Immigration hits all-time high

OUT OF HOURS BULLY'S TRUCKSTOP BAR (INTERACTIVE)
261

robroy:
0

Seems like I am wrong, so hands up

But ffs.I can’t help but notice they actually and literally highlight the point he comes from a …quote:… ‘‘Church going family’’ :unamused:
Oh well that makes it ok then eh? :unamused:
Wtf is the relavance of that exactly,? …they may as well say he came from a ‘regular cinema going family’., or were regular customers to Wetherspoons. :unamused:
The question is rhetorical, I know the obvious answer… it’s the leftie agenda of stressing he aint Muslim nor a fundamentalist nut case , hell bent on ‘killing all infidels’.

Political correctness and ‘wokeism’ at it’s [zb] worst.
Presumably that is why they took so long to disclose what we all knew, he was an immigrant…obviously checking his [zb] religion first… :unamused:

You don’t get it.
The narrative will always be quick to associate “immigrant criminals” with things like “Church Going” or “White Supremacist” or “Right Wing” if ever they can…

Had the guy been lgbtq+, Islamic, Loony Left, and labour-voting - we wouldn’t have known anything about the perp following their arrest - for weeks after! :open_mouth:

There is a pause after each of these foul crimes happens: To esablish “who can be blamed”?

In America, the Gun usually gets blamed, rather than just call a wicked murdering scumbag for what they are - regardless of any "creed, colour, or nationality presumably from which they have completely broken away anyways…
In the case of “Illegal Immigrants” - are they not supposed to be fleeing something bad in their old country?

262

On the contrary mate,.YOU don’t get it in fact.
After deciphering your post,.(as far as I can see) that is exactly what I was getting at.

263

Winseer:

robroy:
0

Seems like I am wrong, so hands up

But ffs.I can’t help but notice they actually and literally highlight the point he comes from a …quote:… ‘‘Church going family’’ :unamused:
Oh well that makes it ok then eh? :unamused:
Wtf is the relavance of that exactly,? …they may as well say he came from a ‘regular cinema going family’., or were regular customers to Wetherspoons. :unamused:
The question is rhetorical, I know the obvious answer… it’s the leftie agenda of stressing he aint Muslim nor a fundamentalist nut case , hell bent on ‘killing all infidels’.

Political correctness and ‘wokeism’ at it’s [zb] worst.
Presumably that is why they took so long to disclose what we all knew, he was an immigrant…obviously checking his [zb] religion first… :unamused:

You don’t get it.
The narrative will always be quick to associate “immigrant criminals” with things like “Church Going” or “White Supremacist” or “Right Wing” if ever they can…

Had the guy been lgbtq+, Islamic, Loony Left, and labour-voting - we wouldn’t have known anything about the perp following their arrest - for weeks after! :open_mouth:

There is a pause after each of these foul crimes happens: To esablish “who can be blamed”?

In America, the Gun usually gets blamed, rather than just call a wicked murdering scumbag for what they are - regardless of any "creed, colour, or nationality presumably from which they have completely broken away anyways…
In the case of “Illegal Immigrants” - are they not supposed to be fleeing something bad in their old country?

It’s always reported if they’re muslim. That guy who killed Lee Rigby was identified as a muslim by the media the second it happened.

And the gun gets blamed because you can kill more people with a gun. You’re not telling me you’d rather live in a country with gun ownership? Every time someone got cut up they’d be pulling their tings out and blasting at each other.

264

JeffA:
It’s always reported if they’re muslim.

A lot was reported about the Rochdale child abuse cases. Quite rightly so.
A lot less has been seen in the papers about the grooming gang convicted in Birmingham this year of child abuse.

The Rochdale case involves very suspect policing standards, the B`ham case seems better managed all round, so that accounts for some of the reporting differences. But I wonder if that is the only difference?
Rochdale: 9 men of Asian origins abused young teenage girls.
Brum: 21 men and women apparently of ethnic white origins abused children of 12 and younger.

And surprise, surprise, politicians with axes to grind are less than honest with facts:
“Suella Braverman’s recent claims about “grooming gangs” go well beyond mere dog whistles and into overt racism. She asserts that perpetrators are “almost all British-Pakistani” and reduces victims to “overwhelmingly white girls from disadvantaged or troubled backgrounds”. While she presents these assertions as “facts”, they directly contradict her own department’s findings. A 2020 Home Office report concluded that such “group-based CSE (child ■■■■■■ exploitation) offenders are most commonly white”, while victims come from many backgrounds, and include boys. To the government’s own disappointment, it found no reliable, generalisable evidence of ethnic disproportionality among such offenders.”

telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 … ndal-says/
iambirmingham.co.uk/2023/04 … ds-police/
theguardian.com/commentisfr … -prejudice

265

JeffA:

Winseer:

robroy:
0

Seems like I am wrong, so hands up

But ffs.I can’t help but notice they actually and literally highlight the point he comes from a …quote:… ‘‘Church going family’’ :unamused:
Oh well that makes it ok then eh? :unamused:
Wtf is the relavance of that exactly,? …they may as well say he came from a ‘regular cinema going family’., or were regular customers to Wetherspoons. :unamused:
The question is rhetorical, I know the obvious answer… it’s the leftie agenda of stressing he aint Muslim nor a fundamentalist nut case , hell bent on ‘killing all infidels’.

Political correctness and ‘wokeism’ at it’s [zb] worst.
Presumably that is why they took so long to disclose what we all knew, he was an immigrant…obviously checking his [zb] religion first… :unamused:

You don’t get it.
The narrative will always be quick to associate “immigrant criminals” with things like “Church Going” or “White Supremacist” or “Right Wing” if ever they can…

Had the guy been lgbtq+, Islamic, Loony Left, and labour-voting - we wouldn’t have known anything about the perp following their arrest - for weeks after! :open_mouth:

There is a pause after each of these foul crimes happens: To esablish “who can be blamed”?

In America, the Gun usually gets blamed, rather than just call a wicked murdering scumbag for what they are - regardless of any "creed, colour, or nationality presumably from which they have completely broken away anyways…
In the case of “Illegal Immigrants” - are they not supposed to be fleeing something bad in their old country?

It’s always reported if they’re muslim. That guy who killed Lee Rigby was identified as a muslim by the media the second it happened.

And the gun gets blamed because you can kill more people with a gun. You’re not telling me you’d rather live in a country with gun ownership? Every time someone got cut up they’d be pulling their tings out and blasting at each other.

Of course they report it if it’s muslim, only this time they were reluctant (in my view) to disclose he was immigrant presumably to check his status of legality, and to carry on refuting the fact that most ‘‘refugees’’ fit his age and profile.
I can imagine the pc relief when it was discovered he was not some militant religious muslim nut job, but instead a…‘‘churchgoer’’ :unamused:

266

Franglais:

JeffA:
It’s always reported if they’re muslim.

A lot was reported about the Rochdale child abuse cases. Quite rightly so.
A lot less has been seen in the papers about the grooming gang convicted in Birmingham this year of child abuse.

The Rochdale case involves very suspect policing standards, the B`ham case seems better managed all round, so that accounts for some of the reporting differences. But I wonder if that is the only difference?
Rochdale: 9 men of Asian origins abused young teenage girls.
Brum: 21 men and women apparently of ethnic white origins abused children of 12 and younger.

And surprise, surprise, politicians with axes to grind are less than honest with facts:
“Suella Braverman’s recent claims about “grooming gangs” go well beyond mere dog whistles and into overt racism. She asserts that perpetrators are “almost all British-Pakistani” and reduces victims to “overwhelmingly white girls from disadvantaged or troubled backgrounds”. While she presents these assertions as “facts”, they directly contradict her own department’s findings. A 2020 Home Office report concluded that such “group-based CSE (child ■■■■■■ exploitation) offenders are most commonly white”, while victims come from many backgrounds, and include boys. To the government’s own disappointment, it found no reliable, generalisable evidence of ethnic disproportionality among such offenders.”

telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 … ndal-says/
iambirmingham.co.uk/2023/04 … ds-police/
theguardian.com/commentisfr … -prejudice

Ahhh it MUST be right then if you have found links to ‘prove’ it.

So the majority of grooming gangs are white middle class Anglo Saxon origin…and presumably’church goers’ which will excuse them, in liberal/Labour PC world :unamused: (not to be confused with the gaff you get yer laptop fixed btw)
There goes my racist attitudes again eh? :unamused:
Now…where did I put me smelling salts. :smiley:

267

robroy:

Franglais:

JeffA:
It’s always reported if they’re muslim.

A lot was reported about the Rochdale child abuse cases. Quite rightly so.
A lot less has been seen in the papers about the grooming gang convicted in Birmingham this year of child abuse.

The Rochdale case involves very suspect policing standards, the B`ham case seems better managed all round, so that accounts for some of the reporting differences. But I wonder if that is the only difference?
Rochdale: 9 men of Asian origins abused young teenage girls.
Brum: 21 men and women apparently of ethnic white origins abused children of 12 and younger.

And surprise, surprise, politicians with axes to grind are less than honest with facts:
“Suella Braverman’s recent claims about “grooming gangs” go well beyond mere dog whistles and into overt racism. She asserts that perpetrators are “almost all British-Pakistani” and reduces victims to “overwhelmingly white girls from disadvantaged or troubled backgrounds”. While she presents these assertions as “facts”, they directly contradict her own department’s findings. A 2020 Home Office report concluded that such “group-based CSE (child ■■■■■■ exploitation) offenders are most commonly white”, while victims come from many backgrounds, and include boys. To the government’s own disappointment, it found no reliable, generalisable evidence of ethnic disproportionality among such offenders.”

telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/0 … ndal-says/
iambirmingham.co.uk/2023/04 … ds-police/
theguardian.com/commentisfr … -prejudice

Ahhh it MUST be right then if you have found links to ‘prove’ it.

So the majority of grooming gangs are white middle class Anglo Saxon origin…and presumably’church goers’ which will excuse them, in liberal/Labour PC world :unamused: (not to be confused with the gaff you get yer laptop fixed btw)
There goes my racist attitudes again eh? :unamused:
Now…where did I put me smelling salts. :smiley:

So, on the one hand, you don`t want it reported if they are church goers, because it is irrelevant or because it is no excuse etc?
And you also say

robroy:
Of course they report it if it’s muslim,

Either, never report religion and ethnicity.
Or, always report religion and ethnicity.
Or report religion and ethnicity if it is relevant.

What seems to be happening is that minority groups are named as such, so stand out more.
And maybe minority groups are given wider more stories.

From the same Brummie paper there was an article about a religious nutter making his own sub-machine gun.

268

Where did I say I do not want ‘churchgoers’ reported exactly?
I was pointing out the futility of them goingout of their way stressing that irrelevant fact,.presumably because everybody (except the likes of yourself) readily assumed he would be a muslim nut job.
Now whether or not that is reasonable,.fair,or warranted is another argument for another day.

269

robroy:
Where did I say I do not want ‘churchgoers’ reported exactly?
I was pointing out the futility of them goingout of their way stressing that irrelevant fact,.presumably because everybody (except the likes of yourself) readily assumed he would be a muslim nut job.
Now whether or not that is reasonable,.fair,or warranted is another argument for another day.

You expressly said

robroy:
and presumably’church goers’ which will excuse them, in liberal/Labour PC world

So I asked a question (did you notice the ?) about whether you wanted that reported or not.

Why do you say this?

robroy:
Of course they report it if it’s muslim,

And do you think that it is right to do so?

Why suggest that “church going” is being reported as a possible excuse? And yet seem to accept that reports of being of a different religion (Islam) is normal?

270

Franglais:

robroy:
Where did I say I do not want ‘churchgoers’ reported exactly?
I was pointing out the futility of them goingout of their way stressing that irrelevant fact,.presumably because everybody (except the likes of yourself) readily assumed he would be a muslim nut job.
Now whether or not that is reasonable,.fair,or warranted is another argument for another day.

You expressly said

robroy:
and presumably’church goers’ which will excuse them, in liberal/Labour PC world

So I asked a question (did you notice the ?) about whether you wanted that reported or not.

Why do you say this?

robroy:
Of course they report it if it’s muslim,

And do you think that it is right to do so?

Why suggest that “church going” is being reported as a possible excuse? And yet seem to accept that reports of being of a different religion (Islam) is normal?

I really can not be bothered anymore with your habitual argumentative nature,.and patronising attitude…re noticing the ?

To reiterate what I said …seeing as you CHOSE to appear that you do not understand… :unamused:

Most people because of past scenarios readily assumed this guy was a Muslim religious murderous nut case…(irrespective of whether or not in your liberal socialist narrow world you consider that to be a fair assumption.)

The authorities more than likely also assumed this, and feared the backlash of anti Muslim feeling, but were presumably relieved that he was not, and felt the need to garnish that fact that he ‘went to church.’…fyi I do not care if they report it as I have no allegiance to the church…

Now then tomorrow is Sunday…do you want to tell me that you do not undetstand/accept that, and that it is in fact Monday■■?
Note: notice the ?s btw. :bulb:

271

robroy:

Franglais:

robroy:
Where did I say I do not want ‘churchgoers’ reported exactly?
I was pointing out the futility of them goingout of their way stressing that irrelevant fact,.presumably because everybody (except the likes of yourself) readily assumed he would be a muslim nut job.
Now whether or not that is reasonable,.fair,or warranted is another argument for another day.

You expressly said

robroy:
and presumably’church goers’ which will excuse them, in liberal/Labour PC world

So I asked a question (did you notice the ?) about whether you wanted that reported or not.

Why do you say this?

robroy:
Of course they report it if it’s muslim,

And do you think that it is right to do so?

Why suggest that “church going” is being reported as a possible excuse? And yet seem to accept that reports of being of a different religion (Islam) is normal?

I really can not be bothered anymore with your habitual argumentative nature,.and patronising attitude…re noticing the ?

To reiterate what I said …seeing as you CHOSE to appear that you do not understand… :unamused:

Most people because of past scenarios readily assumed this guy was a Muslim religious murderous nut case…(irrespective of whether or not in your liberal socialist narrow world you consider that to be a fair assumption.)

The authorities more than likely also assumed this, and feared the backlash of anti Muslim feeling, but were presumably relieved that he was not, and felt the need to garnish that fact that he ‘went to church.’…fyi I do not care if they report it as I have no allegiance to the church…

Now then tomorrow is Sunday…do you want to tell me that you do not undetstand/accept that, and that it is in fact Monday■■?
Note: notice the ?s btw. :bulb:

“most people”? Are you setting yourself up as the spokesman for over 50% of the UK population?
Is that based on a poll of a representative sample? Or maybe the blokes that drink in the same pub as you?

Maybe you and your mates did make lots of assumptions? I won`t argue with that.
I doubt the authorities will be making too many assumptions. I hope they will be looking at all possibilities, but assuming nothing.

Anyway, care to give an opinion on the issue I was raising?
You have said

robroy:
Of course they report it if it’s muslim,

And have also seem to have said you don`t want it reported if they are “church goers”?

So, are the media getting it right, or wrong, or what?

272

Franglais:

robroy:

Franglais:

robroy:
Where did I say I do not want ‘churchgoers’ reported exactly?
I was pointing out the futility of them goingout of their way stressing that irrelevant fact,.presumably because everybody (except the likes of yourself) readily assumed he would be a muslim nut job.
Now whether or not that is reasonable,.fair,or warranted is another argument for another day.

You expressly said

robroy:
and presumably’church goers’ which will excuse them, in liberal/Labour PC world

So I asked a question (did you notice the ?) about whether you wanted that reported or not.

Why do you say this?

robroy:
Of course they report it if it’s muslim,

And do you think that it is right to do so?

Why suggest that “church going” is being reported as a possible excuse? And yet seem to accept that reports of being of a different religion (Islam) is normal?

I really can not be bothered anymore with your habitual argumentative nature,.and patronising attitude…re noticing the ?

To reiterate what I said …seeing as you CHOSE to appear that you do not understand… :unamused:

Most people because of past scenarios readily assumed this guy was a Muslim religious murderous nut case…(irrespective of whether or not in your liberal socialist narrow world you consider that to be a fair assumption.)

The authorities more than likely also assumed this, and feared the backlash of anti Muslim feeling, but were presumably relieved that he was not, and felt the need to garnish that fact that he ‘went to church.’…fyi I do not care if they report it as I have no allegiance to the church…

Now then tomorrow is Sunday…do you want to tell me that you do not undetstand/accept that, and that it is in fact Monday■■?
Note: notice the ?s btw. :bulb:

“most people”? Are you setting yourself up as the spokesman for over 50% of the UK population?
Is that based on a poll of a representative sample? Or maybe the blokes that drink in the same pub as you?

Maybe you and your mates did make lots of assumptions? I won`t argue with that.
I doubt the authorities will be making too many assumptions. I hope they will be looking at all possibilities, but assuming nothing.

Anyway, care to give an opinion on the issue I was raising?
You have said

robroy:
Of course they report it if it’s muslim,

And have also seem to have said you don`t want it reported if they are “church goers”?

So, are the media getting it right, or wrong, or what?

So you are saying that in your opinion, most people in this country who have witnessed outrageous atrocities such as the brutal murder of Lee Rigby, the Manchester Arena bombings where children were killed, the London bombings and all the rest, that their first train of thought when this was released in the news , did not come to the first conclusion that it was more radical Muslim murderers are you?

Ok,.so in your perfect prissy PC land, who did YOU and YOUR ‘mates in the pub’ think it was in the first instance of hearing the news…,.which group?
I can just see you now :smiley: …
Did you all say…

‘Ooh I wonder if it was a group of ‘church goers’, or perhaps those pesky Buddhists that were the culprits/culprit, because it can not posdibly be the Muslims, because according to non refutable official figures, web sites, graphs,.and official sources , they are a peaceful religion, they don’t even ever abuse kids, in organised groups.
Not only that most of the illegal immigrants are genuine refugees, who are doctors and solicitors,…and anyway, would they all not have been too busy looking after their family members who accompanied them? ,.
Because in no way is the average illegal immigrant a lone male…of fighting age, hanging around the streets’'.

‘‘Oh I see what you mean old boy, maybe Brexit has summet to do with it then.’’…another sherry, best hurry because Keir Starmer is on tv next, followed by a very interesting documentary on Covid and jabs, …so knock that ■■■■ football off’’

As for your questions (I’m getting better, I noticed all the question marks this time)
You should answer them yourself by checking out what the official line is…as usual. :unamused:

Meanwhile the rest of us (including my famous ‘mates in the pub’) and speaking as an unofficial self appointed spokesman,.who live in the cold harsh not pretty real world, will keep on observing and forming our OWN opinions.

On the other hand,.I’m maybe wrong.
Did anyone else on here apart from me, quite honestly did not jump to the conclusion…'‘Oh no,.another radicl Islamic atrocity’.

If you did, do not come on here and admit it if you fear that you may run the risk of being labelled racist…when I think the actual term is ‘realist’.

273

robroy:
On the other hand,.I’m maybe wrong.
Did anyone else on here not jump to the conclusion…'‘Oh no,.another radicl Islamic atrocity’.
If you did, do not come on here and admit it if you fear that you may run the risk of being labelled racist…when I think the actual term is ‘realist’.

To be fair my first thought was it had to be another joint operation by one or more of the known to be unhinged Polish Black Hand allied to the Serbian Republican Continuity group of 1914.
Not possibly any of the peaceful well balanced well meaning imported few North African or Middle Eastern etc contingent.

274

Carryfast:

robroy:
On the other hand,.I’m maybe wrong.
Did anyone else on here not jump to the conclusion…'‘Oh no,.another radicl Islamic atrocity’.
If you did, do not come on here and admit it if you fear that you may run the risk of being labelled racist…when I think the actual term is ‘realist’.

To be fair my first thought was it had to be another joint operation by one or more of the known to be unhinged Polish Black Hand allied to the Serbian Republican Continuity group of 1914.
Not possibly any of the peaceful well balanced well meaning imported few North African or Middle Eastern etc contingent.

You might be right.
Police have put out a description of a suspect in a terror attack.
He has been described as being caucasian, slim, about 5`8" tall,

and estimated to be about 130 years old.

275

Franglais:

Carryfast:

robroy:
On the other hand,.I’m maybe wrong.
Did anyone else on here not jump to the conclusion…'‘Oh no,.another radicl Islamic atrocity’.
If you did, do not come on here and admit it if you fear that you may run the risk of being labelled racist…when I think the actual term is ‘realist’.

To be fair my first thought was it had to be another joint operation by one or more of the known to be unhinged Polish Black Hand allied to the Serbian Republican Continuity group of 1914.
Not possibly any of the peaceful well balanced well meaning imported few North African or Middle Eastern etc contingent.

You might be right.
Police have put out a description of a suspect in a terror attack.
He has been described as being caucasian, slim, about 5`8" tall,

and estimated to be about 130 years old.

No the police are looking for and found a suspect of North African/Middle Eastern origin who they knew was trouble from the time he was invited in here.The BBC reported it as Caucasian Serbian Nationalist extremist with a 110 year old grudge.

276

Just thought I’d share this. :smiley:
This country quite rightly accepts homosexuality,.gay rights,.and free speech.
What happened to ‘When in Rome’ ? :laughing:
youtu.be/PCkmbVLAIO0

277

Indeed. But this is the progressive Left all over, believing if we share what we have with others, they will in turn appreciate what is being shared and go along with the system.

Doesn’t work like that in practice though…

  1. youtube.com/watch?v=3kU2_iBCf34
    then later
  2. theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr … ty.ukcrime

Back in the day, Corbyn’s moronically naive attitude to IS was to “get them around the table”, despite their publicized agenda that they aimed to instigate their own version of the apocalype :unamused:
bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-30083303

Starmer might do well to reflect that potentially the only reason Blair was a Labour PM rather than just being Labour leader was that he wasn’t as far left as his predecessors Callaghan & Foot. Kinnock tried to fix the problems, John Smith would probably have done a decent job by all accounts but didn’t get the lifespan, yet he and Kinnock had set the stage for Blair to romp to victory.

Yes the younger generation are more inclined to the progressive left, but the more mature part of the electorate are not (as far as I can see).

278

robroy:
Just thought I’d share this. :smiley:
This country quite rightly accepts homosexuality,.gay rights,.and free speech.
What happened to ‘When in Rome’ ? :laughing:
youtu.be/PCkmbVLAIO0

Yes,you accept all this,wait till your daughter/grandaughter/ wants some privacy to get changed in a womens changing room and some bearded guy tells them he identifies as a woman.They have to let him into the womens changing room then…

279

> Sploom:
> Yes,you accept all this,wait till your daughter/grandaughter/ wants some privacy to get changed in a womens changing room and some bearded guy tells them he identifies as a woman.They have to let him into the womens changing room then…

Your lot have been doing that for centuries Sploom, they claim it is the will of a bearded man who lives in the sky.

280

We dont see God as a bearded man in the sky!
Thats the typically atheist view of God.They try to humanise Him.
But its not possiblile