birth rate trends.
4. Oh no! Someone was criticised for what they said. Big cry now. Plenty of people criticise immigration levels in the UK. Nothing happens to them.
5. You misrepresented how white British people interpret the situation in the Uk surrounding immigration. And I note your weird distinction between "Brit" and "Scot". Scots *are* British.
There is no abuse and oppression conducted by the government against the white population of the UK. Your position here is rooted in a false premise.
1. I asked you for what the government is doing about the birth rate issue. YOU tell me. The links are to support your claims, not to give me shit to wade though.
2. WOW. TWO users online. That is your justification? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
3. To support your case you would have to show rapid drop in birth rate of immigrate population to match native brit or scot population. You did not do that. So your posts were useless shit.
4. Him being attacked for stating the obvious, ie that london was becoming less british, demonstrates that your pretense of being reasonable on the issue, is a lie.
5. You have not denied the incidents I cited. You won't becuase it would be easy for me to make you look like a fool. So your talk of "misrepresent" is just shit talk on your part.
1. I thought you meant immigration. Nothing specifically to solve that. Fixing the economy, or trying to in itself would go some way to improving conditions to improve it. There's also a lot of pressure on Labour on repealing the two-child benefit cap.
2. I was talking about people on here that call for it. What did you think I was on about?
3. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/parentscountryofbirthenglandandwales/2019
Slow decline from 2.50 from 2004 from non-UK women to 2.00.
4. We live in a free society. He says things. He gets criticised. He didn't get arrested or destroyed. He has a new show coming up.
5. What incidents? That John Cleese was criticised?
1. Nothing specifically to solve that. As I said. That is your government not caring to address your people's actual problems, and just moving to replace them.
2. We were discussing UK government policy. You changed to discussion a few online posters. Typical lib playing dumb to derail thread.
3. LOL. non uk women? So you're lumping french women in with women from pakistan? HAHAHAHAHA. Smooth move. It's like you're trying to hide the truth.
4. The hysterical attacks on him disprove your claim of reasonableness.
5. The incidents I listed before. Dumbass fag.
1. Labour has been in office for one month. And the issue with birth rates and what causes them to go up or down is so broad and wide-reaching that any policy that has any influence on jobs, housing, the economy etc will have some degree of influence. So I don't quite get what your point is here.
2. No-one in the Uk wants an ethnostate, and there's no majority in favour of freezing immigration.
3. That's the data that is. The point is that the overall birth rate is declining amongst non-UK women. If you are going to claim that most non-UK heritage women in the UK happen to be from Europe, and thus this explains the decline, then you've inadvertently argued that most non-UK people aren't from the Middle-East or India. Which would be an odd position for you to take.
Why aren't the substantial birth rates, that you claim exist from the gulf and india and pakistan somehow keeping the birth rate amongst non-UK women high, or even increasing?
4. You have not even citated a single example of a "hysterial attack" on him.
5. You haven't mentioned any other incidents involving people who criticise immigration.
1. I am not talking about your current labor adminstration but your government as a whole. It has no concern with this issue, and the harm it is causing it's citizens.
2. So, WHY DID YOU RACE BAIT?
3. And your government is purposefully lumping in other european women with pakistani or syrian or turkish women. LOL.
4. He made a reasonable complaint and was attacked as being racist. That you are pretending that those people are reasonable, is you being a faggot.
5. Correct. I listed a list of examples of your government policy abosultely FUCKING your own native citizens.
1. You have no way of knowing this at all.
2. I didn't race-bait. Are you going to acknowledge that there's no support for freezing immigration in the UK?
3. I don't think you understand the data. European women have comparable, if not lower birth rates than UK women. If European women were bringing that average non-UK women birth rates down heavily, that would imply there were a lot of them coming into the country in the last 5 years, which is just not born out by any statistical data.
4. Some people attacked him. So? People also have free speech and responded to his comments. What's your point?
5. You haven't referred to any government policy.
1. You've admitted that they have no policy for this. Just above.
2. Why mention ethnostate when there is no support of that policy? Because you were race baiting, ie a false accusation of racism.
3. Really? You don't have significant polish or russian immgration? I think you are a liar.
4. It was more than that. The reaction from people like you, was that he was being racist and inciting racism. That shows that your pretense of being reasonable on such issues is just you DEFENDING the arrest of people making legit points.
5. Go fuck yourself liar.
https://x.com/Bob_cart124/status/1820593900605837673
I found Skavau. Check it out.
Except that isn't me, and I dislike Islam.
share1. No. I said they have no *specific* policy for this specific problem. To my knowledge. It's one month into their term. And as I said, birth rate is not something that can be solved with a specific policy.
2. There's also no support for stopping immigration entirely, but that doesn't seem to bother you.
3. Russian? No, we don't have a significant Russian population. We did have Polish intake, but not lately.
4. How was it "more than that"? What happened to him exactly?
5. I haven't lied about anything. The only hateful pigshit liar here is you. It must boil your piss that you can't get rid of me.
[deleted]
All of these are lies.
How is it you can reply to Corbells replies to me? I thought you had me ignored.
[deleted]
I'll await evidence for this then.
Btw, can I say that you're harassing and obsessing over me at this point? Do you think this level of obsession from you over someone on the internet, that you're lying about, is at all suggestive of good mental health?
by the way, you're not in your mid 50s, you're 20 years younger...
investigations have been done, and the outcome is shocking.
That's not an answer to my question.
sharealso you have seen those gay teen shows you claimed you didn't
No I haven't. And again: Do you think this behaviour from you is not a rather obvious cut and dry case of harassment?
You are following me around on the forum, spreading lies about me to almost everyone who interacts with me. How is that not harassment?
i told you yesterday that hounding people for "evidence" is harrassing people.
you said it wasn't and people have the choice to respond to you or not.
you too have the same choice, it seems you want different rules for yourself.
anyway, tomorrow theres skavauleaks
>i told you yesterday that hounding people for "evidence" is harrassing people.
Which is absurd. People reply to me, and I reply to them. If I ask someone for evidence 17 times, that means they have replied to me 17 times. They are also replying to me. Why isn't that also harassment by your logic?
What you are doing, however, is following me around the forum and spreading lies about me to everyone I am talking to. You've done that many times on here now. How is that not harassment?
>you said it wasn't and people have the choice to respond to you or not.
Right, but you're dragging everyone else into it.
You are genuinely cripplingly unhealthily obsessed with me, and your behaviour is textbook harassment.
>you too have the same choice, it seems you want different rules for yourself.
You lob accusations at me, and I will reply to you.
Why is that not a perfectly reasonable thing to do? Make baseless, inciteful claims about me, and I reserve the right to defend myself from blatant lies.
and i'll respond to you.
i'd be worried about skavauleaks if i was you.
>and i'll respond to you.
Right, and you following me around the following and dragging other people into this is 100% harassment.
Can you also explain why you're so utterly obsessed over me? Almost all of your posts on here are about me. Unprompted.
>i'd be worried about skavauleaks if i was you.
You have nothing of any note. You lie about me all the time on here. The claims you make are total lies.
If you had evidence of any of your claims, you'd be able to back them up.
In other words, he didn't threaten the people behind child rape gangs, the ones who roam the streets carrying machetes.
Got it.
...You know you can do two things at once, right?
Are you saying when faced with riots, he should not focus on stopping them and instead talk about other things?
Soon, all western governments will become hostile to their natural citizens... arm up, people.
sharehttps://x.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1822271228364632363
shareA 69-year-old man who armed himself with a wooden cosh and joined a "mob" during violent riots across Merseyside has been jailed.
William Nelson Morgan, of Linton Street, Walton, is one of two men who received prison sentences earlier for their involvement in unrest in Walton and Southport.
Morgan, who played a part in the destruction of Spellow Lane Library on County Road, and John O'Malley, 43, who was identified in footage at the front of a "baying mob" in Southport, were jailed for two years and eight months at Liverpool Crown Court.