youreavinalaff

"All" of my questions please. Tommy Robinson was speaking sbout the case when he shouldn't have been. He was in danger of damaging the case of the prosecution. There was information on the case available to the public. He was violating a court order on the case.

How many times are you going to quote me and then go off on a tangent?

Would you care to answer all of my questions?

That's not what my comment was about. It was about a certain person jeopardizing the case.

Really? That's funny on two counts. 1. "no more tourists or western retirees want to come to Thailand" 2. They are not coming because beef is cheaper in Spain. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

No. I'm speaking about your multiple posts regarding someone.

I understand your sentiment but the offender you speak of entered the UK in 1978, as a minor. He is a British citizen. Where would you "kick him out" to? Would all British pedophiles be kicked out too? Where would they be sent to?

If you look into it properly, you'll see that the law silenced Tommy as he was in danger of ending the court proceedings by publicly spreading information that he shouldn't have been. Would his supporters still follow him if he'd gone so far as to have the case thrown out of court and the suspects acquitted?

13 hours now. The only one going on about Tommy is you.

Prep about 30 minutes. Put it in a slow cooker for 4 to 6 hours. Go about your day as you wish. In the evening eat the lovely tender stew. Time and effort? Where?

Go on then. Challenge it.

You said "Pre-20th century population was ~99% White European (Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Norman descent). Available at: British History Online." With your new calculations, you are now well over 100%. That's Diane Abbot maths. 🤣🤣

Long may bad service last for you. You truly deserve it.

They don't need to fart. You are blowing enough hot hair for the entire staff.

That hasn't answered any questions and it was not the point you were making. You went on a swerve about tax avoidance. Working and claiming benefits. You then added a racial slur. Tax avoidance is not the topic. Neither is working and claiming benefits. I pointed out, this happens and has happened for decades, across all religions, nationalities, races, etc. Making your reference to Pakistanis only, inane. The point of digital ID, whether it will work or not is a different conversation, is to check prospective employees "right to work" in UK. There is already a system to do that but it is cumbersome and difficult for UK citizens that don't have a passport. This system will make things simpler for those people. It will also likely help those with no photo ID to vote, something so many people were complaining about at the last GE.

That's not the point of this thread. It's about working without "right to work in UK". It's not about not paying tax or working and claiming benefits. If it was, your comment about Pakistani areas would be inane. I've recently had work done on a property in UK. Every tradesman, white ethnic UK citizens, accepted cash payments to, in their words, "avoid the tax man". This and working whilst claiming benefits has been going on for many decades.

The digital ID includes a right to work in UK. That's the point. If you don't have one, you shouldn't be employed. How can someone in possession of "right to work" work illegally?

I wonder if the census had a "no religion" option. I would suggest the figures you show for 2001 and 2011 would be significantly lower if there was such an option. I notice you exclude the Beaker People, Romans and Vikings from your lust of ancestral origins.

It's possible to work illegally even if one is in possession of an NI number.

Are you suggesting of all the migrants currently living in UK, including those with British citizenship, settlement visa, FLR or ILR, don't pay any tax?

Something expats know about prior to moving to Thailand. It's a choice. I agree, it's unfair, but there is a choice.

It's not a Thai thing, if that's the point of your post. B&Q in UK are exactly the same.

It's quite clear middle ground is needed. Unite the Kingdom are far right. The organizer they turned up for is far right. The pro migration group are far left. What is needed is a stance against illegal immigration. Against the cost to UK to house asylum seekers. The government need to educate people about the differences between legal and illegal immigration. Legal migration costs the tax payer nothing. In fact, it is a cash cow for the government. A visa is north of £1000 for 2.5 years. The IHS supplement, going to NHS, is now north of £1000 a year. ILR is over £3000. Not fogetting the £150 for a 5 minute English test for every application and the £50 a go for Life in UK test that most UK citizens would struggle to pass. Those on visas cannot claim benefits. They don't get housed. To ban legal immigration would do far more harm than good to UK. It's a shame, having heard some comment from those on the marches, many many people don't understand this.

Just the same as the Rwanda scheme. Just the same as using Bibby Stockholm as accommodation. It will be just the same if they try to home asylum seekers at army barracks. If Reform ever win an election, all of their accommodation plans and deportation schemes will also meet with the same opposition regarding human rights, appeals, etc.

Your figures are incorrect. Even Tommy Robinson thanked the "150000 prople" who turned up.