UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Souseiseki]

they targeted EU migrants, who would be perfectly entitled to stay if they weren't homeless. they could have used the data to help them, but they decided to use it to deport people instead.

and it's not just illegal immigrants, it's a precedent that any data a homeless person gives to a charity (or indeed, any information anyone gives to any charity) may eventually find it's way into the hands of the government to be used against them.

Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, said: “Vulnerable foreigners have been systematically targeted by a government obsessed with deportation, whatever the human cost. Children have been kept away from schools. Pregnant women and others in need of medical help are avoiding seeking it.

“Now even people forced to sleep on the streets will be frightened to seek support. Who knows where else the Home Office’s poisonous tentacles have reached? There is a crisis of compassion in our political system and it needs to be exposed and undone. The government must come clean and end these secret deals – or we will look to challenge them in court.”

basically this. but maybe they don't deserve medical care in the first place? a controversial subject!

[Dooom35796821595]

So Charities will have a harder time helping homeless illegal immigrants they shouldn't be helping in the first place?

The fact they're here illegally means they are likley unable to seek asylum, and I don't see any legitimate reason why they should remain.

...
Okay.
Just them being physically on these islands isn't actually a problem, you know?
It's the resources thing.

I can't think of a single reason to give a fuck if someone is here illegally, unemployed and homeless, and not a criminal.
So... aren't there more important things the government could be doing than undermining public confidence in charity to go after the least problematic type of illegal immigrants?

My main concern would be why they're in that situation, and the concerns about how they're going to survive without turning to crime.

It may not be nice, I just don't think it goes as far as evil.

[Ostroeuropa]

...
Okay.
Just them being physically on these islands isn't actually a problem, you know?
It's the resources thing.

I can't think of a single reason to give a fuck if someone is here illegally, unemployed and homeless, and not a criminal.
So... aren't there more important things the government could be doing than undermining public confidence in charity to go after the least problematic type of illegal immigrants?

My main concern would be why they're in that situation, and the concerns about how they're going to survive without turning to crime.

It may not be nice, I just don't think it goes as far as evil.

By charity presumably.
They're in that situation because they'd prefer to live in britain based on what private individuals are prepared to offer them than go home, presumably.

If they want to go home, they can, after all, they just have to turn themselves in.

If its non-consensual prostitution or human trafficking or some such, then thats a larger issue, and this action will only undermine the destruction of those modern slave trades.

So long as they aren't engaging with the public or publically licensed businesses, merely private charities, I don't see a problem.

I'd prefer we see illegal immigration as a problem of illegally interacting with public resources, rather than mere physical presence.
That would also allow us to prioritize properly.

The harm stems from the former, not the latter.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

"They're not sending their best. They're sending their loafers, not doing anything economical, not taking our tax dollars but making OUR hard-working citizens waste their hard-earned money on contributing to their own slavery! This must end!"

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

they targeted EU migrants, who would be perfectly entitled to stay if they weren't homeless.

That's actually not true, we're only obliged to let EU citizens stay if they have jobs (or are reasonably searching for one).

In most European countries this isn't an issue because there is central registration and ID cards. Will you be deported from Germany because you're a homeless Brit? No, you will just be deregistered as living in Germany and then automatically be excluded from everything. If you are a homeless German in Britain you can, in practice, still use the NHS and other public assistance pretty much freely. Yes on paper you cannot but in reality hospitals don't turn people away on mere suspicion.

We could introduce ID cards and central registration - the EU system largely assumes it since every other country in the Union does have such a system - but isn't opposition to that sort of thing your main political interest?

[Hydesland]

So under the second, the Guardian must be banned. Right?

I believe there are already laws regarding inciting violence that could get the Guardian in trouble, if they were to ever actually do that (which I've never seen myself).

[Fartsniffage]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41025082

But we'll have our sovereignty back. We might be hungry but nationalism can nourish us.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41025082

But we'll have our sovereignty back. We might be hungry but nationalism can nourish us.

Are you suggesting we eat the 'kippers?

[Fartsniffage]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41025082

But we'll have our sovereignty back. We might be hungry but nationalism can nourish us.

Are you suggesting we eat the 'kippers?

We'd need to add a lot of sugar.....

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41025082

But we'll have our sovereignty back. We might be hungry but nationalism can nourish us.

Well, they can offer higher wages then.

[Fartsniffage]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41025082

But we'll have our sovereignty back. We might be hungry but nationalism can nourish us.

Well, they can offer higher wages then.

And the poor are still going hungry. Higher wages equals higher food costs.

[Ostroeuropa]

Well, they can offer higher wages then.

And the poor are still going hungry. Higher wages equals higher food costs.

Not really at this point. It'll just eat into their profits.
Prices are what people are willing to pay, and we already have surpluses that simply get thrown out. (You'd assume this would lower the prices, but it does not, as the prices are set at what people are willing to pay.)

If the price of food rises, it won't sell, and competitor brands will. It's pretty much that simple.

The utilization of cheaper labor was to expand profits, not deliver cheaper goods. The goods are as cheap as they are likely to get.

For bread, it's 44% of all loaves that are simply going unused and eventually destroyed.

Public pressure has mounted to the point that paying for food at all is basically being asserted as paying for the convenience of using the supermarket, with many chains being forced by public outrage into donating surpluses.

You can't beat "Free, if a few days old." in terms of price.

FairShare, a single charity, has about 2% of all UK food just up and given to it.

Raising wages for the food producers would merely mean the supermarkets profit a little less, that's all. Competition between them would mean a price rise across the board would alert us to price collusion, a crime.
When one supermarket raises food prices, it's often because of lack of competition in the area, and not anything else.

One source:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable ... -fairshare

Supermarkets basically operate on the idea that they should be able to single-handedly provide all food to an area, then compete to try and achieve that by lowering prices and doing schemes and stuff, eventually driving the other out (in theory), and then hiking the price until they hit diminishing returns (Charging as much as possible, not what the goods are actually worth) and maintaining a monopoly.
If you have two in one place, that means they're wasting massive amounts.

Forcing them to pay their workers more would have negligible effects.

[Ostroeuropa]

'If you were a man, you'd be going to jail,' judge tells woman burglar

http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crim ... -1-8716758

I'm sure it'll be a national shitstorm and the media will pounce on this happening to someone.

(And when it isn't, behold, government, judicial, activist, and media institutions riddled with misandry.)

To drive the point home further;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 07286.html

Restricting access to children as a punishment for males is performed in UK prisons.

If we restrict your access to the child, it would punish the child.
v
We're restricting your access to the child to punish you.

Note, those "Punishments" are handed out not for doing anything, but for failing to show
"positive and motivated behaviour."

Baroness Benjamin, who recently raised the issue in the House of Lords, said: “It should be a child’s right to visit their dad in prison, not for a dad to earn the right to see their child. Children massively struggle with the distress and confusion of having their father taken away.

She fails to notice that this is the dynamic our society has set up in general for fathers, due to the dehumanzation of males and the hyperfocus on women and their problems/perspectives.
Note that a man has no right to the child if he doesn't pay child support, for example. he must earn the right to see children.

However, women can up and commit crimes and the NEED for the child to see her is used as reason to avoid jail.

Consider also:

Research shows that good family relationships are “indispensable” to a prisoner achieving rehabilitation, with Ministry of Justice figures showing that the odds of a prisoner who receives visits from a partner or family member reoffending are 39 per cent lower than for those who do not receive such visits.

And consider that this kind of attack on mens access to children has been pushed for for decades.

[Souseiseki]

while there is an obvious sympathy for women that is not given to men (no one would give a shit if a man was lured into heroin by his girlfriend) the very next line, "But I have to take into account not only your welfare but the welfare of your child.", makes it clear he was referring to her having a child but neglected to remember that men can have children too because he is an idiot. though, of course, a single mother is also more likely to receive sympathy than a single father, but it's still worth noting.

though, of course, i've also stopped giving a shit and britain's society and legal system is garbage, so fuck it.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

If the price of food rises, it won't sell, and competitor brands will. It's pretty much that simple.

The utilization of cheaper labor was to expand profits, not deliver cheaper goods. The goods are as cheap as they are likely to get.

I'm trying to be on your side but this is the most ass-backwards interpretation of supply and demand ever.

[Ostroeuropa]

while there is an obvious sympathy for women that is not given to men (no one would give a shit if a man was lured into heroin by his girlfriend) the very next line, "But I have to take into account not only your welfare but the welfare of your child.", makes it clear he was referring to her having a child but neglected to remember that men can have children too because he is an idiot. though, of course, a single mother is also more likely to receive sympathy than a single father, but it's still worth noting.

though, of course, i've also stopped giving a shit and britain's society and legal system is garbage, so fuck it.

Here you go.

To drive the point home further;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho ... 07286.html

Restricting access to children as a punishment for males is performed in UK prisons.

If we restrict your access to the child, it would punish the child.
v
We're restricting your access to the child to punish you.

Note, those "Punishments" are handed out not for doing anything, but for failing to show
"positive and motivated behaviour."

Baroness Benjamin, who recently raised the issue in the House of Lords, said: “It should be a child’s right to visit their dad in prison, not for a dad to earn the right to see their child. Children massively struggle with the distress and confusion of having their father taken away.


She fails to notice that this is the dynamic our society has set up in general for fathers, due to the dehumanzation of males and the hyperfocus on women and their problems/perspectives.
Note that a man has no right to the child if he doesn't pay child support, for example. he must earn the right to see children.

However, women can up and commit crimes and the NEED for the child to see her is used as reason to avoid jail.

Consider also:

Research shows that good family relationships are “indispensable” to a prisoner achieving rehabilitation, with Ministry of Justice figures showing that the odds of a prisoner who receives visits from a partner or family member reoffending are 39 per cent lower than for those who do not receive such visits.


And consider that this kind of attack on mens access to children has been pushed for for decades.

So no, don't gimme that.
It's an outright lie that sexists use to make themselves feel better about there being two tiers of citizens in our society.

Pretending it has something to do with childrens interests is a frequent dodge by gynocentrists and womens supremacists, but the logic never seems to hold up.
Indeed, none of there logic seems to when closely examined, consider for example alimony.

It was argued ad nauseum that it was necessary and fair because of the effort put in by women into the careers of their husbands, the fruits treated as a joint enterprise.

But it's clear from the fact that the women retains no obligations that this was merely a convenient lie or self-delusion about the focus those campaigners took.
Rather, they were only concerned with women and their wellbeing. Not fairness, not an effective system, etc, the men could rot.

There was not a drive to demand mandatory employment as maids/cooks for ex-wives, despite this work often forming the foundation of the claim.
There was a drive to get half the money and suddenly we forgot about the notion it's a joint enterprise and all the work you put in that was absolutely totally necessary to get the career going being suddenly removed not resulting in the guy losing his job doesn't say anything about it at all.

This prison example is another.
It's not about the children.
It's about our societies utter capitulation to gynocentrism. A series of excuses are provided by people who don't want to notice it, but they're usually shit and fall apart upon inspection, because they're kneejerk and rely on *not actually examining the situation.*

To examine it means to notice the gynocentrism, and noticing it means you want to fix it, which means wanting women to no longer be the center of our policy, and naturally means some will be worse off.

It is better that a thousand men die in the gutter than a single woman be forced to choose coffee when she would prefer a latte.

[Souseiseki]

as i tried to say, the logic regarding children is sound. it just so happens that it needs to be applied to men as well.

[Ostroeuropa]

as i tried to say, the logic regarding children is sound. it just so happens that it needs to be applied to men as well.

Why is it sound?
Presumably the children have fathers.

[Souseiseki]

as i tried to say, the logic regarding children is sound. it just so happens that it needs to be applied to men as well.

Why is it sound?
Presumably the children have fathers.

it just so happens that it needs to be applied to men as well.

[San Lumen]

I was just curious.

Pretty sure, yeah. In particular: by the government's definition of "urban" (living in settlements of population at least 10,000), over 80% of the population is urban, and as crap as our system is, it isn't crap enough for 80% of the vote to not result in a majority in any non-pathological arrangement.

so just urban areas and large cities alone couldn't get one party a majority?

[Ostroeuropa]

Why is it sound?
Presumably the children have fathers.

it just so happens that it needs to be applied to men as well.

What does it matter if she has dependents?

The innocence of your offspring applies but not the crimes of your parents?

[Souseiseki]

actually now you mention it the whole "this person has kids and lives a good socially approved life so their punishment is lighter" is pretty bullshit yes

if it's worth putting them in prison over then they should be so dangerous it doesn't matter

[Ostroeuropa]

actually now you mention it the whole "this person has kids and lives a good socially approved life so their punishment is lighter" is pretty bullshit yes

if it's worth putting them in prison over then they should be so dangerous it doesn't matter

Pretty much my view yeh.

[Menardocracy]

https://www.indy100.com/article/nigel-farage-tweeted-bbc-bias-twitter-destroyed-him-ukip-glastonbury-jeremy-corbyn-7807976

So Nigel Farage decided to have a go at the BBC for political bias because they covered Jeremy Corbyn appearing at Glastonbury.

And it turns out that it might not have been that well thought through, because people have long memories, and can do maths a bit better than he can.

Farage :- Why should we pay the BBC licence fee just so they can promote @JeremyCorbyn? Outrageous.

Farage :- Have this lot had a look at what they're actually supporting? Google 'Marxism'. #Glastonbury

Farage has been on BBC Question Time around twice a year (the 10th most popular in the history of the show) despite never being elected to Parliament. And despite the fact UKIP have never managed more than two MPs in Parliament since 2010, they have appeared on 25% of Question Time shows since 2010.

These facts were quickly pointed out to them by several tweets in tones ranging from insulting to sarcastic, but all of them quite amusing

UKIP had seat on 25% of Question Time shows since 2010. Never had more that 2 MP's. Didn't moan about that, did you?

*Tweeted from UKIP's permanent seat on the BBCQT panel, while preparing to comment on something he's no part of whatsoever on BBC News.

General election 2017:

UKIP - 594,068 votes
Labour - 12,877,869 votes

2167% more exposure is therefore democratically representative.

It's stating the obvious, but don't remember you complaining when they were giving you so much airtime?

I half wish Nigel had done a Glasto speech so I could count all the bottles of warm piss chucked at him. Daphne & Celeste all over again.

Go on Nige, walk on the Glasto stage. I'm fairly sure the BBC would happily broadcast what happens for, er, balance.

When is this washed-up has been going to accept he literally has no relevance in modern life any more, and just fuck off? I would say "and just join all the other has been MPs" but lets face is - to be a "has been MP" he would have to - at one point - actually been an MP

At least Nigel Farage wanted to save the UK from the direction that it was heading, while Jeremy Corbyn would completely destroy the UK and turn it into a shithole like Venezuala. Under Jeremy Corbyn, the labour party is going to become a fringe group while UKIP was popularized when Nigel Farage was leader.

[Fartsniffage]

https://www.indy100.com/article/nigel-farage-tweeted-bbc-bias-twitter-destroyed-him-ukip-glastonbury-jeremy-corbyn-7807976

So Nigel Farage decided to have a go at the BBC for political bias because they covered Jeremy Corbyn appearing at Glastonbury.

And it turns out that it might not have been that well thought through, because people have long memories, and can do maths a bit better than he can.

Farage :- Why should we pay the BBC licence fee just so they can promote @JeremyCorbyn? Outrageous.

Farage :- Have this lot had a look at what they're actually supporting? Google 'Marxism'. #Glastonbury

Farage has been on BBC Question Time around twice a year (the 10th most popular in the history of the show) despite never being elected to Parliament. And despite the fact UKIP have never managed more than two MPs in Parliament since 2010, they have appeared on 25% of Question Time shows since 2010.

These facts were quickly pointed out to them by several tweets in tones ranging from insulting to sarcastic, but all of them quite amusing













When is this washed-up has been going to accept he literally has no relevance in modern life any more, and just fuck off? I would say "and just join all the other has been MPs" but lets face is - to be a "has been MP" he would have to - at one point - actually been an MP

At least Nigel Farage wanted to save the UK from the direction that it was heading, while Jeremy Corbyn would completely destroy the UK and turn it into a shithole like Venezuala. Under Jeremy Corbyn, the labour party is going to become a fringe group while UKIP was popularized when Nigel Farage was leader.

Who are you?