Trump’s Vision for a Government Overhaul with RFK Jr. and Elon Musk Gaining Power

[simple1]

7 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Deflection and dodging the question as usual. Put up or shut up on what is incorrect in the Migration Watch report. Sorry if the facts don't suit your narrative. But here's your chance to show your "concerns . . .as to the political debate it feeds" are justified - or not. 

 

On the question of the UN migrant pace, I am familiar with its contents - which gives me an advantage over most of the UK folk I speak to, most of whom  had no idea we were even  signed up to it. Publicity, in relative terms, has been minimal, other than on social media, as you would know if you did the research you gratuitously urge on others.

The UN Pact was published and analysed on MSM, e.g. BBC with a number of articles, that your acquaintances were unaware  - so what.

 

There are a number of articles disputing some of the outputs, or should I say opinions, of Migration Watch, no need to get into a 'debate' as self explanatory  MW feeds the right of centre ugliness. So far as I'm aware Migration Watch does not make any effort to address the 'right of centre' nonsense therefore zero respect from me.

[sandyf]

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Which the previous system which counted income and expenditure before reaching the minimum figure did very well.

 

This current system counts income only and ignores expenditure. two examples of the effect of this.

 

1) Mr. A. earns £18,600 p.a.. Has a mortgage of £6,000 p.a. and services credit card and other debts by paying £2000 p.a. Disposable income before tax and NICs £10,600 p.a. Meets the financial requirement.

 

2) Mr. B earns £18,599 p.a. No mortgage, no rent, no debts to service. Disposable income before tax and NICs £18,599 pa. Does not meet the financial requirement.

 

How is that logical, let alone fair?

I often wonder if this illogical approach by the UK government has influenced the recent changes from Thai immigration.

Prior to the referendum my pension was sufficient to obtain a 12 month extension on retirement but after needed some money in the bank to prop up the income. The recent changes effectively changing income from gross to net and having to be deposited in Thailand make it extremely difficult for me to obtain a 12 month extension.

I have my own home, no dependent children and live in rural Thailand. My disposable income must be as good, if not better than someone on 65K baht a month with children living in rented accommodation in Bangkok.

[superal]

On 1/18/2019 at 6:22 PM, 7by7 said:

Maybe; but I still maintain that the vast majority do not care about this subject as it does not affect them.

 

BTW, I see the petition on the Parliament petitions site has had two more signatures since I posted the link; making a grand total of 104! Remember, it is this one which will get a response from the government if it reaches 10,000 signatures, and may even be debated in Parliament if it reaches 100,000 signatures.

 

There have been previous petitions about this on the Parliament site, which have come to nought as they haven't reached the minimum 10,000 signatures.

 

To all who read this; tell your family and friends, get them to sign it.

The income requirement of 18600 pounds is somewhat bewildering as a retired couple are expected to live on a retirement state pension of a lot less than that .

A UK national wanting to bring his married partner to live in the UK should be a formality if a few caveats were applied inasmuch as not to be a burden on the state for a period of given time ( for the partner ) .

The partner would lose rights to stay in the UK if there was a separation or divorce in the first 10 years .

The UK national had a place of stay previously established .

Just proving that there would not be claiming benefits from the state should suffice except of course the NHS where that opens a can of worms . But having said that if the partner was working and paying contributions that should qualify ?

I believe this immigration policy is another legacy of the ex Home Secretary , Teresa May . I recall reading a statement from John Vine (ex- Independent Inspector of UK Borders & Immigration ) who opposed much of the immigration policies and resigned because of this . He stressed 5 years ago of the then estimated 7000 families being kept apart by the revised act .

What makes it so unpalatable is the amount of economic migrants taken in by the UK and yet their own indigenous folk seem to have no help and little rights .

BTW I have signed the petition and will encourage others to do likewise .

[Krataiboy]

8 hours ago, simple1 said:

The UN Pact was published and analysed on MSM, e.g. BBC with a number of articles, that your acquaintances were unaware  - so what.

 

There are a number of articles disputing some of the outputs, or should I say opinions, of Migration Watch, no need to get into a 'debate' as self explanatory  MW feeds the right of centre ugliness. So far as I'm aware Migration Watch does not make any effort to address the 'right of centre' nonsense therefore zero respect from me.

More deflection, generalisations and not a scintilla of evidence of fact-bending by the source you are trying to rubbish.

 

Why am I not surprised to learn you are fan of the BBC and MSM but not "right of centre nonsense"?

[simple1]

5 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

More deflection, generalisations and not a scintilla of evidence of fact-bending by the source you are trying to rubbish.

 

Why am I not surprised to learn you are fan of the BBC and MSM but not "right of centre nonsense"?

You may admire Migration Watch, I do not. Any group who is headed by by a guy who promotes the apologist British Syrian Society, plays the stats game to support anti immigration propaganda etc is IMO beneath contempt. 

 

Why am I not surprised you post the above and proof it's a waste of time to posts facts if they do not suit your ideology. Liked by one of the usual clique who always denies his support of 'right of centre ideology', as do many others - LOL Better stop here in case one of the clique complains and get me suspended again

Edited January 21, 2019 by simple1

[Krataiboy]

53 minutes ago, simple1 said:

You may admire Migration Watch, I do not. Any group who is headed by by a guy who promotes the apologist British Syrian Society, plays the stats game to support anti immigration propaganda etc is IMO beneath contempt. 

 

Why am I not surprised you post the above and proof it's a waste of time to posts facts if they do not suit your ideology. Liked by one of the usual clique who always denies his support of 'right of centre ideology', as do many others - LOL Better stop here in case one of the clique complains and get me suspended again

. . . and get me suspended again

 

Well, it's good to know we've got something in common, if not our politics!!

Edited 29 minutes ago by simple1

[7by7]

19 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

I take your point re the EU freedom of movement directive. But we now risk jumping out of this frying pan into the fire of UN's toxic new migrant pact. 

You've obviously read a lot of the misinformation which has been spread about this compact.

 

To correct that, start with Inaccuracies spreading about UN migration pact from Full Fact. Which confirms that the compact is not legally binding, does not make criticism of migration illegal and does not make migration a human right.

 

It concludes

Quote

The UK government has said the compact “will not affect our ability to determine and implement our own migration policies, including in areas such as asylum, border controls and returns of illegal migrants.”

Professor Costello told us: “Whether migration is legal or illegal is mainly a question of national law.

Throughout the compact there is a reassertion of states' control over migration. It aims to ensure that if migration does happen, it is legal and safe and orderly.” 

 

[Krataiboy]

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

You've obviously read a lot of the misinformation which has been spread about this compact.

 

To correct that, start with Inaccuracies spreading about UN migration pact from Full Fact. Which confirms that the compact is not legally binding, does not make criticism of migration illegal and does not make migration a human right.

 

It concludes

 

And you've obviously jumped to conclusions. My objections to the pact are based on its contents, not to the alleged "misinformation" or "inaccuracies" to which you refer.

 

Your point about the non-legally binding nature of the pact was addressed by me in an earlier posting. 

[onera1961]

On 1/17/2019 at 11:11 PM, mshs said:

Isn't it ironic that we let tens of thousands people into the most prosperous nation on earth for nothing and a 3rd world country requires that you have $25,000 to live there.

May be the irony is that after winning a genetic lottery, we still want to live in a 3rd world country. 

[7by7]

12 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

And you've obviously jumped to conclusions. My objections to the pact are based on its contents, not to the alleged "misinformation" or "inaccuracies" to which you refer

OK, then I challenge you to do some proper research rather than merely repeating what you've read somewhere.

 

Click here for the compact in full; read it and then detail your exact objections, referring to the paragraph of the compact which contains each point you find objectionable. 

 

12 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Your point about the non-legally binding nature of the pact was addressed by me in an earlier posting. 

No it wasn't; you merely opined

 

On ‎1‎/‎20‎/‎2019 at 9:11 AM, Krataiboy said:

non-binding agreements have a nasty habit of becoming binding over time.

Some examples, please.

[kannot]

On 1/15/2019 at 6:31 AM, darren1971 said:

some UK average salaries, if this is your career you are excluded. If you have children the list would be longer

115. Catering and bar managers - £18,535

116. Legal secretary - £18,425

117. Landscape Gardener - £18,010

118. Sales supervisors - £17,812

119. Telephone salespersons - £17,549

120. Counsellors - £17,526

121. Chefs - £17,513

122. Butchers - £17,466

123. Undertakers / crematorium assistants - £17,414

124. Street cleaners - £17,402

125. Bakers - £17,231

126. Travel agents - £17,081

127. Veterinary nurses - £16,746

128. Senior care workers - £16,609

 

129. School secretaries - £16,366

130. Customer service operations - £15,334

131. Call centre workers - £15,206

132. Dental nurses - £14,788

133. Retail merchandisers - £14,738

134. Fishmongers - £14,299

135. Care workers - £12,650

136. Receptionists - £12,543

137. Teaching assistants - £11,916

138. Nursery assistants - £11,734

139. Beauticians - £11,618

140. Fitness instructors - £10,540

141. Retail assistants - £10,296

142. Hairdressers and barbers - £10,019

143. Cleaners £7,919

144. Waitresses - £7,554

145. Bar staff - £7,404

These  must be part  time as  minimum wage is  about 7.70 pounds an  hour,  no tax  until after almost 12000 pounds too

[7by7]

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

I'm not jumping through hoops for you. I have read the compact and share the same concerns voiced by the leaders of nations who have rightly rejected it.

In other words; you have no idea what's in the compact. Ever thought of thinking for yourself?

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

If you do not know what these are, I suggest you do the research. Alternatively, you can educate yourself by going here: 

Ah, another alt-right rant from another anti immigration immigrant (born in Ireland, now lives in Canada). Some examples of his inaccuracies about the compact.

• Makes it illegal to criticise immigration; a lie.
• Makes economic migration a human right; a lie.
• Takes control of immigration away from national governments; a lie. The compact specifically confirms the right of a sovereign state to determine it's own immigration policy.
• Governments cannot enforce their own immigration laws by arresting illegal immigrants; a lie.
• Etc., etc., etc.,

As for Molynuex, from his Wikipedia entry

Quote

The SPLC describes Molyneux as a "libertarian internet commentator and alleged cult leader who amplifies 'scientific racism,' eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience" and that "Stefan Molyneux operates within the racist so-called 'alt-right' and pro-Trump ranks."^[39]

If you wish to dismiss that as a phony Wiki entry; look at more of his videos and writings; they aint pleasant

 

192 of the 193 UN members agreed the compact last November; the lone exception being the USA. (No surprises their with Trump in charge!). 164 have so far formally adopted it. 

 

1 hour ago, Krataiboy said:

As for phoney "non-binding" agreements, try Agenda 21/2030 for size.

.In what way are they phoney? In what way have they become legally binding?

 

Oh, I forgot; you like making claims, but wont back them up with evidence.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, kannot said:

These  must be part  time as  minimum wage is  about 7.70 pounds an  hour,  no tax  until after almost 12000 pounds too

 

Someone earning the current (2018/19) national minimum wage for those aged 25 or above of £7.83 per hour and working a 40 hour week will have an annual gross income before deducting tax and NICs of £16,284.

 

Well below that required to meet the financial requirement.

[Scott]

Post from an questionable source has been removed.  

 

[darren1971]

5 hours ago, kannot said:

These  must be part  time as  minimum wage is  about 7.70 pounds an  hour,  no tax  until after almost 12000 pounds too

salaried

[darren1971]

all started by immigrants: (im aware not UK)

 

Apple Google Amazon Facebook Oracle IBM Uber Airbnb Yahoo Intel EMC eBay SpaceX VMWare AT&T Tesla NVIDIA Qualcomm Paypal ADP Reddit SlackHQ WeWork Stripe Cognizant Intuit

[superal]

8 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

Someone earning the current (2018/19) national minimum wage for those aged 25 or above of £7.83 per hour and working a 40 hour week will have an annual gross income before deducting tax and NICs of £16,284.

 

Well below that required to meet the financial requirement.

So the mind boggles as to how the bar was set at 18600 pounds . If the government see that as the minimum income to be able to live to a basic standard they should be subsidising incomes below that figure to all including pensioners .

In a nutshell the UK gvmt are dictating to a UK national who they can marry . There was a BBC programme some years ago with the spotlight on the vast amount of Thai / UK married couples kept apart by the new income law . TM was Home Secretary and guilty of the new law , she is a heartless witch and caused very much sadness to split families . This law must be changed and maybe it could be championed by a UK national newspaper in order to make folk aware of the effect on families . So easy to modify this law at a stroke and I would like to see it included in a BBC Question Time programme .

All in all the UK expat is treated in a discriminate way , what with the freezing of pensions etc .

[theoldgit]

2 hours ago, superal said:

In a nutshell the UK gvmt are dictating to a UK national who they can marry .

 

This law must be changed and maybe it could be championed by a UK national newspaper in order to make folk aware of the effect on families . So easy to modify this law at a stroke and I would like to see it included in a BBC Question Time programme .

I'm not sure that I follow your thinking when you say that HMG are dictating who a UK national can marry, for sure there are no minimum income requirements if we married a British lass, but the minimum financial requirements apply to any foreign national applicant, are you saying there should be no minimum financial requirements for those wishing to settle in the UK?

 

I fully understand your thinking about getting a UK national newspaper to champion your concerns, but I suspect they know there is little appetite from the great British public for an easing of the rules so won't go down that route, though they sometimes champion the cases where the sponsor fails to meet the requirement but the applicant has a confirmed job with a salary far in excess of the minimum income requirement which can't be counted.

 

Likewise I doubt if you would get the subject discussed in QT, they seem to be concentrating on Brexit at the moment with most of the audience wanting to harden the borders even further, you could always get yourself in the audience and submit your question, though only three of four get selected.  

[7by7]

8 hours ago, superal said:

So the mind boggles as to how the bar was set at 18600 pounds

They arrived at that figure as it is the earnings level at which a British couple would no longer be eligible for any income related benefits:-

• Pension Credit,
• Income Support,
• income-related Employment and Support Allowance,
• income-based Jobseeker's Allowance,
• Housing Benefit.

(N.B. Apart from Pension Credit, these benefits are being combined with other, non income related benefits into Universal Credit.)

 

Of course, not only do most British couples on income related benefits actually receive far less than £18,600 p.a., but a British/immigrant couple are denied those benefits anyway until the immigrant partner has ILR; i.e. at least 5 years!

8 hours ago, superal said:

This law must be changed and maybe it could be championed by a UK national newspaper in order to make folk aware of the effect on families

It has been, many times, one example from 2015: Protest over £18,600 minimum income rule to bring foreign spouses to UK No effect, because it is simply not an issue for the vast majority of British citizens, most of whom, if polls are to be believed, want immigration drastically reduced and they don't care how it's done!

 

The government has even been taken to court over this: Minimum income rules stopping British citizens bringing foreign spouses to UK are lawful, says Supreme Court

 

In addition to that, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration's 2013 report into this found it to be both unfair and illogical. Did the government listen? No.

Edited January 22, 2019 by 7by7
Typo

[Krataiboy]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

In other words; you have no idea what's in the compact. Ever thought of thinking for yourself?

Ah,  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.8a7b027b7bc7  from another anti immigration immigrant (born in Ireland, now lives in Canada). Some examples of his inaccuracies about the compact.

• Makes it illegal to criticise immigration; a lie.
• Makes economic migration a human right; a lie.
• Takes control of immigration away from national governments; a lie. The compact specifically confirms the right of a sovereign state to determine it's own immigration policy.
• Governments cannot enforce their own immigration laws by arresting illegal immigrants; a lie.
• Etc., etc., etc.,

As for Molynuex, from his Wikipedia entry

If you wish to dismiss that as a phony Wiki entry; look at more of his videos and writings; they aint pleasant

 

192 of the 193 UN members agreed the compact last November; the lone exception being the USA. (No surprises their with Trump in charge!). 164 have so far formally adopted it. 

 

.In what way are they phoney? In what way have they become legally binding?

 

Oh, I forgot; you like making claims, but wont back them up with evidence.

How amusing! You tell me to think for myself - then come up with the Southern Poverty Law Centre - of all things - as evidence to justify a pathetic ad hominem attack on Stefan Molyneux.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-southern-poverty-law-center-has-lost-all-credibility/2018/06/21/22ab7d60-756d-11e8-9780-b1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.8a7b027b7bc7

 

Molyneaux' video is no "alt-right rant". It is a cool, in-depth analysis of just why the US, Australia and other nations have given this latest example of UN-led globalist social engineering the elbow.

 

Those nations who have rejected the pact are clearly unconvinced - as are many millions of indigenous Europeans, not least Brexiteers - of the alleged "benefits" of mass migration. Their reluctance to sign what is being sold as a "non-binding" agreement speaks for itself. 

 

It smells like Agenda 21 all over again.

 

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

51 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Those nations who have rejected the pact are clearly unconvinced - as are many millions of indigenous Europeans, not least Brexiteers - of the alleged "benefits" of mass migration. Their reluctance to sign what is being sold as a "non-binding" agreement speaks for itself. 

Tell us, oh wise one, how leaving a sovereign state's immigration control and legislation up to that sovereign state is forcing them to accept the 'alleged "benefits" of mass migration?'

 

Those states that have yet to sign have their reasons for so doing; but remember all but one of them, Trump's USA, ratified the compact.

 

54 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

It smells like Agenda 21 all over again.

I see that you have swallowed the conspiracy theories over this as well.

 

In which case, I have this bridge for sale, going cheap; interested?

 

As the white supremacist, anti immigration immigrant Molyneux has been ruled by the moderators to be a

15 hours ago, Scott said:

questionable source

I see no need to comment further upon him and his racist outpourings.

 

 

[superal]

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

They arrived at that figure as it is the earnings level at which a British couple would no longer be eligible for any income related benefits:-

• Pension Credit,
• Income Support,
• income-related Employment and Support Allowance,
• income-based Jobseeker's Allowance,
• Housing Benefit.

(N.B. Apart from Pension Credit, these benefits are being combined with other, non income related benefits into Universal Credit.)

 

Of course, not only do most British couples on income related benefits actually receive far less than £18,600 p.a., but a British/immigrant couple are denied those benefits anyway until the immigrant partner has ILR; i.e. at least 5 years!

It has been, many times, one example from 2015: Protest over £18,600 minimum income rule to bring foreign spouses to UK No effect, because it is simply not an issue for the vast majority of British citizens, most of whom, if polls are to be believed, want immigration drastically reduced and they don't care how it's done!

 

The government has even been taken to court over this: Minimum income rules stopping British citizens bringing foreign spouses to UK are lawful, says Supreme Court

 

In addition to that, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration's 2013 report into this found it to be both unfair and illogical. Did the government listen? No.

The government has even been taken to court over this: Minimum income rules stopping British citizens bringing foreign spouses to UK are lawful, says Supreme Court

 

Thanks , very informative , however when I read the link there were 3 quoted cases from the challengers of this act . They were , by the reading of their surnames ,  themselves immigrants / refugees, copy below.

 

The justices heard challenges from two British citizens, Abdul Majid and Shabana Jawed, who cannot meet the requirement to bring their non-EEA spouses into the UK, and from MM, a refugee from the Lebanon who is resident in the UK and in a similar position, and his nephew AF.

A further appeal is in the case of SS, from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who is challenging a refusal of entry clearance as the spouse of a refugee who became a naturalised British citizen, but whose earnings are below £18,600.

 

Now what I believe has happened is that the government has closed the door to all or most  foreigners trying to get on the bandwagon of joining their spouses as a way of entry to the UK which I believe previously was automatic for a spouse . So the indigenous Brit has been caught in the same net and it has to be that way to avoid discrimination .  Seems unfair and unjust without any common sense applied . That leaves a UK citizen , who earns below the income threshold , to have no choice but to marry a UK citizen ?  or how do you see it ?

 

[theoldgit]

1 hour ago, superal said:

Now what I believe has happened is that the government has closed the door to all or most  foreigners trying to get on the bandwagon of joining their spouses as a way of entry to the UK which I believe previously was automatic for a spouse . So the indigenous Brit has been caught in the same net and it has to be that way to avoid discrimination .  Seems unfair and unjust without any common sense applied . That leaves a UK citizen , who earns below the income threshold , to have no choice but to marry a UK citizen ?  or how do you see it ?

I'm not sure that marrying a UK national was ever supposed to be "a way of entry into the UK", I'm also not sure that it was ever an automatic right, certainly not in recent times.

 

Likewise HMG's fallback position has always been that there's nothing to stop a UK national marrying a foreign national and living together in another country, Thailand for instance, that's where my wife and I have chosen to live.

[HAKAPALITA]

Make sure you fit the Criterion, and stop tearing yourself apart .

[7by7]

7 hours ago, theoldgit said:

I'm not sure that marrying a UK national was ever supposed to be "a way of entry into the UK", I'm also not sure that it was ever an automatic right, certainly not in recent times.

The Primary Purpose Rule meant that couples had to show that the immigrant partner hadn't married the British partner as a way of gaining entry to the UK. How does one prove a negative?

 

That rule was abolished in 1997. Immigration Rules Relaxed

Quote

Home Secretary Jack Straw said it was being ended because "it is arbitrary, unfair and ineffective and has penalised genuine cases, divided families and unnecessarily increased the administrative burden on the immigration system."

Sounds like the current financial requirement to me!

[7by7]

9 hours ago, superal said:

Thanks , very informative , however when I read the link there were 3 quoted cases from the challengers of this act . They were , by the reading of their surnames ,  themselves immigrants / refugees, copy below.

Three of the appellants mentioned in your quoted section are British citizens.

 

That their names indicate they come from immigrant backgrounds is irrelevant.

 

Would you be saying the same if they had, for example, Irish names?

[cliveshep]

The effects are simple - you can marry who you like if they are not an EEA or British Citizen but only IF you have an income above £18600 pa can you bring them to the UK.

 

So you are discriminated against for financial reasons.

 

If you and your non-EEA wife live in the UK but she has not passed the "Life in the UK" test and gained citizenship you need to keep filling forms every 2 years and coughing up the best part of a grand to get a further 2 years Leave To Remain. I say wife but of course that is the norm but it applies equally to husbands/partners.

 

BUT when you retire if your income as a British Citizen with the Right to Abode falls below £18,600 (more if you have children of course) which it certainly will on the State Pension level your spouse better be an EEA or British citizen because if not she will be deported.  

 

I saw retirement coming up, I was almost 70 and just couldn't do it any more, so we made the decision to stuff Theresa May, sold up house and car, dumped a lot of stuff, bought our own shipping container and despatched it to Bangkok, flying out the following day. We've never been back nor will we. I wish bad cess to Theresa May in the very worst way, she is an evil woman, I'm glad she cocked up Brexit  because that ought to spell the end to her political career and a good thing too.

 

 

[7by7]

4 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

It should be obvious, even to you, that signatory nations will be under enormous moral and political pressure to honour their commitment to the compact - a document which even Götz Schmidt-Bremme, head of the UN's Global Forum on Migration and Development, describes as "controversial", 

If one makes a commitment, one should honour it.

 

But the compact does not commit sovereign nations into opening their doors to mass immigration. It specifically sates that how a sovereign nation controls immigration is up to that sovereign nation.

 

That you keep on repeating the same false argument over and over does not change that.

 

BTW; controversial does not mean wrong.

 

3 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Incidentally, I assume you have some credible evidence  - other than from a "questionable source" such as the SLPC) to justify your libeling of Stefan Molyneux a racist.

Have a look at his videos on YouTube about the low IQs of black people for a start! Then there's the ones where he says only black and South Asian people commit child rape. The examples are endless.

 

As are examples and criticism of his racist views all over the web; if you care to look.

 

It isn't libel if it's true.

 

As for the SPLC

Quote

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is an American nonprofit legal advocacy organization specializing in civil rights and public interest litigation. Based in Montgomery, Alabama, it is noted for its successful legal cases against white supremacist groups, its classification of hate groups and other extremist organizations, and for promoting tolerance education programs.^[3][4] ……...

 

…….Since the 2000s, the SPLC's classification and listings of hate groups (organizations that, in its assessment, "attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics")^[9] and extremists^[10] have often been described as authoritative.^[11][12][13]

Though they are, like any organisation, subject to criticism and controversy

Quote

The SPLC's listings have also been the subject of criticism from others, who argue that some of the SPLC's listings are overbroad, politically motivated, or unwarranted.^{[14][15][16][17]}

 

3 hours ago, Krataiboy said:

Alternatively, perhaps you could summon up the courage to repeat the slur to his face - and invite me along to watch the fireworks!

You arrange the meeting, and I will be happy to tell him exactly what I think of him and his vile views to his face.

 

Until you do that, I see no point in responding further to your support for him and his views.

 

[Scott]

Post reported and removed.

 

[nontabury]

On 1/15/2019 at 12:07 AM, darren1971 said:

 

'there has to be a threshold' why?

Why should they have to pay visa fees? Especially if one of the family is British.

 Just this week the government has Relented,on the requirements that E.U citizens, ( neither of whom are British citizens) must pay £65 to remain in the country after Brexit.

Yet the cost for a U.K citizen to bring his partner to the U.K is far.far greater.

In the meantime 15,000 to 20,000 children must rely on Skype in order to keep contact with one of their parents.

Here is one video, showing the problems regarding women wanting to bring their partners to the U.K. The same applies to British men wanting to bring their foreign wife's to the U.K.

Of whom there must be a large number in regards to Thailand.

 

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by nontabury