RayC

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Black, brown or white he could see the future, he was 100% right.

 

Now what did that new councillor shout, was it............."Allaha Akbar"...😂

So the white man living in the UK is now a 2nd class citizens? The evidence suggests otherwise.

"Allaha Akbar" (God is great). A view held by followers of most deities. I assume that the councillor believed that God was responsible for his victory. Personally, I'd have thanked the voters in my ward.

5 hours ago, FruitPudding said:

 

Yeah, 5 years is so little before getting permanent residency. 

 

How many permanent residencies does Thailand grant per year?

 

And citizenships?

 

 

If you get permanent residency, that's different,  you should fully integrate. 

 

Or if you are getting any kind of benefits, like the asylum seekers that arrived yesterday 

 

But if you are on a "non-immigrant" visa, nah.

 

Anyway, I don't think Thais want us to integrate. We are just foreign visitors in their country

 

 

Do you really think Thais want you?

The discrepancy still exists. You require that those living in the UK should integrate while not demanding the same of Brits living in Thailand.

1 hour ago, transam said:

Enoch was sooooooo right............🤔

Powell was talking about "Black immigration" and got it completely wrong.

Whites aren't subservient to blacks; the black man doesn't have 'the whip hand' in the UK as he predicted.

Instead, what we have is a society in which all people are equal in the eyes of the law, and where second and third generation, British born black men and women play their full part in society, be that as judges, MPs, bus drivers, bin men or whatever.

1 hour ago, FruitPudding said:

 

Uhm, well yeah, cos we are only allowed to stay a year at a time.

 

Why should we bother? They don't actually want us. 

 

And I don't blame them. They are smart to take care of their country, unlike the UK.

 

We are non-immigrants, unlike those who arrive on the banana boats

And immigrants to the UK are only allowed to stay for the duration of their visas. If they want to stay longer then they have to get it renewed which is not automatic. After 5 years an immigrant can then apply for leave to remain in the UK but, again, this is not automatically granted. 

So little real difference between immigrants to the UK (certainly for the first five years) and those on Non-O 'visas' in Thailand. Seems like double standards if ex-pat Brits expect immigrants to fully integrate into UK society whilst at the same time thinking that shouldn't be expected of them in Thailand.

If I lived in a country where the locals didn't want me I'd move but, of course, that's up to the individual.

Just now, giddyup said:

You mean because they are illegals?

No. I mean immigrants who enter on a student or work related visa.

1 hour ago, giddyup said:

When I get all the same benefits as a Thai does, ie free medical, able to buy land etc, no price gouging because I'm a falang, no 90 day reports or visas required,  then I'll fully integrate.

So then you have no problem with immigrants not fully integrating into UK society given that they don't have the same rights as UK citizens e.g they have no rights to remain in the country indefinitely, they cannot vote in general elections?

12 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

The same is happening all over Europe. 

 

Thinly disguised racist claptrap wrapped up in a conspiracy theory.

Too much there to pick apart piece by piece, but suffice to say that she clearly knows little about London as a city and even less about Brussels.

3 hours ago, giddyup said:

He's not an immigrant.

Are you suggesting that individuals living in Thailand full-time under 'Non-O' status shouldn't be expected to integrate into Thai society, while immigrants to the UK should be expected to integrate into UK society?

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Agree 100%.

"I would add, no single men/. Any single male fleeing a war, should be sent back to fight for his country" "Agree 100%".

If you now agree with this statement, then it is a complete volte-face on your part: On the Ukraine thread, you are forever pleading with Ukraine to surrender.

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Hardly a new thing. That ghostly laughter is probably Enoch's from his grave.

Unfortunately you are right about It not being a new thing.

But you and Powell were wrong. Whites aren't subservient to blacks; the black man doesn't have 'the whip hand' as Powell predicted.

Instead, what we have in the UK is a society in which all people are equal in the eyes of the law, and where second and third generation, British born black men and women play their full part in society, be that as judges, MPs, bus drivers, bin men or whatever.

6 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

So you feel that October 7 was justified?

 

Knowing that you can justify such depravity rather softens the blow of being put on your ignore list!

 

Stamp your tiny feet and flounce out of the room!

Congratulations. Wear your 'Ignore' badge with pride. It confirms that you have made a coherent argument for which he has no counter.

(I was inducted into the club last year. I still boast about It).

6 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

For your reading pleasure.

 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/10/26/josep-borrells-jungle-trope-was-no-slip-of-the-tongue/

 

 

 

Thanks for the link.

I imagine that Borrell regrets ever making that particular speech. The subsequent Oxford speech suggests that he now chooses his words more carefully.

In any event, it doesn't change the substance of what he was saying i.e. that he hopes for an Ukrainian victory.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Sorry if it was all getting too complicated for you. I will try to dumb it down in future if i think you are reading.

😂 You don't need to worry on that front, Jonny. I could never accuse you of providing a complicated argument. Well, not one that is also coherent and rational at least.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Maybe start by looking at the title of the thread and the two tier policing at the pro Palestine protests in London. 

Let's do that. It is "Any Palestinian flags, symbols at Malmo Eurovision show will be removed".

See anything there about Sadiq Khan or the London mayoral elections? (Scroll down for the answer if the question is too difficult for you)

Answer: No 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Failing that, try nzt-48. 

The manufacturers have asked me to politely request that you stop mentioning their product: Their sales have fallen off a cliff since you started endorsing them.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

15% of the electorate is huge in any election.

I'll just leave that there.

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Not many Muslims would vote for another candidate other than Khan.

Debatable. The turnout in London was down compared to the last election so it is possible that some Muslim voters stayed away in protest at Labour's position re Gaza. The Labour Muslim vote was down in the other Mayoral and council elections. 

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Once you add in the hand wringing white guilt liberals he's got it all sewn up.

If that's the case then the Tories will never win London again. Imo that is not the case. The Tories suffered from the unpopularity of the Westminster government and having a candidate, who was even more hapless than their previous one, Shaun Bailey (and he was very poor). 

I'm far from a Khan fanboy. Imo he hasn't been a good Mayor and is far from likeable or popular. A decent Tory candidate a la 'Andy Street' type would have done well.

3 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

When the conflict started 2 years ago, I stated that the it could be easily stopped by stopping supplies to Ukraine. It took some time for this moron to come to the same conclusion so my post was perfectly in context of what I was saying, 2 years ago.

You don't need to be a military strategist to know that if you cut supply lines to one of the combatants then they will (almost certainly) lose the war. I don't doubt that Borrell knew this two years ago as well. 

3 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

 

Maybe you missed what he said as well.

 

. It has never been easy, but we have the moral responsibility of contributing to it because we are part of the problem. We created this problem one way or another, and we have a strong responsibility in trying to solve it. 

 

This sentence was just before the quote I posted. To me, he was clearly referring to the expansion of NATO eastwards towards Russia, although many here will try to argue differently as they naively believe what they read in western media that this was an unprovoked conflict.

I doubt very much that he was referring to NATO given that the sentence you quote comes just after he talks about Hamas. Imo he is referring to the legacy created by the West in Palestine. As he is an EU envoy and was making a speech at Oxford, I would think that he was referring to the UK and France in particular.

3 hours ago, Gweiloman said:

 

In any case, this idiot is a classic example of the hubris of the west. Remember this?

 

Europe is a garden. We have built a garden. Everything works. It is the best combination of political freedom, economic prosperity and social cohesion that the humankind has been able to build – the three things together," Borrell said during the event.

"The rest of the world," he went on, "is not exactly a garden. Most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden."

 

 

No, I don't remember this. It all sounds a bit flowery - pun intended - however, without knowing the context in which this paragraph was made, it's difficult to form much of an opinion.

7 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Huge fan. I seem to recall you were the one eager to overturn the Brexit vote, not me. 

 

 

The images do not lie. 

 

London is full of white Liberals and has a huge Muslim population. So his two tiered policing where Jews are forbidden from walking freely due to being "openly Jewish" and Pro Palestine protestors are allowed to openly call for Jihad are obviously popular with that Demographic.

 

Many tyrants have been elected. 

Like others I struggle to see the connection between the Sadiq Khan, the London Mayoral Elections and the Eurovision Song Contest.

Anyway just for the record - and correcting yet another of your factual inaccuracies - London does not have a "huge" Muslim population (unless you consider 15% to be huge). 

I think that you are all being very mean. He was very very ill and all those nasty people in the hospital were laughing at him.

He's an very brave little soldier.

6 hours ago, herfiehandbag said:

If one is to believe the Guardian (the irrefutable and unimpeachable source of commentary and news on European politics?) the government being formed, under the direction of a veteran socialist senator (himself neither directly elected nor representative of the views expressed by the Dutch electorate) will consist of a number of experienced politicians, and a number of selected technically experts.

 

In other words, the "old gang" will continue in power. Most explicitly not what the people voted for in November.

A sizeable majority (67%) of the Dutch electorate explicitly voted against the idea of Wilders being PM. However, there is something to see here, but not the 'sitch-up' which you imply.

Given that no party gains an overall majority in Dutch elections, a process has to be adopted in order to form a coalition government with an acceptable PM. This process involves appointing an "informateur" (meditator) who is tasked with meditating between the various parties. The party which secured the largest individual share of the vote - in this case, Wilders' PVV party - selects the informateur. Following the failure of two previous meditators, the PVV selected Kim Putters, the " veteran socialist politician" to whom you referred. Putters has since concluded that there is no chance of a coalition government, in which Wilders will be PM, being formed. Putters has now been replaced by two new informateurs -  who are both from right-of-centre parties - who are similarly tasked with finding a solution to the impasse.

Some may view the Dutch system of appointing a government as chaotic. However, it is arguably more democratic than the 'first past the post' system employed in the UK. Of course,  that is all a matter of opinion.

The link below offers an opinion regarding the effect of PVV's strong showing in the election. Far from being excluded from mainstream Dutch politics, it suggests that they are now very much part of it.

https://www.politico.eu/article/with-geert-wilders-give-up-what-is-next-netherlands/

If the purpose of this initiative was to bolster the Tory vote in the recent local elections, then it failed miserably.

I have watched one interview of Ms. Greene, so perhaps it wasn't representative of her.

However, based on that one observation I would say that Ms. Peek is spot on in her assessment.

55 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Good old Boris. But he wasnt proposing a resurrecton of the empire, was he?

 

Just following your example when it comes to hyperbole, Nauseus (Macron = Napoleon).

55 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

What a strange notion - whoever told you that?

Fellow by the name of Johnson. Wonder what became of him?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/07/15/rest-world-believes-britain-time-did/

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m not convinced the positives outweigh the negatives.

 

There is issue of Governments being in control of what becomes an essential means to obtain essential services.

 

I have on a number of occasions lived and worked in countries in which ID cards are mandated. The period between applying and texting ID is very special kind of purgatory in which the applicant is essentially a ‘non-person’, unable to access bank facilities, rent accommodation, access medical care or even simple things like obtaining a phone SIM card or buy a rail season ticket.

 

I’m sure the idea of such restrictions on immigrants would appeal to our resident racists and xenophobes but at a society level they inevitably lead to abuse of immigrants and increases in crime by people who are excluded.

 

I like the idea of the citizens choosing the Government rather than citizenship being something that Governments can withhold by refusing to issue or by canceling an ID card.

 

 

ID cards were - and I'm pretty sure still are - compulsory in Belgium. It was 25 years ago when I first applied for an ID card there but, if I remember correctly, the application process consisted of us presenting ourselves at the town hall where we were given a document stating that our applications were being processed. This document was accepted by banks, etc. Again, If memory serves we received our ID cards +/- 1 week later. All in all, a minor irritation but no great inconvenience.

I don't doubt that it will take refugees longer to obtain an ID card. That is unfortunate but they will be 'in the system' and have access to essential services.

The likelihood of a country such as Belgium refusing to (re)issue or withdraw an ID card without justification is imo almost non-existent. In any event, if the state is that keen to persecute an individual, then it will do so regardless of whether they possess an ID card or not.

17 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Not a problem. Simple and easy. Just have a government issued photo ID. This is the rule for voting in almost any country in the world. But of course. UK had to be different again.

It's not only the UK being different. There are many countries e.g. The Netherlands where ID cards are not compulsory.

However, having said that I agree that ID cards are simple and easy. Imo the benefits - especially in this digital age - for both the individual and the state far outweigh the negatives.