1 minute ago, bg53 said:

 

Blows my mind that the UK can't deport persona non grata / illegal immigrants without major legal blocks.

 

 

You're not alone. Many UK citizens also have their mind blown. 

 

That's why Farage will get elected on a ticket of leaving the ECHR. 

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Nice haircut.

 

I'd happily trade. 

3 hours ago, angryguy said:

Any leftists online to come to this young mans defense?

The usual suspects will be along shortly.

44 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

It's stating the obvious in a poor attempt to deflect from the fact that he should never have been here in the first place.

 

It's ignoring the damage that has already been done to that poor girl. 

 

It implies that will be the end of the matter. Justice done. Let's all move on. 

 

It's ignoring the fact that he will NOT be deported after his sentence because of some ECHR nonsense about persecution in whatever 3rd world dump he came from and no doubt a leftist activist judge who's heart bleeds for him. 

 

 

It’s stating my opinion.

 

It dues not imply this will be the end of the matter.

I can’t answer for your assumptions on what will happen in the future.

54 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

And if Labour get their way his race alone will dictate that he is guaranteed a Pre Sentencing Report to likely reduce the sentence.

 

White indigenous men will have no such guarantee.

 

Typical Racist Labour DEI garbage. 

More imaginary nonsense to feed your need for grievance.

4 hours ago, angryguy said:

Any leftists online to come to this young mans defense?

Well a few points.

 

What was she doing in a nightclub at that age?

Why was she drinking?

If he dragged her out of the nightclub as she has claimed what were the door security doing? 
Girls often regret getting drunk and having sex and cry rape

Muhammad has denied it.

How many men has she previously had sex with?
How was she dressed?

Innocent until proven guilty.
 

 

How did I go? Alright?

4 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

And who let this guy in the UK?? Should be held accountable also!!

Why?
If you commit a crime in Thailand should whoever let you in be held accountable?
Never heard so much nonsense.

1 hour ago, JonnyF said:

 

They tend to avoid these threads.

 

Haven't seen them on the one about the Epping immigrant being jailed either.

 

Bit awkward innit...

 

PS. Diversity is our greatest strength and Immigrants built Britain. 

Says the guy who thinks he’s better than immigrants in Thailand.

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

More imaginary nonsense to feed your need for grievance.

 

I posted the link many times Chomps.

 

The proposal had specific references to the race, ethnicity, religion of who was guaranteed a PSR. 

 

It must be exhausting trying to cover up the racist proposals Labour are trying to push through. 😄

 

It's so nice for me just to be able to tell the truth. 

1 hour ago, Photoguy21 said:

Irrelevant. He should be locked up for years then deported back to his home country.

Is he a legal immigrant?
Is he a British citizen?

4 hours ago, mikeymike100 said:

And who let this guy in the UK?? Should be held accountable also!!

 

"It was you and me."

 

Remember the song?????

 

 

5 minutes ago, JimCM said:

If you commit a crime in Thailand should whoever let you in be held accountable?

 

If you are an illegal immigrant? Yes. 

3 minutes ago, JimCM said:

Says the guy who thinks he’s better than immigrants in Thailand.

 

I don't know any immigrants in Thailand, I only know expats.

 

Sounds like I offended you. Are you an immigrant?

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

 

If you are an illegal immigrant? Yes. 

I agree, all illegal immigrants should be immediately turned around and set in the direction they came from. UK need the Navy to start sinking these boats.

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

don't know any immigrants in Thailand, I only know expats.

None in your factory?

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

I don't know any immigrants in Thailand, I only know expats.

 

Sounds like I offended you. Are you an immigrant?

Expats are migrants, those who migrated for work are economic migrants.

 

3 minutes ago, JimCM said:

None in your factory?

 

It's not my factory. 

 

It is owned by the company I work for.  

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Expats are migrants, those who migrated for work are economic migrants.

 

 

Immigrants move to a country permanently.

 

Expats are temporary. On renewable, temporary visas. 

 

The clue is in the visa we have. "Non-Immigrant". It really couldn't be much clearer than that Chomps. 😆

 

58 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Immigrants move to a country permanently.

 

Expats are temporary. On renewable, temporary visas. 

 

The clue is in the visa we have. "Non-Immigrant". It really couldn't be much clearer than that Chomps. 😆

 

That’s odd, because during many years as an economic migrant working for a major MNC I’ve met countless western migrants in countries around the world, including Thailand, who refer to themselves as ‘Expats’.

 

Very many are not working, nor never have worked in the country they migrated to.

 

Maybe they like to tell themselves they aren’t migrants and haven’t really migrated.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s odd, because during many years as an economic migrant working for a major MNC I’ve met countless western migrants in countries around the world, including Thailand, who refer to themselves as ‘Expats’.

 

Very many are not working, nor never have worked in the country they migrated to.

 

Maybe they like to tell themselves they aren’t migrants and haven’t really migrated.

 

Yes and most are on temporary visas, reneweable annually based on strict criteria and they eventually return home or move to another country, again, temporarily.

 

I checked my passport. My visa is definitely NON immigrant. 

 

Did you get Thai citizenship?   

6 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Nice haircut.

 

Nice deepfry tan.

I am not racist, and I'm certainly not anti-Muslim, but I do think that some restrictions should be put on people who come from nations that are infamous for people who lead a lifestyle that allows for very little tolerance of other beliefs. 

 

Something must be done to keep out the extremist super freaks. Their religion may work for them in Saudi, Kuwait, Yemen, Sudan or Somalia. That same ultra conservative fanatislcism, is not wanted, needed, nor desirable in Western nations. Only moderates need apply should be the policy. And there should be a standard of willingness to assimilate, and it should be on the family to prove the burden is met.

 

I believe immigration policy should be reformed to the point where it should be staged, and all Muslim families should show a willingness to assimilate. I also believe that families with Muslim daughters who are teenagers can start by proving that they have  participated in a 2 piece bikini contest, and for teenage boys they must show a burden of proof that they're not affiliated with any of the local madrasas, are intolerant super freak mullahs. 

 

Are we serious about keeping our nation's safe from extremists, or not?  This will probably be interpreted as a racist statement but for a long time I've been saying that immigration criteria for Saudis should be unique and singular and far strictly then normal immigration for other people from other parts of the world

It must never be forgotten that but Saudi's practice the most extreme form of Islam, a hateful and horrific interpretation that is completely intolerant of other religions and is the exact opposite of what most of us would regard as any kind of positive faith. 

 

Huge and very strict restrictions should be put on their ability to immigrate, essentially they are not wanted and they are not needed, and for the most part they are not of any benefit to a society that let them in, as it is very unlikely they will ever integrate. 

 

Why am I anti Wahhabi? Why do I think all Saudis should be barred worldwide from immigrating to any nation? Why do I consider the Saudis so dangerous to mankind? 

 

But it is an ideology that divides the world into the realm of Islam and the realm of the infidel, or the realm of war. So it trains the readers that they live behind enemy lines – they must be passing through, they cannot take abode here. You only have two reasons for being in the land of the infidel. One is to convert people to Islam. The second is to acquire either money or skill which you can bring back with you to help you and others engage in jihad, and in this context, it is quite clear that they mean that in a military sense, because they go on to talk about tanks and bullets, and things of this kind. One of the things you certainly cannot do is become an American citizen, because no Muslim can be ruled an infidel.

 

That is the particular ideology which is being taught. You must not have any good contacts, warm relations with anybody – not only with unbelievers, but with any Muslim who is not of the Wahhabi type; they are also often denounced as apostates. That is the major theme of concern in that report.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2005/05/03/the-global-spread-of-wahhabi-islam-how-great-a-threat/

 

6 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Immigrants move to a country permanently.

 

Expats are temporary. On renewable, temporary visas. 

 

The clue is in the visa we have. "Non-Immigrant". It really couldn't be much clearer than that Chomps. 😆

 

‘Expat’ is just a social label, not a legal one. Many so-called expats live for decades on renewable ‘temporary’ visas, raise families, buy property, and put down roots- that’s immigration in practice. If you stay 1 year, maybe you’re an expat. But 5 years? 10 years? 30 years maybe with a family and property here? At what point do you stop being an expat and start being an immigrant?  The ‘non-immigrant’ on the visa is just bureaucracy, not reality.  

18 hours ago, Hanaguma said:

19 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

So many racists and right wing extremists on AN, this idea should get a few thumbs down lol. The thread comments generalizing from one case to all immigrants, a stereotype not backed by evidence. This reflects a broader 2025 trend in the UK at the moment where 67% of Britons view immigration negatively, often amplified by high-profile cases like these, fueling biased narratives despite immigrants not being disproportionately criminal.

Again the attempt to obfuscate. How about breaking down the question into "view legal immigration" and "view illegal immigration"? I think, like most countries, Britain would be in favour of a controlled and competent system of immigration, where the needs of the country come before the needs of the prospective migrant. And where illegals are kept in detention until they can be returned to their point of origin.

 

Your reply misjudges the thread’s focus by shifting to the legal vs. illegal immigration debate, which wasn’t the core issue. The thread, as you note, centers on a presumably legal immigrant’s crime being used to stereotype all immigrants. The reply’s pivot to illegal immigration and detention sidesteps this, introducing a red herring that avoids engaging with the problematic generalization. It reflects a common tactic in polarized debates to reframe discussions toward broader anti-immigration sentiments, especially when 63% of Britons prioritize stricter immigration controls in 2025. I know my comments obfuscate, I wouldn't expect any less from a bunch like we have on this thread. Keep the thumbs down coming lads lol.

20 hours ago, Photoguy21 said:

Irrelevant. He should be locked up for years then deported back to his home country.

Right Irrelevant obfuscating  mumbo jumbo.  There is a political system that would summarily revoke citizenship and put these people on a boat back to bum f*** Egypt. And if some one was a citizen , for example that black who killed girl on train in North Carolina. Then detention facilities can be set up in African countries. Other wise,as in all similar topics, it's just bla bla bla until the cows come home. Fascism isn't all bad.

20 hours ago, JimCM said:

Why?
If you commit a crime in Thailand should whoever let you in be held accountable?
Never heard so much nonsense.

 

Did you

 

* Pay people traffickers to get you into Thailand ?
 

* Did you enter Thailand illegally ?

 

* Did a Human Rights Parasite, stop the Thai Authorities from deporting you ?
 

If the answer is " No "

 

Then your argument and logic is weak, stupid and beyond comprehension. And to use your word, utter " Nonsense "

On 9/24/2025 at 9:56 AM, CharlieH said:

 

Sudanese immigrant told crying student 'I love you' as he raped her after dragging her out of Bournemouth nightclub, court told.

 

A Sudanese immigrant, Samir Muhammad, is on trial at Bournemouth Crown Court accused of raping a student he allegedly dragged out of a nightclub. The incident occurred in December 2021 after they met at the Cameo nightclub in Bournemouth. The victim managed to alert friends to her location using Snapchat, leading to Muhammad's quick arrest.

 

Prosecutor Louise McCullough detailed how Muhammad, then 17, allegedly forced the student to his flat, ignoring her pleas to stop. Jurors heard that the young woman felt "really drunk" after consuming just one drink at the club and was incapable of resisting Muhammad's advances due to her condition. She described her experience to police, recounting how Muhammad forced her to strip and pinned her down, making statements like "I love you."

 

The student was able to borrow Muhammad's charger to regain phone access and subtly alert her friends. Upon leaving, she reported the attack to a passing police car. Muhammad, then 21, denies the charges, claiming the encounter was consensual. The court is examining evidence, including the complainant's taped police interview, to determine the nature of the events.

 

As the trial progresses, the focus will be on evaluating testimonies and evidence surrounding the alleged incident and Muhammad's defense.

 

Key Takeaways

• Samir Muhammad is accused of raping a student after meeting her at a nightclub.
• The victim used Snapchat to alert friends, facilitating a swift response.
• Muhammad claims the encounter was consensual, contrasting with the prosecution's case.

Beautiful diversity.

21 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

So many racists and right wing extremists on AN, this idea should get a few thumbs down lol. The thread comments generalizing from one case to all immigrants, a stereotype not backed by evidence. This reflects a broader 2025 trend in the UK at the moment where 67% of Britons view immigration negatively, often amplified by high-profile cases like these, fueling biased narratives despite immigrants not being disproportionately criminal.

You're what's wrong with this world.

14 hours ago, JimCM said:

At what point do you stop being an expat and start being an immigrant?

The point where they give you a Thai passport and ID card.

2 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

 

Your reply misjudges the thread’s focus by shifting to the legal vs. illegal immigration debate, which wasn’t the core issue. The thread, as you note, centers on a presumably legal immigrant’s crime being used to stereotype all immigrants. The reply’s pivot to illegal immigration and detention sidesteps this, introducing a red herring that avoids engaging with the problematic generalization. It reflects a common tactic in polarized debates to reframe discussions toward broader anti-immigration sentiments, especially when 63% of Britons prioritize stricter immigration controls in 2025. I know my comments obfuscate, I wouldn't expect any less from a bunch like we have on this thread. Keep the thumbs down coming lads lol.

If 63% of Britons want stricter immigration controls, should stricter immigration controls not be enacted?

 

The rich citizens benefit from mass migration, while the poor citizens suffer from it, that's why the left loves it.