Chomper Higgot

Not at all. I’ve simply provided an example of why people who rely on tv/internet video streams to get their view of ‘London Streets’ ought to be a little careful in claiming that what they’ve seen is what they think they’ve seen. They should certainly be a little circumspect when calling others idiots.

So you trust the people choosing the images you view via TV/online to present images that are exactly what the purport to be? https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/bungling-tories-forced-delete-campaign-32439129.amp

I didn’t think it was a lie. The evidence of its veracity can be found in last night’s TV schedule, or perhaps in some social media feed.

Enoch’s dog whistle to racists has its fans.

Move to recuse. Jack be nimble, Jack be quick.

Self stroked grievance shows up.

Which is how he’s made so much money for so many people.

Yes, your bad. I have made no statement that I want to send Ugandan gays anywhere.

No need for photos to misrepresent the difference, the law, the courts and juries have it figured out.

How does that offering even remotely relate to my post you replied to?

This might help; Visa Waiver Program Exploited by 'Burglary Tourists' Targeting Luxury US Homes

I wonder if Warren Buffet has spotted this golden opportunity? You could make money selling such investment insights.

You didn’t spot the fact that these crooks were legally in the U.S.? Or you did and you hoped nobody else had?

Righty-o!

My goodness where to start: Netflix ‘leftist Lib woke’? Nancy Pelosi [putting aside your customary vitriol] is now an actor? ‘Borderline paedo flick Cuties’? ’I bet’? ’Another thing Netflix and the BBC have in common’?? A bag of flush face bulging vein nonsense spiced with snide innuendo. You’re on a roll Jonny.

Another who doesn’t understand the difference between a riot and an insurrection.

Nothing to do with your BLM false equivalence Jonny. Riot and insurrection are not the same thing.

let me highlight the baseless part of the accusation so you can spot it more easily:

Another baseless accusation.

No, and it doesn’t have to be, nor is there any stipulation that asylum must be sought anywhere, not the nearest country, not the first safe country. However, asylum seekers arriving in the U.S. and UK is a bit of a regular topic on this forum.

Yes I thought it was the left giving Uganda a free pass on homophobia? Have you asked the individuals, the Ugandan Government, the Scottish Government? Or is this just some random brain dump? No. Already explained, they have the right to apply for asylum. It’s a right written in law. Again no, they have a right to apply for asylum, it’s a right written in law.

In my view they have the right to seek asylum in any nation that is a signatory to the international refugee conventions. There is no obligation to seek asylum in first safe country/nearest country any country other than the UK/US. Cutting aid cuts funding to the poorest and most vulnerable. Noice idea!

It doesn’t.

Or they can just cross the border, store on a ship, arrive on a tourist visa, student visa, business visa. They only need arrive and then state they are seeking asylum. Refer OP at top of thread for an explanation of reasons they might do so.

Anyone that arrives from Uganda claiming to be persecuted for being gay has a right to apply for asylum and the right for that application to be given consideration under the asylum laws. ‘Claiming to be gay’ is only part of that process. I don’t know why you make the statement “(per the left's definition)” it seems a baseless assumption on your part, my guess is it is exactly that. I don’t know on what legal basis the U.S. could send any asylum seeker to Scotland, perhaps you do, but I doubt it. Scotland is part of the UK.