Broxbourne isn’t in Fulham so he’s fine with it. Scotland is under-populated so that seems the equitable solution.
Seems to be plenty of politicians with second homes that could be used. Should piss off a few posh twats that.
Ask them who Hearts are playing this weekend. If they say Motherwell, the border office say “yeah she’s fine” and they get the joke they’re in.
This is good news but the bad news may be worse... Fast tracked into social housing or tent city's. Just fuking send them back to France ffs
Labour MSP Colin Smyth had party whip removed....SKY ticker saying understood to be in connection with possession of indecent images.
Talking to my Turkish friends tonight and they were telling me of the problems they’re having. Mainly Afghan and Syrians flooding into their country, all seem to be men. The Syrian men are the guys who were fighting against the regime, so they’re trained soldiers. The Afghan men are causing a high number of attacks on women. They were saying the mentality of their cultures is at odds. The Turkish folk are sick of them and want them sent back but Erdogan won’t do it as he allows them to vote and it will keep him in power. It’s not just the people of the UK that aren’t happy these people are coming into the country, it’s right across Europe, including Turkey. Same problems, same stories. It’s no coincidence.
I might have mentioned it then, can't remember, but when we were in Spain last year we had German and Dutch families around us mainly. One German guy rescued my canopy in a storm one evening and we'd been chatting before but had a couple of beers after and he was telling me the situation is rife in Germany. Sounded worse than here, they just walk right in, no channel to cross. Same stories, blokes hassling/assaulting young girls etc. and annexing cheap accommodation. He was a copper, lived in Dresden. He's just be labelled a racist in here, some of the stories he had and opinions on them. Ergo, same thing. Mass male immigration that the country didn't want and their government couldn't/wouldn't stop.
Merkel actually encoraged it by promising any Afgan or Syrian who made it to Germany would automatically be granted asylum .
Probably be on Strictly’s next series followed by a campaign as the Reform candidate in the next by-election.
Joking aside, I assume she's out on licence so will have to be careful what she's says, because surely if she tries to defend her comments, would that be seen as a breach of her licence / probation conditions?
Plenty of Starmer pelters on here but I was just reading the story about the councillors wife who was jailed after the Southport attacks. She clearly invited violence via social media and it was clearly racially motivated. You could argue the racial part as she was inciting violence towards who she wrongly thought were responsible and they happened to be immigrants. Badenoch seems to be siding with her sentence of 31 months as being excessive and mentions policy reform. Taking the piss imo, I imagine she's be less sympathetic if it was a threat to burn her house down. Starmers response was spot on.
Tbph I've never ever seen her comments nor sought them out, she got 31 months which seem more than enough punishment to even bother looking into it any further. However, people say nasty things on the internet all the time, I'm sure none of us want anything to go viral, but in her case it did, which I believe was her downfall, otherwise it would probably have been ignored like most the **** Twitter, Facebook and backwater forums like ours post. I've seen plenty of misgoynistic behaviours on here, and I believe to a certain extent that also could be a crime. So how far do we want to go with this, if you do it in some football grounds you are likely to be arrested or escorted off the premises to never return. Much like that idiot on FB it was probably words without true meaning not like some organised gang leader, but who decides when the line has been crossed, those that can make it go viral?...because it seems to me that's what probably happened here. I couldn't give a **** about her, it's a genuine open question to who decides what's what. At what point do we shut GC down. At what point do I shut Sucky down. At what point do we close every thread across this forum that depicts a woman as a sexual object. At what point do we shut our thoughts down. Let those without sin cast the first stone. If I said I wanted Tony Blair dead, should I be arrested for that or do people accept it's a thought that will never bear fruit of any true meaning. Like I'm surely Connelly never actually wanted a migrant killed....or I would hope not. Probably people that want me dead.
We don't have to shut anything down and people may cross lines it's up to them, if that line means there's an investigation, arrest and jail time then tough ****. Think twice. I think it was over 300,000 people who saw her post telling people to burn the hotels and she's done time for it. No reason for reform imo. I think that websites and apps have a certain responsibility to delete and control inappropriate behaviour but the true responsibility lies with the individual. We're not babies and should know right from wrong, if you don't then you'll find that there are consequences.
But it all evades my question, who decides? So what about the responsibility in here, as I asked, because it will not just fall to the person who said something, yet if I go round shutting stuff down, people will **** off, if I shut Sucky down, I'm pretty certain we would lose a certain amount of traffic. It's like you want to punish for when people do wrong, but are not accepting why it's gone wrong, other than blame the individual. Example: I became very conscious back in 2023 and onwards, we have to be very careful what is said around football tragedies, because it can now lead to prosecution, now I've no problem with that, but who decides what can and can't be discussed about it, who decides whose opinion is valid and shouldn't be a criminal offence. There is a reason I've never been on any of my own club forums, because I use to get shut down with strict rules. The rules weren't wrong technically, but it stifled debate as far as I was concerned. If I applied the rules that were applied to me this forum would vanish in no time. It's like pass the buck Luv, no disrepect mate, but actually members do need to take ownership as a whole, and not just leave it to the owners and moderators of social media. Because the people you may enjoy engaging with, could be the same people potentially breaking the law, even if you are not. Sometimes I do feel like the buck is being passed to me at times, when people don't speak up, there has been occasions when certain people do, I can often rely on Libby to step in at some point, without the look at me effect or win effect. So tell me Luv, when do I ban Sucky just as a pure example, who on here is going to have the balls to say enough mate and actually mean it or we all going to bury our head in the sand, until the next time. Not saying Sucky has done anything wrong, he's just an example, but some might argue, you know what, actually he's gone too far. Some people prod people that cause racist outbursts, the trigger effect for fun, are they as much the problem as those that are committing the offence. See my point here bro, have a couple of beers and come back to me lol?
Just give me the keys bro and I'll have this place sorted out in a jiffy I'll get the tags fixed n all
