Morgoth on X - "Sky News saw hundreds of women campaigning that they didn’t feel safe because of all the foreign men flooding the country, then launched an investigation into why women were becoming far right. Despite the reason being declared up front."
Siant1963 on X - " BREAKING: A UK judge has ruled that a Gazan refugee and mother of three must be allowed to bring 18 family members to Britain. Upper Tribunal Judge Gemma Loughran upheld a decision that refusing entry to the extended family would breach the European Convention on Human Rights, citing the woman’s mental health and the right to family life. The relatives approved to come include:
- Her parents
- A brother, his wife, and their four children
- A sister and her four children
- Another sister, her husband, and their three children
The woman only has space to house her parents. The remaining 16 family members will require taxpayer-funded housing and will be eligible for welfare support. The Home Office fought this decision but were overruled. The power seriously needs to be taken away from these judges."
NoTwoTier on X - "This is the same judge who previously:
• Granted asylum to a woman rejected eight times after she openly joined a political movement just to manufacture a claim
• Ruled a hairy, bearded, deep-voiced Sudanese man with a receding hairline was actually 16
Before the bench she was at Garden Court Chambers (the go-to chambers for claimant-side immigration challenges) and a director of Haringey Migrant Support Centre, a charity that exists to help migrants fight the system. Unelected judges with this track record keep using the ECHR and Human Rights Act to overrule government decisions on borders. Result: chain migration, taxpayer-funded housing and benefits for people who can’t even live with the sponsor, and zero democratic control. There is zero place for this. Sack activist judges. Leave the ECHR. Restore parliamentary sovereignty over immigration. Until then the numbers of people we cannot remove or refuse will keep exploding. The public never voted for this. End it."
Meme - "Government says immigration doesn't cause crime -> refuses to release data on immigration and crime - > Government releases pamphlet refuses to warning migrants not to commit crime -> Government says immigration doesn't cause crime"
They think you’re stupid. They won’t release the data - then they publish this shocking booklet. - "Every now and then, something comes along that completely blows apart the establishment narrative. And that’s exactly what just happened in Britain. After years of lecturing people not to worry about immigration or ask difficult questions, the political class has just completely undermined its own narrative. How so? By publishing a pamphlet for asylum-seekers and illegal migrants that’s not only gone viral online, dominating the media debate, but now also being discussed in millions of ordinary households up and down the country. The government-produced pamphlet, titled ‘Understanding behaviours and expectations in the UK’, which was made for asylum-seekers and illegal migrants arriving on the small boats, makes a series of stunning admissions... I’m going to go out on a limb here but if politicians are having to tell migrants not to rape or sexually assault women, abuse children, and harass strangers then they might want to ask themselves who they are letting into the country... there’s also something deeper going on here that not only makes this a profoundly important moment in Britain’s debate about immigration but also helps to explain why so many people are losing faith in the wider system. Because for years now, whenever people have asked entirely legitimate questions about the link between immigration and crime, and the ability of Britain to integrate people from radically different cultures, they have been told to stay quiet. “Everything is fine”, politicians assure them. All cultures are equal. Diversity is our strength. Don’t ask whether importing people from cultures with profoundly different attitudes towards women, sexuality, and consent might have negative consequences. And definitely don’t ask what the British state actually knows about the relationship between immigration and crime and is still refusing to share with its own people. The same politicians who routinely lecture the British people about the dangers of ‘misinformation’ are still going out of their way to hide, conceal, and refuse to release what information they have about the impact of immigration on crime. In fact, they are even going to court to prevent the release of this information! Which is why, today, we now find ourselves in a truly absurd position. We have a political class that insists immigration is not driving crime but which simultaneously refuses to release what information it has about immigration and crime and which is now distributing a booklet that warns new migrants not to … commit crime!... The very people who are elected to represent us are refusing to tell us the truth – the taxpaying public who are not only forced to subsidise policies that we never voted for but are also forced to live with the dire consequences of these policies... Labour ministers, who have been forced to respond to the furore over the pamphlet, have only made the situation worse by conceding the very point they have spent years trying to push out of the national debate. Such as Labour’s new Education Secretary, Lucy Powell, who sought to defend the booklet by pointing out that migrants arrive from “different cultures”. What they are now conceding is what the left has denied for much of the last thirty years. Culture really does matter and not all cultures are equal. Clearly, not everybody who is migrating into Britain is a criminal or needs to be told they should not harass women and children. But migration, as I’ve pointed out before, is not just about the movement of people. It is about the movement of cultures. As the academic Garrett Jones points out in his brilliant book, The Culture Transplant, when you import people, you import the average cultural traits of those people. And when you import large numbers of people from radically different cultures outside Europe, as Britain is now doing, you import radically different attitudes toward women, homosexuality, children, religious freedom, sex, and consent. Attitudes that don’t just collide with our established way of life but are incompatible with it."
All cultures definitely are not equal, especially in the way they treat women - "The progressive Left certainly understands culture’s importance when dissing white men. For years we’ve been lectured about “toxic masculinity” and “male privilege”. Apparently, a British teenager can absorb misogyny from pornography or misogynist influencers such as Andrew Tate, yet a man who spends his formative years in a society which subjugates women arrives at Dover having absorbed nothing at all. When Kemi Badenoch said that “not all cultures are equally valid” she was attacked by a phalanx of the self-righteous. “Which cultures?” her detractors smirked, trying to lay a trap. But two years later, the Home Office has to distribute pamphlets explaining that women have equal rights, may make their own decisions and cannot be forced into sex by their husbands. Which aspect of Badenoch’s argument do her critics now consider disproved? This pamphlet is a reflection of something bigger – our refusal to confront hardline Islam. It’s not only the daily visitation of young men emerging from dinghies that tests Britain’s commitment to women’s freedom. We should be much more curious about what happens within communities – some two or three generations old – that are already here. Take work. Around 74 per cent of working-age white British women are in employment, compared with fewer than half of Pakistani and Bangladeshi women. Strangely, few British feminists noticed when the Government released analysis identifying “cultural attitudes”, including expectations that women stay at home caring for relatives, as one possible explanation. Contortions can become grotesque among those who wish to downplay cultural clashes. Last year, a BMJ journal challenged the campaign against FGM, invoking “Western sensationalism” and “racialised stereotypes”. Relativism is reaching its logical conclusion: we are so frightened of stigmatising communities that we lose the freedom to stigmatise a form of child abuse. But why, after generations of immigration and many integration success stories, do profoundly illiberal attitudes persist? Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born writer and activist, suggests one answer. European governments, she argues, assumed assimilation would occur naturally as immigrants intermingled with the domestic population. Instead, many newcomers found a familiar infrastructure already waiting for them. Mosques, Islamic centres, schools and community organisations were offering a “ready-made life to slip into”, with pastoral leaders actively discouraging integration. Awkwardly for the UK’s diplomacy, part of this infrastructure was funded by foreign states. From the 1960s, Saudi institutions and donors poured enormous resources into propagating Wahhabi and Salafi Islam internationally, including through British mosques, educational endowments, religious literature and clerical training – reminiscent of Philip II’s Spain helping sustain seminaries by training English Catholic priests for missions back home in the 16th century. David Cameron was sufficiently concerned about this influencing to commission a review into the funding of Islamist extremism in Britain. Its 2017 findings emphasised that most funding came from domestic donations, but the report also found that overseas support enabled individuals to study at institutions teaching “deeply conservative forms of Islam” and supplied British Islamic institutions with socially conservative literature and preachers. The classified report was withheld in full, partly on national security grounds. While Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have now moved away from supporting political Islam, Qatar has taken a different approach. A 2022 Policy Exchange report warned that the Gulf state was funding an “assertive Islamist milieu in the West”, pushing Islamist ideas across Europe and supporting groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. Qatar has also invested in British Islamic institutions and education with remarkably little public scrutiny or debate. The state projecting this influence does not see women as men’s equals. Qatari females are subject to male guardianship and discriminatory family and inheritance laws. Turkey presents another challenge. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the country’s president, actively maintains connections with the Turkish diaspora through religious institutions and has declared that putting men and women in equal positions is “against nature”, and that Islam sees women’s defining role as motherhood. Many are uncomfortable about raising these issues with countries which are major players in the world economy and important investors in the UK. But are we really so weakened that we have to turn a blind eye to wealthy states potentially exporting profoundly illiberal ideas because they’ll buy our property and fund our institutions? Foreign funding of mosques, Islamic schools and religious organisations should be transparent. The Charity Commission should know who ultimately finances the institutions it regulates. Ministers need to stop assuming that whichever organisation claims to represent a “community” necessarily represents everyone within it – not least the women whose interests may be diametrically opposed to men claiming to speak on their behalf. Further, not all Muslims in these communities – nor, indeed, in Qatar – are alike in pushing fundamentalism and separatism. There will be some, possibly many, who disagree with the mainstream but feel intimidated. What can we do to encourage them to speak? Either women are equal or they’re not. Their rights aren’t worth much if our supposedly liberal society is only prepared to fight for them when there’s no risk of a false accusation of racism, Islamophobia or some other evil."
Labour’s revival of a Rwanda-style scheme exposes the madness of British politics - "Imagine a Rip Van Winkle who had fallen asleep in, say, the mid-1990s, waking up today and trying to understand what was going on.
“So these refugees. They’re mainly women and children, I suppose?”
“No, they’re almost all young men.”
“Oh. But they’re fleeing some dreadful warzone?”
“No, not exactly. They’re coming from France.”
“So how do they sneak past our coastguard?”
“That’s the odd thing. UK Border Force picks them up in the Channel and then lands them in Britain.”
“Well, I suppose they must make some great contribution once they arrive, then?”
“They’re not allowed to work. And some are prone to commit all sorts of criminal activities, especially sexual assaults. In fact, the Home Office has just brought out a leaflet asking them not to molest women and children...”
No one planned this policy. It is a product of various unintended consequences. The framework of refugee law – not just the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but a series of other international conventions and accords – was put together before the era of mass travel. The law of the sea creates obligations that do not apply to land crossings. The British judiciary, or at least that part of it that serves on immigration tribunals, has been colonised by Left-wing radicals who are ready to legislate from the bench... Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, can see the immorality of the current system. Yes, she is a politician and cares about public opinion. There is no dishonour in that in a parliamentary democracy. But you can sense from her body language that she is also sincere: she sees the utter madness of providing a government taxi service to criminals engaged in breaking into our country. She has evidently also grasped that deportations are almost impossible once our activist immigration judges get involved. Hence her desire to move the process overseas, beyond their jurisdiction. “We are looking at third-country hubs, returns hubs models,” she told journalists this week. It makes sense. Most of the people who come to Britain illegally have been trafficked through several safe countries on the way. The reason that they do not make their claims in Italy, Germany or the Netherlands is that they want to reach a place from which they are very unlikely to be removed. Suppose, though, that a good proportion of arrivals to the UK were immediately deported to a safe but distant country: El Salvador, say, or Rwanda. Suppose their application process happened there and, if they were judged to be genuine refugees, they would remain in that country rather than being allowed into Britain. How might such knowledge affect their calculations? How many might apply for asylum in France, rather than attempt the crossing? This was precisely the reasoning that led the previous government to push through the Rwanda scheme against determined judicial resistance. The Rwanda scheme was, without question, imperfect. It was expensive and would have affected only a small number of migrants. Still, it might have had some deterrent effect – had Sir Keir Starmer not cancelled it in his very first act as prime minister. Why was that act his immediate priority? And why did his MPs cheer him on? Even Ms Mahmood feels she must keep saying that the Rwanda plan was wrong, despite her scratching around for ways to replicate it. The answer has a lot to do with the binary nature of our traditional party system. Opposition parties see it as their job to oppose everything. In time, they begin to believe what they publicly claim, namely that the governing party is full of knaves and fools who are incapable of getting anything right. They struggle to see any merit in anything ministers do and, by the time they come to office themselves, have convinced themselves that everything must go. During the Tony Blair administration, the Conservatives opposed such reasonable ideas as university tuition fees and foundation hospitals. Although, in the end, they accepted that universities had to be able to charge for their services, they never properly accepted Blair’s moderately market-friendly NHS reforms and, absurdly, ended up reversing some of them. More recently, the Conservatives made clear that they would not vote with Starmer to push through obviously necessary reductions in sickness benefits, thereby helping to kill what would have been a useful, if imperfect, reform. Labour is now going through precisely the same process over the changes in non-dom status. Ministers have been privately horrified by how much tax revenue has been lost as a result of the changes. Why were they so surprised? Because they had convinced themselves that Tory arguments about maximising tax income could not possibly be sincere, and that that party’s true motivation must be that it was somehow in the pockets of foreign oligarchs. What terrible policies flow from the belief that your opponents are wicked. Four years have been needlessly wasted since the inception of the Rwanda scheme. The money spent on it has been lost. The facilities paid for by British taxes have been used to house illegal immigrants deported by the United States. Other countries have set up return hubs, making Britain an even more attractive option for sans-papiers. Still, better late than never. Labour has belatedly grasped the shift in opinion even among its core supporters... My guess is that some version of the Rwanda scheme will end up being legislated for by a Labour ministry. When that day comes, the Conservatives and Reform should rise above their oppositionist impulses. Instead of sniping at the defects that any such scheme will inevitably have, they should welcome the thrust of it, and revel in Labour’s belated conversion to their own position. They should, in short, put country before party and seek to build a new national consensus around stricter immigration laws, as has happened in Denmark. Who knows, it might even set a precedent. If we can build a radically different approach to asylum and immigration, perhaps we might similarly agree on a more responsive healthcare system, a more affordable state pension or a smaller, AI-enabled Civil Service. Stranger things have happened."
Asylum seekers bumped to top of council housing list - "Homeless people in Edinburgh who have effectively had their asylum claims approved have been moved to the top of the waiting list for social housing under a policy instituted in April 2025... Edinburgh’s homelessness crisis was largely driven by a rise in applications from refugees who had been granted asylum in Britain, internal council documents show. The SNP’s 2012 law change compelling councils to house all unintentionally homeless people, including single men, has been blamed for Edinburgh’s migrant homelessness crisis. Nicola Sturgeon’s 2022 rule change to scrap the need for a “local connection” in order to receive a council home also contributed to the issue. These changes have incentivised former asylum seekers – those given permission to stay in Britain – to travel to Scotland and apply for a council house because of the country’s more generous rules and obligations."
Labour is quietly ‘solving’ illegal migration... by making it legal - "It is extraordinarily naïve, and it will not work, because demand to move to developed countries like the UK is near unlimited compared to our capacity to absorb it. Billions of people would be radically better off if they moved here. Unless you are prepared to have totally open borders, which few admit to supporting, any legal routes will have a limit, at which point people not allowed in legally will still seek to come illegally. For example, 4,725 people from India have been detected crossing illegally to the UK, despite India being the number one nationality for legal migration into the UK. Legal migration options don’t stop illegal immigration. It’s not clear to what extent sponsors will be asked to look after the people they bring over. But if we remain in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) they will be able to claim asylum anyway, and nine out of 10 who claim asylum end up staying. The financial cost of waving in more people will be huge. The Home Office has published its own estimate of the lifetime fiscal cost of asylum grants under one of the most common ECHR articles, the right to a family life: £141,000 once any tax contributions are netted off. Others put the cost much higher. An independent report by the University of Amsterdam put it at around £400,000 each. Either way, if tens of thousands come via this route, it will cost taxpayers billions. There are other costs too. Ministers refuse to engage with the fact that refugees from some nations are likely to commit violent or sexual crimes at a significantly higher rate. But the reality is that if you import more people from troubled places and broken countries, you import many problems."
Adam Brooks AKA EssexPR on X - "A few weeks ago, three women all died of ‘heart attacks’ on the same boat. Now we have two burned and one stabbed on today’s boats. THE MEN WE ARE IMPORTING ARE ABSOLUTE MONSTERS. WE WARNED YOU OVER AND OVER AGAIN."
Andy Bryson on X - "Regrettably, he is right. These boats won’t stop until the people in them know they will be placed in detention camps on arrival and then deported."
Sam Ashworth-Hayes on X - "The Boriswave/ILR debate has been extremely clarifying. Confronted with the absence of economic or cultural benefits, the left wing argument for low-skilled migration has slowly but surely converged on the moral need to uplift people from third world welfare systems to first."
Home Office on X - "The number of asylum seekers housed in hotels has fallen to 16,000 – down 50% in the last year and 71% since the peak of 56,000 in September 2023. All remaining asylum hotels will close by 2029."
Charlie on X - "Remember that once an asylum seeker is granted refugee or humanitarian status, they disappear from the Home Office immigration statistics as they are no longer an asylum seeker. Once granted a status, they aren't seeking asylum anymore, they have been granted it. If they are at risk of destitution, they become the responsibility of the local authority they are in to be housed (hotel, HMO, private rent). In order to acquire these statistics, you would have to FOI every local authority in the country as the Home Office don't publish these statistics. This is why asylum seekers in receipt of support or accommodation is somewhat a useless metric. It doesn't tell you how many asylum seekers have their own accommodation (i.e. those on work or study visas) or the numbers that have previously been granted refugee or humanitarian status that are being housed by local authorities up and down the country."
Kay Burley on X - "When you hear people say “let them drown”, this is what those words mean."
Erik Dale on X - "That man drowned because people like Kay sold him the prize. Open borders made the crossing look worth the risk. Yet she uses his body to defend the very policies that put him in the water. And what about Madrid. London. Paris. Nice. Brussels. Berlin. Manchester. Barcelona. Stockholm. Vienna. Solingen. Or Lola, Rigby, Paty, Hamel, Louis. The few cases her network couldn’t ignore. Did she forget them already? Every drowned migrant is a victim of 'Refugees Welcome'. So is everyone raped or murdered after they land. Remigration would have saved this man. Bebe, Elsie, and Alice too."
Left wingers are very shallow thinkers, and can only think one level, and are unable to comprehend second, third and subsequent order effects
Charity tells schoolchildren to list all the positive aspects of migration - "Children as young as seven are being taught that migration is a “positive” force in Britain by a charity whose funding was cancelled by a Reform council. Show Racism the Red Card (SRTRC), which describes itself as the UK’s “leading anti-racism charity”, provides lesson plans in which pupils are required to list all the benefits of migration without any counter-arguments to provide balance. Children are given negative headlines such as “how many more migrants can we take” and told they must rewrite them and highlight the positive aspects of migration, such as “migrant workers bring fresh hope to British economy”. They are told that women and children make up 80 per cent of refugees worldwide, while failing to mention the fact that adult men make up three-quarters of small boat migrants arriving in Britain. The disclosures come after Sunderland city council’s Reform UK leadership ended its 30-year support for the charity. Christopher Eynon, the council leader, said it would no longer back “politically charged organisations with an agenda”... pupils are told it is “false” to suggest most people fleeing their countries are adult men. Instead, it says nearly half are children and women and children together make up nearly 80 per cent. It does not, however, note how most migrants crossing the Channel on small boats are men. It says it is also false to suggest that they come for benefits and get more money than British people. Instead, it says asylum seekers are banned from working and families have to survive on £6.42 a day. It does not mention the cost of state accommodation to house them. The Home Office said significant numbers of the people crossing the Channel in small boats were economic migrants, which is why they have intensified crackdowns on illegal working with record numbers of raids and arrests. Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, has also warned that the UK’s “generous” benefits and asylum support system for migrants is “drawing illegal migrants across the Channel”. She is ending the right to permanent refugee status, automatic pay-outs and guaranteed rights to permanent settlement. A Department for Education spokesman said: “It is absolutely right that pupils receive a balanced presentation of opposing views on political topics. “That’s why we have published clear guidance to help schools navigate this responsibility and it’s why we require schools to actively promote fundamental British values like democracy, the rule of law, and mutual respect and tolerance. This isn’t optional, it’s the law.”"
Labour voters turn on Mahmood over migration - "Almost half (44 per cent) of 2024 Labour voters are dissatisfied with the Government’s handling of immigration and asylum, according to a YouGov survey of more than 3,000 people. The survey, published on the eve of Labour’s annual conference in Liverpool, found that just 27 per cent of those who backed the party at the last general election were satisfied. Party activists also said they wanted Andy Burnham and Ms Mahmood to focus on solving the small boats crisis rather than significantly cutting legal migration... Reform UK’s plan to effectively freeze legal immigration has been largely responsible for its surge in support in the past two years... Mr Burnham has said that dissatisfaction with the Government’s handling of migration was one of the main issues on the doorstep during his by-election campaign in Makerfield in June, and he vowed during the campaign to “go further” to control Britain’s borders. However, he expressed scepticism towards Ms Mahmood’s migration reforms during his time as Greater Manchester mayor, arguing that the ILR period for migrant care workers should remain five years instead of increasing to 15 years."
Labour union plans party conference protest over migration curbs - "According to the Home Office, the net lifetime fiscal cost of allowing foreign care workers to settle in the UK from this year could be as much as £10bn."
Greens teach councils how to stop Home Office migrant raids - "Green Party members are hosting events on how to resist “migration raids” as part of a two-day fringe organised alongside the party conference. Brighton and Hove Greens has organised a series of “radical political” meetings, including sessions on decriminalising prostitution, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and anti-fascist activism. Among the talks lined up for the fringe is a 45-minute session titled “Resisting Migration Raids”, which is being led by Nadia Barton Ahmad, a Brighton and Hove Green councillor, and Hau-Yu Tam, a Lewisham Green councillor. It aims to teach councils how to end “complicity with migration enforcement”... the political party had effectively banned an anti-Semitism charity and a Jewish-Palestinian peace group from holding sessions."
When you just hate Jews and don't actually support peace between Israelis and Palestinians
Steven Edginton on X - "Leak: BBC boss sent a message of “solidarity” to non-British staff after an African migrant allegedly attempted to behead a Northern Ireland-born man. Jack Whyte, the BBC’s Chief Technology Officer, condemned “hatred” and offered staff wellbeing support following unrest in Belfast caused by the violent attack. A BBC source said: “The BBC offered solidarity to foreign staff but not to native Brits who might be worried about illegal migrants beheading them.”"
Hamas chief’s bodyguard got British citizenship and then ‘plotted terror’ - "Britain granted asylum and citizenship status to a former bodyguard to the leader of Hamas, it has been reported. Named only as Mr X for legal reasons, he then allegedly plotted an anti-Semitic terrorist attack before the second anniversary of the Oct 7 massacre, according to the Sunday Times. The suspect served in the personal security detail for Ismail Haniyeh – Hamas’s leader in Gaza between 2007 and 2017 – before moving to Britain more than 10 years ago. It poses difficult questions for the Home Office, MI5 and MI6 because Mr X was able to build a life in this country despite knowledge of his background. Before his arrest last year, the married father, in his forties, was reported to have changed his legal name numerous times. Mr X was able to settle in Britain under deep cover as an IT consultant in the suburbs of a large English city, despite reports that suggested his work for Haniyeh was public knowledge. It has been reported that he was known to be the son of another senior Hamas official, and that he had been arrested in Egypt for operating a tunnel allegedly used to smuggle guns and gold into Gaza. Nonetheless, he claimed asylum in 2015 and was granted indefinite leave to remain by the Home Office. It was also reported that after he attained citizenship, he attended demonstrations outside the Israeli embassy. He was arrested by National Crime Agency officers in central London last November after Israel’s national intelligence agency, Mossad, and German security and intelligence services learned of the attack. Mr X faces extradition to Germany, where he has been accused of being a leading figure in planning what is considered one of the worst terror plots in post-war Germany on Jewish community centres, Israeli diplomats and pro-Israel demonstrations. According to a German indictment obtained by Bild, Mr X has been accused of transporting guns including handguns, live ammunition and items that could be used as a disguise to a storage facility in Vienna from Berlin... The indictment also said that Mr X had pre-recorded a video in which he had appeared masked and armed in front of a Hamas flag. In it, he described the plot as an act of retribution for Hamas’s military wing, the Ezzedine al-Qassam Brigades."
Rapist migrant can stay in Britain after claiming he is bisexual - "A migrant jailed for two rapes and deemed a “risk to children” has won a case to stay in Britain because he is bisexual. The Jamaican migrant, 51, was convicted of raping two women in Britain and was jailed for 18 years, but cannot be deported because it would violate his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)."
WasAcop on X - "We are now in a place where a whole town gets locked down by the Government for a boat that has not arrived…. Gosport. Haslar Bridge shut. Coaches at Fort Blockhouse. Masks banned. A dispersal order on the entire town until 7am Tuesday. Anyone who wants to stand there is sent to a car park. If not you’re threatened with arrest.. The boat is still in French waters. The government will not even say this is the landing. Last time, they took the people to Dover."
ripx4nutmeg on X - "The framing of this story on the BBC is absurd. The lockdown is only alluded to midway down, the headline is about protesters' violence but the story says there wasn't really anyway and it ends by saying how well Labour is doing at handling small boats"
Hon. Vickie Paladino on X - "Martial law has been declared in an English town in anticipation of a boat landing full of illegal migrants. To be clear, the UK government is locking its own citizens in their homes in order to accommodate an incoming horde of illegals. The fear is that the citizens will protest the migrant landing, so the solution is to lock them down under threat of imprisonment. Most people have NO IDEA how bad things are in Europe, or how close we are to the same fate here. Democrat immigration policy is identical to this."
Protest is only a sacred right in a democracy when you are pushing the left wing agenda by shattering spines with sledgehammers
Why stop the boats when you can stop the protests? - spiked - " Who – or what – is the British state for? Is it there to defend our territory, control our borders, protect the citizenry and safeguard our liberties? Don’t be silly. Broken-borders Britain dispensed with such old-fashioned notions a long time ago. Last night, we were provided with yet more proof that the only thing the state is any good at these days is ferrying illegal migrants into the country, while keeping them well away from the locals. The arrival of another ‘mega-dinghy’ in Gosport led the authorities to scramble a motorcade of buses, police vans and ambulances to aid the migrants’ smooth passage to processing centres in Kent, while imposing sweeping restrictions on protest in the surrounding areas. This was the third attempted landing in Hampshire in a month, more than 150 miles west of the usual Dover-Calais crossing. Clearly, the boats aren’t stopping and what measures Labour and the French authorities are taking seem to be pushing the routes further westward, making them more and more perilous and inflicting this crisis on more and more communities across the French and English coasts. This was also the third time in a month that these unwelcome visitors sparked spontaneous protests by locals and activists, furious that the authorities are, in effect, facilitating illegal migration. With the government unwilling to crack down on the boats, it again fell to the police to crack down on the demonstrations. Yesterday, Hampshire Constabulary imposed a series of draconian orders, limiting any protests to a single car park, banning face-coverings and allowing the police to order anyone to leave the area, or otherwise risk arrest. The optics could hardly be more toxic. A group of 150-odd men break into Britain and they are given the state-visit treatment. A group of residents kick off about it and they are herded into a protest pen and threatened with a night in the cells. The government’s failure to control the borders is forcing the state to take drastic measures – not to stop the boats or send the illegal migrants back, but to try to put a lid on public fury. If nothing else, it’s clearly not working. Last night’s protest came and went without much incident – even the Guardian report concedes it was ‘mostly peaceful’. But the sense of injustice fuelling them certainly isn’t going away. After all, this farce is going on at a time when public services are creaking, ambulances take an age to arrive and the police will only attend the scene of a crime if the crime in question is a misgendering. The images of all those blue-lights vehicles, escorting men who have no right to be here to their taxpayer-funded digs, is heaping salt into already gaping wounds. ‘Unfair’ doesn’t come close to covering it. The crisis in the English Channel is unfolding not only at the expense of already threadbare resources, but also the safety of British citizens. Two Iranian small-boats migrants were arrested over the weekend on suspicion of plotting a bomb attack against Jews in Manchester. Horrific stories of ‘asylum seekers’ raping women and girls are making headlines on a daily basis. Surprise, surprise, when you allow tens of thousands of men to enter your country illegally each year, many of them from backward cultures ruled over by Islamist tyrants, some of them will go on to commit further, often depraved, crimes. Worst of all? The government is well aware of these horrors. This is why the Home Office has been handing out leaflets to newcomers instructing them not to rape women, mutilate girls’ genitals or verbally abuse homosexuals. Home secretary Shabana Mahmood has let slip that almost all of the women who arrive on small boats tend to have been sexually assaulted, most likely by other migrants. The powers that be know this is what they are importing, and they carry on with it anyway. This is your brain on globalism. We are lumbered with rulers who think the legal obligations imposed on them by outdated ‘human rights’ treaties trump the wellbeing of their own citizens and basic common sense. Every man and his dog knows that what is going on across the channel is not desperate souls seeking asylum. (They aren’t feeling war, they’re fleeing France – although, given the nationwide school riots of the past week, some might struggle to tell the difference.) And yet the supposed needs of illegal migrants must forever trump the democratic wishes of Brits, who have voted to take control of the borders at every given opportunity. What began as a border crisis is turning into a full-blown crisis of state legitimacy. A state that cannot control its borders cannot keep its citizens safe. A state that puts the phoney rights of illegal migrants over the hard-won rights of citizens cannot expect to command Brits’ loyalty for much longer. A state that would rather stop the protests than stop the boats is truly playing with fire."
Michelle Dewberry on X - "🚨Twelve arrests made following protest in Gosport. …Any arrests for illegally entering the country? Lol - of course not. 🤡🌍"
