RayC

Illegal immigrants will arrive irrespective of whether the UK is inside or outside the EU. Legal immigration to the UK has increased since Brexit. Removal of freedom of movement for EU nationals is one - arguably the main - contributory reason for this.

Incorrect. See my other post. The mask is slipping. Given that only British citizens can vote in UK general elections and it normally takes 5 years to become a British resident (not a citizen), this would appear to be a very flawed plan.

As usual a rant containing empty rhetoric and little, if any, fact Still, I'm sure that you feel better having got that off your chest?😁

UK citizens do not have every right to live anywhere in the EU. They have every right to apply for a long-stay visa and then, possibly, be granted residency. The requirements vary by individual EU country but generally to apply for a long-stay visa, a UK national will need to have a) a job offer from a local company b) a close family relative who is a national c) an offer to study in the country d) a sizeable amount of money. Whether the procedures associated with applying for a long-stay visa can be described as "easy", and whether having gone through the process, the individual is granted a visa is another matter. One thing's for sure: It was a lot simpler for a UK national to be able to live in an EU country when we were a member than it is now.

1) No, Brexit was never going to prevent extremely wealthy Britons from moving to just about anywhere they want. What it did do was prevent the overwhelming majority of the population of the UK freely residing in the other EU states and seeking employment there without restriction. 2) Once again, you are mistaken. UK nationals are free to visit EU member states - to be exact, the Schengen zone - as tourists for up to 90 days in any (rolling) 180 day period. 3) 1) and 2) are not examples of 'Project Fear' but the reality of what the ordinary Briton faces today. Throw in the increased bureaucracy and difficulties faced by UK businesses importing from/ exporting to the EU plus the general negative effect of Brexit on the economy and those promised 'sunny uplands' seem to be shrouded in apparently permanent darkness. Hope that has helped to clarify things for you.

Given current public sentiment in both Denmark and Greenland, I very much doubt that the US will buy the latter any time soon.

Unfortunately there may be some truth in what you say. Russia may well end up as the victor. However, you are completely incorrect regarding the catalyst for this war. It has nothing to do with the US and NATO wanting a poxy war with Russia, and everything to do with Russia wanted to prevent Ukraine moving towards the West. Victor Yanukovych was elected on a platform which sought EU membership. As a first step towards this, Ukraine was to enter into an Association Agreement with the EU and legislation was passed by the Ukrainian parliament to effect this Agreement. However, Yanukovych - under pressure from Moscow - refused to sign the Agreement and, instead decided to pursue stronger economic ties with Russia. There was a public outcry over this which led to the Maiden protests and the overthrow of Yanukovych. There can be no doubt that if matters had been left to run their natural course after Yanukovych's removal that Ukraine would have forged ever closer ties with the West in general, and the EU in particular. This was unacceptable to Putin and he ordered the invasion - and subsequent annexation of Crimea - on the pretext that the invading Russian forces were no more than 'peace keepers'. Only one nation - Russia - and in all likelihood one person - Putin - bears responsibility for this war.

Greenland apparently.

So the freedom loving Vlad continues to fight for peace against the despotic forces of the West. All lovers of liberty should rejoice! Just one thing: I thought that your underlining concern was to avoid making more poor women and children in Ukraine, widows and orphans? Those who don't know better might think that you are an apologist for Putin.

Dearie me, are you so deeply deluded that you genuinely believe your self-deception to be true? You casually alter reality to suit your perception of the world. Here are the facts (visible to anyone who can be bothered to read from the start of this thread) 1. You believe that the government tacitly supports the Sentencing Guidelines. They do NOT. It is clear from quotes from government ministers contained in the very link which you posted! 2. You refuse to accept that I too do NOT support the Sentencing Guidelines despite me stating this categorically on more than one occasion. I will repeat it again here: I DO NOT SUPPORT THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES. 3. BAME convicts receive longer sentences than their white counterparts. (The reasons for this are unproven). You refuse to acknowledge this fact. 4. You claim that I " ..defend .. positive discrimination.." when what I actually said was, "I am not sure that positive discrimination is the answer". Very few people would interpret that as a defence. 5. In between all your delusional lies, you actually happened to stumble upon a fact: Yes, I do believe in DEI when it is defined as, ".... organizational frameworks that seek to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people" (Source: Wikipedia). That you seemingly don't, says it all. Anyway, I'll leave you to wallow in your self-pity about having had the misfortune of being born a white male in the 5th/6th most prosperous nation on earth with the option of returning there any time you like. Oh, how fortune has forsaken you.

Wrong again. All my own work. Look, trying to attribute statements to me which I haven't made isn't going to work and only highlights the weaknesses of your own argument. I have stated more than once that I am against the Guidance issued by the Sentencing Council, and will continue to do so each and every time you bring up the lie that I support it. Definition of a racist: "characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized." (Maybe we need a new term and/or an update to this definition to include religion). I'm pleased for you that you are happy with your position.

Your sense of grievance and victimhood knows no bounds.

Then think yourself lucky that you haven't had any problems up to now because if you're a white, heterosexual, indigenous UK male then the current UK government hates you and is coming for you. Everybody knows this; it's a fact🤦

Unfortunately, your prejudice is so plain to see that these attempts to deflect attention from them are futile.

"I know what I know". I'll only accept studies which support my viewpoint. My prejudice is against people who believe those who are not indigenous or right-wing are not patriots. If you bothered to read posts properly you will see that I stated earlier in this thread that, "I'm not sure that positive discrimination is the answer".

You won't acknowledge that the harsher sentencing of BAME criminals compared with their white counterparts illustrates bias because the studies are methodologically flawed: However, the complete absence of any studies whatsoever showing bias towards white, indigenous individuals convicted of crimes during last summer's riots you deem to be irrelevant. It's inconsistent reasoning and it indicates prejudice.

I was there at the outset. What about my other point? i.e. that in the absence of methodological sound studies we can't conclude that white, indigenous UK nationals faced discrimination when being sentenced in the aftermath of last year's riots. If you are going to be consistent in your reasoning, surely you must agree?

It's possible but there needs to be evidence to support that premise. If by that you mean that that group should not be discriminated against, then the answer is 'Yes'. I'm not sure that 'positive discrimination' is the answer (especially when it comes to military operations).

Which bit of my previous post (reproduced below) is unclear? The authors of the report which I linked to acknowledge the methodological limitations of the study but, notwithstanding this, it still shows that BAME offenders receive tougher sentences than their white counterparts. Interestingly, the lack of methodological sound studies to support your grievance that white, indigenous males were discriminated against during sentencing as a result of last summer's riots doesn't seem to concern you. ---+-+------++-++-- "Where did I defend it? That's right I didn't. Please don't attribute statements to me which I didn't make. For the record, of course there should not be a two-tier justice system."

https://yjlc.uk/resources/legal-updates/ethnicity-and-custodial-sentencing-data-highlights-racial-bias I'm sure that now I have brought the evidence to your attention, you would like to go on record and condemn the bias shown towards BAME under the UK justice system.

"Asked about the new guidelines on LBC radio, Jones said: “We disagree with this decision. I think it’s really important in the country that people are trusting in the justice system that we have and that means you can’t have a two-tier system, it has to be fair, it has to be equal to everybody and so we have asked them to think again about this guidance.” Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, said overnight that she would write to the Sentencing Council to “register my displeasure and to recommend reversing this change to guidance”." Could the government's opposition to this guidance be any clearer? The only fools are those who cannot think logically due to their irrational hatred of anything that doesn't fit in neatly with their narrow, blinkered view of what the UK should look like. You're right for a change, I did know that. But equally, the system shouldn't impose harsher sentences on black people for committing the same crime as whites. However, apparently you can't bring yourself to condemn that two-tier application of justice. Where did I defend it? That's right I didn't. Please don't attribute statements to me which I didn't make. For the record, of course there should not be a two-tier justice system.

I'll admit that I was irritated by your previous post, but I don't see anything contemptuous in my reply. I'm sorry if you saw it otherwise. If you are suggesting that those who have little recent experience of living in a country are less qualified to pass opinion on day-to-day life there than those who have/ do, then I would agree with you. All the best.

Did you even read the article? The government - and opposition - is opposed to the guidance. Who knows, maybe the guidance will be reversed by legislation? However, I understand your grievance. As a black male living outside the country with (apparently) no personal experience of the UK justice system, it must be difficult for you. "At present black and minority ethnic communities are overrepresented at almost all stages of the criminal justice process in England and Wales, and are more likely to be imprisoned and receive longer sentences than white people".

Serious question. I'm intrigued. How has the UK justice system discriminated against you personally? Again, seriously, I will understand if you don't want to discuss this matter on a public forum.

Not from where? I was born and raised in South London and have lived or worked in a number of EU countries so, by those criteria, I'd say that I'm more qualified than most - probably including yourself -to comment on these matters. It's nonsense to suggest that no countries have benefitted from the EU (or its' predecessors). For example, by almost any criteria, things in the former Warsaw Pact nations have greatly improved since they joined the EU. Going further back, the ECSC helped ensure that the regular, centuries old dust-ups between France and Germany became a thing of the past. Germany's economic problems are mainly structural and, if there is blame to assign, it rests with successive German governments not the EU: Likewise, Merkel's well-meaning, but ill conceived 'open doors' policy regarding refugees, was a German government decision not the EU's, albeit the rest of Europe are dealing with the consequences. Although the EU lays down targets wrt energy - targets agreed to by the member states - energy policy and strategy are largely the responsibility of the individual EU states.