European News and Poland Thread - part 4

Bullsh1t. You're out by a huge margin, since the turnout was (as usual) 60%. U.K. turnouts never vary that much.


You can't seriously favour Farage's Mosleyite fascists?

Fortunately, our electoral system means they can't win,, a load of the small number of 'reform' councillors elected (646 out of 19,200) have resigned or been suspended and some are facing criminal trial, one council 'leader' is just turned 18 and two of their 6 MPs are suspended, one facing criminal charges for fraud and corruption.

its called a a first by the post revolution. the labour heartland is wafer thin and pretty much over.
yes they can, and yes they will , if u don't wake up.

that farage he's one secy mofo , that fascist wave just eat you u[p englanders up. he cigar smoking fine.

"We're" didn't puncture anything. When the cameras were on, the French police stuck a knife in one of the dingies. In general they do nothing, just help them to leave France. So far the government has paid them £700m, for doing sod all.


You forgot they also put up the NI for employers, meaning lots of workers are losing their jobs every week because employers can't afford it.

@jon347

and made a £22.6 billion increase to NHS spending

The NHS don't need more taxpayer money pumped into it, it needs to be reformed. Get rid of all those DEI officers on £200.00+ salaries first.

@jon347

cut waiting lists for 5 months in a row

This is propaganda, they give patients appointments, then cancel them a month later.

Starmer signed a one in, one out with Macron four days ago, the real truth is it will be one out and 17 in, if the amount agreed is 50 per month. What kind of stupid deal is that? Incidentally, since the deal was signed, 1400 illegals have crossed which will cost the taxpayer £40000 a year for each one. Starmers bs of "smashing the gangs" hasn't happened, in fact the gangs have smashed him. 46000 so far have come in since two tier Kier came to power.

Jon, you don't live here and don't see the everyday mess-up by Labour. You only see the left opinion in those online news rags that you read.

That's sort of the opposite. Even during the Corbyn fiasco, plenty stayed.


That's what they're doing. And in a fairly clever way.


If you look at his demographics, many of his voters will be pushing up daisies by the next election, and there are a couple of very interesting scandals in the pipeline.

One very weird and intriguing thing last week (not necessarily a Farage or a Labour thing). There were reports, quite long ones, in each of the quality newspapers about a magistrate's court committal hearing in a sexual assault (not rape) case. Committal hearings are in the very lowest of the courts and are just when an accused person confirms their name and the magistrate refers the case to the Crown Court.

Normally something like that wouldn't even appear in a local newspaper. Even a Crown Court conviction for sexual assault would only make a few lines in a local newspaper, A Committal hearing normally wouldn't be mentioned since there's very little to say about them. Yet this one made a few hundred words in three national newspapers. All of them said that the alleged victim couldn't be named. This is so normal that it wouldn't usually be mentioned since everyone knows this already.

So why did they mention that and why did these stories appear?

And most interestingly of all, the story also appeared on the r*SSia Today website.

I think you mean "we" and they were doing this at the behest of the U.K. Incidentally, the reason so many boats started coming during the years of rightwing governmants and why this continued is twofold. Partly Micron's revenge for brexshìt and partly because Rishi wouldn't and Sir Keir won't bail him out over the Hinckley B scandal. It's costing France billions.


It really does, and you've swallowed Farage's lies.

Although the NHS has 279 managers (thanks to Thatcher)on over £200,000. None, not one at all, are 'DEI Officers". Those folk earn around £25,000, a wage I wouldn't get out of bed for. There are however around 12 managers in the whole country whose jobs relate to inclusion who earn around £50 to £70 k which I wouldn't get out of bed for either. Incidentally, they were all appointed under right wing governments.


NI is too low, and as for people "losing their jobs every week", unemployment has risen (this started before the NI changes) by 0.2%. So hardly "lots" and that rate is easing off.


This is fact not propaganda. The figures do not relate to 'appointments', (since that would still be waiting lists); they relate to actual medical procedures.


Why?


You're probably the only person who has ever described the Daily Telegraph and The Times as either 'left' or 'online news rags'.

Don't believe the online propaganda pushed at you by the far right,


Well, I'm there every month (if there's a period I'm not posting, then I'm there) and will be there on Thursday.

Goodness, you're out of touch even more than I thought

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11319279/NHS-spends-40m-year-800-diversity-officers-campaigners-say-fund-1-200-nurses.html

I'm not, since my stats are accurate and up to date whereas yours are tripe from a far-right tabloid.

As you were told, 279 (Tory appointed) managers are on the salary you claimed, and none of them are "diversity officers«. Those people are usually on Bands 4/5 earning between £25,000 and £28,400 per year, before tax. Though yes, they should earn more.

And it's worth mentioning that the £40 million that the Daily Heil claim is actually less than its tax exile owner dodges in tax every year.

Don't like the facts, do you...

What have you got against DEI? I bet you'd never even heard of it or knew what the acronym stood for before the trumpists and that tìt Musk started on about it.

That Daily Heil headline is misleading, as usual. The £40m figure is campaigners' estimate, not an official NHS budget line, and it assumes every single equality or HR-related role is a 'diversity officer', which simply isn't true. Many of these roles are legally required Under English law and have been for decades.

The '1,200 nurses' comparison is nonsense economics; you can't just reassign money from admin and HR budgets directly to clinical posts. The NHS budget has ring-fenced streams, and recruitment isn't limited only by cash; it's limited by training capacity and available qualified staff. Even if you scrapped every DEI role tomorrow, you wouldn't suddenly conjure up 1,200 fully trained nurses overnight.

All you managed to find online is just tabloid spin designed to rile people up

Can you please get in touch with the Home Office. At the moment they have a long process (and costly) process for assessing which asylum seekers are entitled under UK law to asylum and which are not, but you can apparently tell who is and isn't genuinely entitled under UK law to asylum just by looking at them.


If somebody wants to work full time for the NHS for 79p a day, I say let them.


You mean apart from the obvious?

Let's bet.... almost none of them. Traditionally asylum has been a last resort option for tough individual cases with steep criteria about individualized targeted hostility by the state.

I can all but guarantee not even 1 per cent of those arriving can prove anything of the sort (especially since they arrive without documentation).

Of course we can't tell about the people who crossed in the last few weeks, their cases haven't been examined. But between 2018 and 2024 the asylum grant rate for people who arrived by small boat was 68%, which is higher than the grant rate for asylum applicants overall.

Their documents always go missing, but their smartphones are never lost. One of the mysteries of the universe.

How did they proved individualized persecution?

What happens to those denied... how are they removed from the UK?

Ask the tribunals and courts whose job it is to apply the law.


Often by force. I refer you to the earlier post which quotes the exact number removed since the election and how that number is increasing.

More will be removed, however so many came and the fůcking Tories hate spending on the public sector that the number of border force staff is too small (they're recruiting now if you fancy the job). It's the same with the wait for the courts and tribunals; the Tories didn't want to spend money on it, and in any case, their rightwing voters generally need something to moan constantly about.

However things are beginning to move faster now the adults are back in the room.

It's almost as if one can buy a smartphone in any city in the world for the price of a couple of blowjobs but documents are far harder to get.


You'd need to ask the Home Office how they reach an assessment that the UK is legally require to grant any person asylum. One would assume that they have access to slightly better and more detailed information than you do.

No migrant qualifies for asylum in the UK since fascism and communism do not exist anymore. NK is too far...

An abusive boyfriend and global warming are not good enough ...

What still exists is the extreme stupidity of white PC morons...

Now Ryszard thinks he's a judge at a tribunal in a country he's never been to and whose legal system he knows jack shìt about.

Wrong again, I knew about it long before you even knew what woke meant.


Jon your opinion on stats have no credit on here, and it would be too hard for you to give an unbiased answer.


Please do tell, what is the obvious?

@Lazarus

but you can apparently tell who is and isn't genuinely entitled under UK law to asylum just by looking at them.

It's easy to tell if the dinghy people are entitled to asylum. Short answer no, they are criminals for coming to the UK illegally, and should be sent straight back to France.

No, I can't, just as you can't. And that's why each case has to assessed individually. But what I can do is, and you apparently can't, is read the relevant law.


I would suggest you read Art. 31 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. It's too long to quote here but you can read it at
ohchr[dot]org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-relating-status-refugees

Do let me know if you need any help with the longer words.

An irrelevant non-binding law by an obsolete institution.

Actually it doesn't. All you have to do is turn back the boats.

Guess again: it's a legally binding international agreement that requires all signatory state to take certain actions (and to refrain from taking others).


Which cannot legally be done. You might be OK with being a criminal, I'm not.

Legalities be damned. The law is for the people, not the people for the law. If you are such a legalist, I suppose all those judged in Nuremberg were victims of revenge, as they hadn't broken any laws.

Interesting that you don't consider the following to be illegal: crimes against peace, war crimes, crimes against humanity, mass murder, unethical human experimentation, false imprisonment, hate crimes and conspiracy to commit the above.

Interesting but not exactly surprising.

somehow we aussies got it done, maybe you poms are a bit too pussyfooting about the issue.


theres a logical falacy there somewhere, it might be the gish gallop or another one.

It doesn't matter what I think about crime; we are discussing your perception of the law.

...not by looking at them but by checking how they got here and from where....

1. Under the UN rules, one must apply for asylum OUTSIDE of the host country.

2. You don't qualify for asylum if you left where you were already safe.

That's why the scum in Mexico does not qualify for asylum in the US.

It's that simple...Woke stupidity aside...

It really isn't.

This is the EU, Boo.

That simply is not true. Have a read of Art. 31 linked to above.

The most amazing soft form of fascism - the kind that the slaves actually like and defend...

Your last post proves that you are just another worthless moron who resembles the sexually-confused "no, it isn't" genius...

Instead of commenting on the meat of my post, you decided to play that stupid terseness game...FY...and goodbye...

It is true because that would advocate a crime of entering a country illegally and then "asking" for an asylum.

Once in, the removal process is tedious and expensive to the host.

I need your permission to enter your tent BEFORE I enter - not after and force you to go to courts to have me evicted.