| The split in the far-right vote 04:10 - Feb 18 with 5872 views | The_Romford_Blue |
Great to see. Albeit Lowe on Twitter is disturbing.
Anyone on here willing to admit they would vote Restore? Makes Farage and his lot look moderate in comparison some of that nazi sh** coming from Lowe. |  |
| |  |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:05 - Feb 19 with 304 views | Herbivore |
| The split in the far-right vote on 10:50 - Feb 19 by Swansea_Blue |
I’d never heard of them and it’s hard to find out much information about them or who funds them. Their writers appear to be very young Turning Point UK types. I’ve only searched for a few of them, as life’s too short!, but none I’ve found seem to be writing for anywhere else. I only found one with a public profiles and he has a day job in Marks and Sparks:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/ed
It looks like Football League World for anti-Muslim, pro-white, studenty evangelical Tory types you find in the US. |
Indeed, it's not a remotely credible source but is being used to justify doubting the credibility of an article written by Hope Not Hate. I'd wager the individual doing so isn't really interested in weighing up the credibility of sources and is more concerned with finding reasons to discount stuff he doesn't like and to listen to stuff that resonates with him. We all do it to greater or lesser extent but this seems to be at the more extreme end of confirmation bias. |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:06 - Feb 19 with 304 views | chicoazul |
| The split in the far-right vote on 07:28 - Feb 18 by Swansea_Blue |
You realise ‘stop the boats’ is about stopping ‘that type’ (poor and of no use to them) of foreigner coming here? It’s not a humanitarian suggestion because they feel overwhelming concern for the wellbeing of refugees. Quite the opposite - they’re wanting to abandon refugees because they’re not white Brits. They have no practical, workable solution.
So no, “everyone” is not on board with Reform’s use of xenophobia and racism to win votes. I’m certainly not. |
Forgive me but isn’t abandoning them (not letting them in) a practical workable solution? |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:06 - Feb 19 with 298 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 10:56 - Feb 19 by leitrimblue |
Shhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiiiittttttttt  |
I suppose he’s strictly true there. Nazis were banned and the organisation disbanded. Nazi wannabes have to settle for being neo-Nazis and fascists these days. I bet that really galls them as well - they’d have loved to have pulled on a real SS uniform rather than prop department knock ups.
What a time to be alive eh? Can we call it fascism yet? |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:13 - Feb 19 with 256 views | Herbivore |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:06 - Feb 19 by chicoazul |
Forgive me but isn’t abandoning them (not letting them in) a practical workable solution? |
Not really, no. Otherwise we'd be doing it already. We can't stop people entering the country and once here they can claim asylum. How do you propose we go about just not letting them in? | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:18 - Feb 19 with 223 views | JackNorthStand |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:13 - Feb 19 by Herbivore |
Not really, no. Otherwise we'd be doing it already. We can't stop people entering the country and once here they can claim asylum. How do you propose we go about just not letting them in? |
Remove on arrival, to locations outside of the UK. A plan which the Tories briefly had in place until Labour stopped it. |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:23 - Feb 19 with 198 views | Blueschev |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:18 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand |
Remove on arrival, to locations outside of the UK. A plan which the Tories briefly had in place until Labour stopped it. |
No they didn't. The Tories pretended to try and implement the Rwanda plan knowing it was unlawful and would be overturned, in order to deflect responsibility from them and instead on to "lefty lawyers". |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:35 - Feb 19 with 163 views | StokieBlue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:18 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand |
Remove on arrival, to locations outside of the UK. A plan which the Tories briefly had in place until Labour stopped it. |
So you essentially want to stop people applying for asylum?
SB |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:37 - Feb 19 with 152 views | Herbivore |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:18 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand |
Remove on arrival, to locations outside of the UK. A plan which the Tories briefly had in place until Labour stopped it. |
A ridiculous, unworkable, and likely illegal plan. So doesn't really meet the criteria of being practical or workable. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:38 - Feb 19 with 139 views | J2BLUE |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:18 - Feb 19 by JackNorthStand |
Remove on arrival, to locations outside of the UK. A plan which the Tories briefly had in place until Labour stopped it. |
So fall back to nearer our shores and have an expanded coastguard who detain and remove them within a couple of days? |  |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:39 - Feb 19 with 131 views | Herbivore |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:23 - Feb 19 by Blueschev |
No they didn't. The Tories pretended to try and implement the Rwanda plan knowing it was unlawful and would be overturned, in order to deflect responsibility from them and instead on to "lefty lawyers". |
Indeed. It was all for show, as were the entire "efforts" of the Tories to bring down migration. Labour have been far more effective in 18 months than the Tories were in years when it comes to immigration but it's still not enough for those who have the horn for Reform. | |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:43 - Feb 19 with 106 views | lowhouseblue |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:38 - Feb 19 by J2BLUE |
So fall back to nearer our shores and have an expanded coastguard who detain and remove them within a couple of days? |
you then have the question of remove them to where - i can't see france saying yes.
if someone really wants to reduce the numbers, i suspect the only way now is to exclude asylum seekers from the human rights act and exclude boat arrivals from the modern slavery act*. we've pretty much established that nothing else makes much difference. i can't see the current parliament agreeing to either.
* this is an argument about how it might be done, not an argument that it should be done. |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:49 - Feb 19 with 79 views | DJR |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:43 - Feb 19 by lowhouseblue |
you then have the question of remove them to where - i can't see france saying yes.
if someone really wants to reduce the numbers, i suspect the only way now is to exclude asylum seekers from the human rights act and exclude boat arrivals from the modern slavery act*. we've pretty much established that nothing else makes much difference. i can't see the current parliament agreeing to either.
* this is an argument about how it might be done, not an argument that it should be done. |
Or go the whole hog and withdraw from the Human Rights Convention and other international conventions such as the Refugee Convention and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
But of course, no current party would go down that route.  |  | | |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:50 - Feb 19 with 77 views | J2BLUE |
| The split in the far-right vote on 11:43 - Feb 19 by lowhouseblue |
you then have the question of remove them to where - i can't see france saying yes.
if someone really wants to reduce the numbers, i suspect the only way now is to exclude asylum seekers from the human rights act and exclude boat arrivals from the modern slavery act*. we've pretty much established that nothing else makes much difference. i can't see the current parliament agreeing to either.
* this is an argument about how it might be done, not an argument that it should be done. |
I was just wondering, if he said yes, whether he would want us to intervene if they got into trouble or whether loss of life would be part of the deterrent.
That probably sounds like a loaded question but I am interested. I don't think everyone who wants less immigration is racist but we do need to have a bit of humanity. I suspect Reform would see it as a problem solved but it would be pretty shameful for the country. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
