What you can't grasp Roadsta is we do not know who is coming in they could be rapist's murders on the run from there country Terroist's we simply don't know who has moved next door in his new home provided by us. We have the right to know the identity of our new immigrant.

8 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

Ever since that incident where that black kid born in England to immigrant families went on that horrible stabbing spree at a Taylor Swift dance party, I have been wondering whether immigrants face any unique obstacles to socio-economic integration in England.

While I fully empathize with the outrage expressed by many over what they perceive as attacks against traditional British culture, the rabble-rousing street vigilante mob rule approach to resolving this problem seems very counter-productive and short-sighted to me. I believe using social media to enflame anti-immigrant resentments every time one of these unfortunate and tragic incidents occur is counter-productive.

When I Googled "does England present unique obstacles to socio economic integration for immigrants" I found quite an eye-opening and lengthy list of structural obstacles to social and economic integration. While vetting may need to be improved, I do not believe that the immigrants coming to England are a bunch of blood-thirsty savages who have no hope of ever being able to integrate into British society, and I believe using social media to enflame anti-immigrant sentiment every time one of these unfortunate and tragic incidents occur is counter-productive. Again, Googling "does England present unique obstacles to socio economic integration for immigrants" might provide some food for thought.

Google ' why does the UK need Muslim immigrants '.

3 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

What you can't grasp Roadsta is we do not know who is coming in they could be rapist's murders on the run from there country Terroist's we simply don't know who has moved next door in his new home provided by us. We have the right to know the identity of our new immigrant.

Good grief. You're not British with that level of illiteracy. You must be an immigrant of low educational attainment.

I'll correct for you, so you can view this as a learning experience:

3 minutes ago, BarraMarra said:

What you can't grasp Roadsternut is that we do not know who is coming into the United Kingdom. They could be rapists, murderers on the run from their country, or terrorists. We simply don't know who has moved next door to my rented bedsit in the accommodation provided by the local authority. We have the right to know the identity of recent immigrants.

But to address your awkwardly worded point.

What you can't grasp is that you've already reached your conclusion before a single relevant fact is known.

A suspect has been arrested. The police are investigating. The courts will establish the facts. Yet before you know his identity, nationality, ethnicity, immigration status, motive, or even whether the case will survive scrutiny, you've jumped straight to demanding a public register of immigrants.

That's not a rational response to a crime. It's an ideological reflex.

You also appear to misunderstand how serious crime, policing, and identification actually work in practice. The UK system is not built around instant public disclosure of everyone under suspicion. Arrest does not equal guilt. That is why suspects are not routinely named at the point of arrest. In most cases, police only identify individuals once they are charged, and even then publication is guided by legal thresholds and public interest considerations. Before that stage, releasing identities risks destroying lives on the basis of allegations that may never be substantiated.

And this isn’t just abstract legal theory. It reflects real-world consequences. Many arrests never lead to charges. Some lead to acquittals. Some involve mistaken identity. A justice system that publishes names at the earliest stage would routinely convict people in the court of public opinion before any evidence is tested.

You also ignore how criminals are actually pursued when they do flee. This is not a “blind system” or a vacuum. It is coordinated internationally through mechanisms such as Interpol, including Red Notices, which allow fugitives to be tracked across borders and arrested for extradition. When serious offenders attempt to escape justice by leaving the UK, they are not simply forgotten—they are actively pursued through legal cooperation between states.

And yes, the system is not perfect. No serious person claims it is. There have been cases of convicted British offenders attempting to evade justice abroad, including in countries such as Thailand, where extradition processes and international cooperation have at times been used to return serious criminals to the UK to face justice. One of them quite possibly frequented this forum, and now is serving the rest of his days in a British prison. But that imperfection cuts both ways: it is precisely why due process, evidence, and correct identification matter so much. Because mistakes made early cannot easily be undone later.

If you want historical examples of what happens when states adopt the mindset you are flirting with, the categorising and tracking populations on the basis of identity, you don’t have to look far.

Authoritarian systems have repeatedly used population registers to control and stigmatise groups: from apartheid-era pass systems, to the East German Stasi’s extensive citizen surveillance files, to various 20th-century regimes that built administrative databases explicitly designed to monitor people as categories rather than individuals.

These systems were not introduced as “justice tools.” They were introduced as control mechanisms. That is the direction of thought you are edging toward when you argue for a public register of immigrants as a response to crime.

You claim "they could be rapists, murderers or terrorists." Yes, they could. So could the British-born man next door, the colleague in your workplace, or the stranger on any street in the country. I have no idea who you are, and you know nothing about me. A free society does not replace evidence with suspicion-by-association. It investigates individuals, not entire populations.

And the most revealing point remains unchanged: you made your conclusion before knowing whether the suspect is even an immigrant. That tells me this was never about this case. It was about finding a pre-existing narrative and retrofitting a tragedy to it.

A 17-year-old girl has been stabbed. A suspect has been arrested. The police will investigate, charge, and only then will identity become a matter of public record through proper legal channels. That sequence; arrest, charge, court, verdict, is not bureaucracy for its own sake. It is the boundary between justice and arbitrary accusation.

Based of the quality of your post, you seem to be a non-native born Briton (maybe you are one of these Traveller Irish, or the child of Romanian or Albanian immigrants), you are obviously not aware that British courts do not sit at the weekend. The suspect was arrested Friday afternoon. The police have to question the suspect, establish identity, make sure they haven't arrested someone through misidentification. There will be searches of his residence, once that is established, and and/or vehicles. They will scrutinise hours of street CCTV, obtain warrants to access private CCTVs, exactly the sort of systems some people on the right have opposed for years, along with opposing a national ID scheme (presumably you were disappointed that Labour's ID scheme was so watered down, and you were fully prepared to submit to a "Papiers bitte" culture, so exchange freedom for supposed safety). They will then send a package of documents, with a recommendation to something called the Crown Prosecution Service, often referred to as the CPS, and they determine if charges should be pressed (generally based on a preliminary assessment of the strength of the evidence). The earliest the impatient (such as those with ADHD) can expect to see a name will be Monday morning UK time, when he is arraigned in court.

4 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

Yeah, Holmes, many peoples used the word chimping on social media to describe the way this guy was dancing in order to dehumanize him as sub-human because he was black, not because he looked like a guy in a gorilla suit on the grainy video. Can't find any reference whatsoever of "chimping" referring to a style of dancing on the internet. Can you? I think you knowingly and deliberately amplified the racist use of this term, and your attempts to feign innocence afterwards strain credulity.

Do you even know the colour of this perp? Sadly it's people like yourself sowing division with ludicrous statements like yours. I trust an apology from you will be forthcoming

Edited June 13Jun 13 by baansgr

he gud boi

he dindu nuffin

9 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

You claim "they could be rapists, murderers or terrorists." Yes, they could. So could the British-born man next door, the colleague in your workplace, or the stranger on any street in the country. I have no idea who you are, and you know nothing about me. A free society does not replace evidence with suspicion-by-association. It investigates individuals, not entire populations.

This is an idiotic take. It's expected that a percentage of any population will be deviants or criminals. That is why for almost 1000 years the UK has had some kind of police force rather than the pitchforks of old. That is the best the government can do to handle its native deviant population since its been a long time since criminals can simply be exported to Australia and eugenics is currently seen as an undesirable solution.

Immigrant offenders are different. This is where the government does have a choice. Immigrants from some cultures in the UK commit crimes at much lower rate than the native population offends. It's very rare to hear of a US, Philippines or Japanese (for example) immigrant committing rape/murder or beheading people for example. This is how immigration should be. When immigrants from certain cultures offend at a much higher rate than the native population there is something the government can and should do. These are preventable crimes. Certain cultures, lets say those from Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Eritrea etc seem to offend (especially sexual offenses) at a much higher rate than the native population. On that basis in the interest of safeguarding and protecting women and children in the UK then immigration from these countries should simply be banned outright.

33 minutes ago, bannork said:

No, we have always had scum. I remember some of the football hooligans back in the 1970s, plenty of cavemen, like dogs really, the pack mentality. And they were all white.

I'm with you on stopping the boats. It's been obvious for a while it's organised crime jobs for the young men when they arrive.

And until recently the immigration staff were naive, believing Somali women when they said their husband was their cousin, get more money as a single mum.

Then you've got the young men pretending to be under 18, more state money for minors.

Organised crime, fraud spreads fast with the internet and social media, the gangs have been ahead of the law for a long time.

Fortunately the present Home Secretary is aware of all this and is trying to plug the law's loopholes.

But to besmirch whole nations is unfair, many migrants are hard working and law abiding.

Incidentally it was Brexit that led to the massive increase in immigration from Asia and Africa. The return of the Polish plumbers and care workers panicked the Tories leading to the gates opened to others.

Stupid Brexit, stupid Johnson ( as PM he once said the era of land wars in Europe was over, it was inconceivable there would be conflict again. He misjudged Putin).

Generally agree there. But swap "stopping the boats" with "stopping the lorry stowaways".

Stories about the lorry stowaways have largely stopped. But actually detections are still occurring, and the numbers have increased recently after a period of decline.

Its really about organised crime, and where the resources are being directed. Do you remember the case of Maurice Johnson? He was a trucker from Armagh, from a solid Protestant, Loyalist family. He was doing well, early 20s, had his own house, flash car, his own brand new Scania rig. Into his country music.

Driving back from the Continent, he stopped in Tilbury, and opened the back of his truck, to find 39 dead Vietnamese. He knew they were there, because thats why he opened the back up. The dimwit had turned off the refrigeration system, so they suffocated. The subsequent investigation showed he was part of a gang that extended into Monaghan, with Republican families. The trucks were all registered in Bulgaria, because its cheaper insurance, dodgy paperwork. Parts of the gang included Englishmen, and they were the real moneymen. They had links to organises crime in Vietnam. the passengers borrowed money off the gangsters to pay their way. Once in England, the trucker was supposed to deliver the passengers to waiting men with cars. They were to pay back their debt through working in the drug trade, the sex trade. The illegal immigrants aren't the cause, they are a symptom of organised crime on a grand scale. If its not boats, or trucks, there is enough money at stake to figure out another way. So its going to be a constant battle until there is enough courage to tackle the core issues.

Tackle the gangs, which will take up huge upticks in the national crime squad, increased coordination with other police forces, and even support police forces in the countries where the rule of law is weak.

And tackle the issue why people are risking life an limb getting to the UK. Its not because the UK is a wonderful place. It's not. It's a decaying, ugly, cold, wet <deleted> hole of a place where people will hate you, because they are failing in their own lives. But where you come from is even worse. Overseas Aid is as much an arm of UK force projection as the Royal Navy, but for too long, its been used as the slush fund for the Department of Business and Trade, or its predecessors, or Prime Ministers have instructed the FCO to use Embassies to promote UK Plc; drive exports. Hence huge amounts of money going to India, helping on on very worthy projects helping genuinely poor people, but really driven because we needed Vospers to sell a ship, BAe to sell a missile system etc.

Its not in the interest of the UK for people to enter illegally. Its not in the interest of the UK for people to die trying to get here. Its not in the interest of the UK to facilitate drug and sex gangs.

I've heard a lot recently in manufacturing about resetting the target to be more efficient (make things as cheap as possible to maximise shareholder return) to being more resilient (security of manufacture is most important to the company).

Similarly in the UK. Need to stop all mention of "UK Plc" "flying the flag for the UK". People will buy our stuff or not. Resources are limited, hard decisions need to be made, and we need to take measures that protect the UK, even at the cost of industry. UK Overseas Aid Mission is repositioned to support the interests of the UK first. that doesn't mean we stop helping people. But it means we help more people in places where we haven't helped before. We don't want them to come to the UK, and for us to either spends millions looking after them or millions getting rid of them.

I'd rather spend millions having them stay put. Its a complete and utter waste of money to have the Royal Navy stop, Canute like, boats crossing a sea to an island. If people want that, then they will have to accept the total militarisation of the beaches. All beaches, like in WW2, off limits to the public, barbed wire deploy, anti-personnel mines installed. Guaranteed you won't see boat refugees outside the Co-Op.

6 minutes ago, James105 said:

This is an idiotic take. It's expected that a percentage of any population will be deviants or criminals. That is why for almost 1000 years the UK has had some kind of police force rather than the pitchforks of old. That is the best the government can do to handle its native deviant population since its been a long time since criminals can simply be exported to Australia and eugenics is currently seen as an undesirable solution.

Immigrant offenders are different. This is where the government does have a choice. Immigrants from some cultures in the UK commit crimes at much lower rate than the native population offends. It's very rare to hear of a US, Philippines or Japanese (for example) immigrant committing rape/murder or beheading people for example. This is how immigration should be. When immigrants from certain cultures offend at a much higher rate than the native population there is something the government can and should do. These are preventable crimes. Certain cultures, lets say those from Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, Eritrea etc seem to offend (especially sexual offenses) at a much higher rate than the native population. On that basis in the interest of safeguarding and protecting women and children in the UK then immigration from these countries should simply be banned outright.

This argument starts with something that sounds sensible—“some level of crime exists in every population”—and then quietly jumps to a conclusion it hasn’t earned.

Yes, every society has criminals. That is exactly why we have police, courts, trials, and punishment based on evidence. Not guesswork. Not category-based suspicion. Individuals are investigated, charged, and convicted based on what they did, not where they came from or what group they are placed in.

But your argument skips over all of that and says something very different: that if a group is said to offend more, then the whole group should be restricted or banned. That sounds decisive, but it raises a simple question—where does that logic stop?

Do you ban all young men because they commit more violent crime than older people? Do you restrict poorer people because they are overrepresented in certain offences? Do you start sorting people by age, sex, postcode, background, and excluding them on that basis? Once you accept the idea that “higher group risk” justifies collective punishment, there is no natural limit left. Only more and more categories of people who can be treated with suspicion.

You then try to turn this into something objective by listing countries and implying cultural explanation. But immigration is not one thing. It is students, workers, families, refugees, children—people arriving for completely different reasons under completely different systems. Lumping them all together and then claiming “this culture offends more” is not careful analysis. It is taking messy human reality and forcing it into a simple story.

And importantly, the UK already does what a serious system should do. It checks people before they arrive, it can refuse entry, it can remove non-citizens who commit serious crimes, and it prosecutes those who break the law. That is targeted, individual responsibility.

What you are arguing for is something else entirely: moving away from “prove this person is dangerous” to “assume this type of person is dangerous”. That is a very big shift. It replaces evidence with category, and behaviour with background.

And once you start doing that, there is no obvious place to stop. History shows what happens when governments start treating whole groups as risks instead of individuals. It always starts with “reasonable concerns” and “obvious patterns”, and it always ends with innocent people paying the price for things they never did.

So the real question is not whether crime exists—it does. The question is whether you deal with it by focusing on individuals and evidence, or by blaming entire groups because of where they come from.

One of those approaches is justice. The other is just sweeping assumptions dressed up as common sense.

3 hours ago, bannork said:

Yes, but where to send the Welsh cavemen to ? England perhaps.

My point is if you want to start using derogatory terms like cavemen to describe whole other races perhaps you should start looking at the Neanderthals in the UK too. There's plenty of them.

One other point. Why are all the crackheads and junkies begging on UK streets native whites?

I've never seen an Indian or Pakistani begging.

Could it be their family structure is stronger?

Marcus Staniforth was dubbed a "very dangerous young person"

Two teenagers jailed for life after murdering a stranger in a savage racist attack could now face even longer sentences after their case was referred to the Court of Appeal.

The pair were convicted of killing 38-year-old delivery driver Kamran Aman in Barry, Vale of Glamorgan, during what a judge described as a “deliberate, unprovoked, sustained, violent racist attack”.

Kamran Aman was murdered outside his mother's home

Aman had simply been delivering groceries to his mother’s home late at night when he was ambushed, punched, racially abused and fatally stabbed through the heart.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yej4m190po

I've never seen an Indian or Pakistani begging.

Could it be their family structure is stronger?

They will all busy raping your kids and filling crack pipes by the amount of rape gangs getting jailed🤔

Bit of a difference Roadsternut half a dozen in the back of a lorry as opposed to over 70 in 1 rubber boat.

27 minutes ago, Roadsternut said:

This argument starts with something that sounds sensible—“some level of crime exists in every population”—and then quietly jumps to a conclusion it hasn’t earned.

Yes, every society has criminals. That is exactly why we have police, courts, trials, and punishment based on evidence. Not guesswork. Not category-based suspicion. Individuals are investigated, charged, and convicted based on what they did, not where they came from or what group they are placed in.

But your argument skips over all of that and says something very different: that if a group is said to offend more, then the whole group should be restricted or banned. That sounds decisive, but it raises a simple question—where does that logic stop?

Do you ban all young men because they commit more violent crime than older people? Do you restrict poorer people because they are overrepresented in certain offences? Do you start sorting people by age, sex, postcode, background, and excluding them on that basis? Once you accept the idea that “higher group risk” justifies collective punishment, there is no natural limit left. Only more and more categories of people who can be treated with suspicion.

You then try to turn this into something objective by listing countries and implying cultural explanation. But immigration is not one thing. It is students, workers, families, refugees, children—people arriving for completely different reasons under completely different systems. Lumping them all together and then claiming “this culture offends more” is not careful analysis. It is taking messy human reality and forcing it into a simple story.

And importantly, the UK already does what a serious system should do. It checks people before they arrive, it can refuse entry, it can remove non-citizens who commit serious crimes, and it prosecutes those who break the law. That is targeted, individual responsibility.

What you are arguing for is something else entirely: moving away from “prove this person is dangerous” to “assume this type of person is dangerous”. That is a very big shift. It replaces evidence with category, and behaviour with background.

And once you start doing that, there is no obvious place to stop. History shows what happens when governments start treating whole groups as risks instead of individuals. It always starts with “reasonable concerns” and “obvious patterns”, and it always ends with innocent people paying the price for things they never did.

So the real question is not whether crime exists—it does. The question is whether you deal with it by focusing on individuals and evidence, or by blaming entire groups because of where they come from.

One of those approaches is justice. The other is just sweeping assumptions dressed up as common sense.

Your entire argument here is based on the incorrect premise that all cultures are equal. They are not. If someone grows up in a culture where it is common practice to stone a rape victim to death for the crime of adultery, or it is acceptable to marry a 9 year old girl to their uncle, or to throw a gay person off a roof to their death for being gay, that does not understand the meaning of the word 'consent' in English or any other language, then it stands to reason that they will have fundamentally different values to someone brought up in a "better" culture.

Not all cultures are equal. We know which ones are equal to ours and we know which ones are savage and/or backwards. Importing men from these cultures is statistically proven to be dangerous to the women and children of the UK so it needs to stop.

Okay, I’ll bite - what’s HMO Housing?

31 minutes ago, sammieuk1 said:

I've never seen an Indian or Pakistani begging.

Could it be their family structure is stronger?

They will all busy raping your kids and filling crack pipes by the amount of rape gangs getting jailed🤔

Come on, answer the point.

Why are the beggars, junkies and crackheads on UK streets usually white Brits?

11 minutes ago, Explorator en Action said:

Okay, I’ll bite - what’s HMO Housing?

A House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) is a residential property rented out to at least three unrelated people forming more than one household.

Edited June 13Jun 13 by rocketboy2

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

Your entire argument here is based on the incorrect premise that all cultures are equal. They are not. If someone grows up in a culture where it is common practice to stone a rape victim to death for the crime of adultery, or it is acceptable to marry a 9 year old girl to their uncle, or to throw a gay person off a roof to their death for being gay, that does not understand the meaning of the word 'consent' in English or any other language, then it stands to reason that they will have fundamentally different values to someone brought up in a "better" culture.

Not all cultures are equal. We know which ones are equal to ours and we know which ones are savage and/or backwards. Importing men from these cultures is statistically proven to be dangerous to the women and children of the UK so it needs to stop.

I agree with what you say in your first paragraph. With the first generations of Pakistani families that came over, the women rarely worked, usually stayed at home, second class citizens.

But now the kids of those families are in school, mixing with English kids, kids of African and Arabic countries. At home many speak Urdu or their native tongue with their family, but at school they're speaking English, often with the local accent.

They may dress differently but a lot of these girls will, and indeed are, now working in various professions around the country.

Regarding admitting single men from conservative Muslim countries. Yes, there is an obvious danger in letting them on the streets without intensive re-education first, perhaps they should only be admitted if married.

7 hours ago, BarraMarra said:

These illegals arriving and given houses in HMOs bring there culture with them where its ok to kill or rape,

Whats that got to do with the op, both the attacker and the victim are Brierfield residents, and British.

5 hours ago, papa al said:

he gud boi

he dindu nuffin

Has papa been drinking again 🍻

6 hours ago, Dan O said:

16 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

We will be seeing many more similar stories in the future due to the lefties and Wokes allowing barbaric immigrants to settle

Thats the stupidist comment youve made lately. Deranged psychotic people come from all parties and affiliations for any number of reasons. Check your statistics

Speaking of stupidest comments..... I reckon you need to take a good look at yourself.

Seems you are the odd one out here.

Edited June 13Jun 13 by SAFETY FIRST

16 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

We will be seeing many more similar stories in the future due to the lefties and Wokes allowing barbaric immigrants to settle

Total hogwash nonsense:

Conservative Governments (2010–2024): Succeeding governments focused on reducing overall net migration and created the "Hostile Environment" policies. Despite these pledges, overall immigration numbers rose significantly during this period.

14 years of it matey!

4 minutes ago, Priorexpat said:

Total hogwash nonsense:

Conservative Governments (2010–2024): Succeeding governments focused on reducing overall net migration and created the "Hostile Environment" policies. Despite these pledges, overall immigration numbers rose significantly during this period.

14 years of it matey!

Crikey, I've attracted all the leftist, Wokes on my comment.

6 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Another lazy <deleted> to add to the blocked list. Ta ta Rupert Lowe.

His name is HarriesFan

1 hour ago, still kicking said:

His name is HarriesFan

Ah, so an Australian pretending to be an American is now an Australian pretending to be a Briton?

Edited June 13Jun 13 by Roadsternut

Was a British born <deleted>, victim will be another <deleted> (hopefully)

1 hour ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Crikey, I've attracted all the leftist, Wokes on my comment.

Serves you right for writing nonsense.

Here's a graph to set you right. Now when did migration to the UK suddenly soar?

Oh blimey, it woz the Tories that dun it. The right wing!

Who wuz the PM from 2019 to 2022?

Boris Johnson, the Brexit boy!

So Boris handed Kier a right old mess, bloomin right wing.

To the diversity lovers on here think about this ? Has a white man tried to decapitate a black man with a knife on uk Streets for no reason ? Has a whiteman tried to cut out a black mans eyes on the streets of the uk in a Random attack ? and has a white man randomly tried to stab a teen girl for no reason in the neck ?

6 minutes ago, bannork said:

hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Crikey, I've attracted all the leftist, Wokes on my comment.

Serves you right for writing nonsense

I knew it.

I can pick you lefties a mile away.

4 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

I knew it.

I can pick you lefties a mile away.

Come on man, the UK drives on the left.

The greatest rock guitarist ever, Jimi Hendrix was left handed.

Paul McCartney is left handed.

If you're a true Brit you've got to be left wing ( not leftie, what a childish term). Are you a rightie? ( sounds like baby talk).

5 minutes ago, bannork said:

Come on man, the UK drives on the left.

The greatest rock guitarist ever, Jimi Hendrix was left handed.

Paul McCartney is left handed.

If you're a true Brit you've got to be left wing ( not leftie, what a childish term). Are you a rightie? ( sounds like baby talk).

Apparently, I'm far right.

An anti-racism rally in Glasgow has been disrupted by a masked group following violence in the city earlier this week.

Thousands of campaigners who marched along Buchanan Street in the city centre were met by several dozen far-right demonstrators who clashed with police.

The black-clad group - including at least one performing a Nazi-style salute - scuffled with officers as campaigners shouted "off our streets".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yzerz5124o

Sorry Jimmy, the mask doesn't hide your identity. Biometrics will identify you by your eyes, to be confirmed by dental records as you're showing off your gnashers. Sadly though many folks in the UK cannot find or afford a dentist these days.

Multiple posts removed for derogatory content.