To absolutely hate this government, and what they are doing to our country? PART 2

People on the far right are deliberately blurring the boundaries between themselves and ordinary people 'concerned about immigration'. Whenever there's a discussion about atrocious behaviour on the part of a far right activist, you can bet your house, someone will pop up on here to sanitise them by hiding them behind the concerns of 'ordinary people'.
Then we invariably end up being told "ordinary people who care about women and children are getting called racist" when in fact, the person who was called racist is not an 'ordinary person', but a racist.
The Starmer quote is an excellent example. He was referring to the actual far right. Yet people persist in disingenuously framing it as calling people who want to stop the boats (don't we all?) far right.
The solution for right leaning not racist people who dont want to be called far right lies in their own hands. Call out the actions of the boat slasher, dissociate from violence and extremism, stop defending them just because 'the lefties' are criticising them and the enemy of my enemy.
Stop letting them hide amongst the moderate right, as one right wing poster has on this thread. No one will be calling her a racist.

Far-Left, I imagine. I know plenty of people on the left of the political spectrum who refused to vote Labour under Corbyn’s leadership, because they felt his politics was divisive. And I also know people who left the Labour Party under his leadership because they felt anti semitic hatred was allowed to fester.

You don’t have to defend the indefensible just because it comes from “your side”.

There are people who are associated with the left who have behaved appallingly. There has been anti semiticism and the TRAs disgusting treatment of women. I'd call them dangerous extremists who are not 'the left' I align with. I condemn them completely and disassociate from them entirely.

Exactly. And there are extremists on both sides too. You may have also seen me say before (as I do tend to repeat myself!) that the counter point to extremism is moderation, not extremism from the other direction. So moderate reasonable people who want solutions from both 'sides' should be willing to join in calling out extremism and bad behaviour.

So what do we call those on the left who are stirring up hate and division?

And if they turn up after having passed multiple safe points of refuge? Even so why should they be allowed to stay here at all at all?

The refugee convention was made in the aftermath of post European displacement. The world has changed a lot since then.

Of course countries can deny people. It is what the whole visa system is about.

But if Tommy turned up claiming asylum, claiming he was being politically persecuted and he seeks safety, of course he should be allowed in, and his case heard.

I've seen you before @5128gap say it's not always as simple as left v right but it really is. There are "ordinary people" on both sides.

So what do we call those on the left who are stirring up hate and division?

I agree with you, in that all governments, on the left and right of the political spectrum are grappling with the migrant crisis and that if we want pragmatic policy making we should listen to all available evidence about what may and may not work.

We can then choose how we apply that evidence though, in a way that is most in keeping with the long held British values of tolerance, compassion and the strengths of a multi cultural society.

People on the far right are deliberately blurring the boundaries between themselves and ordinary people 'concerned about immigration'. Whenever there's a discussion about atrocious behaviour on the part of a far right activist, you can bet your house, someone will pop up on here to sanitise them by hiding them behind the concerns of 'ordinary people'.
Then we invariably end up being told "ordinary people who care about women and children are getting called racist" when in fact, the person who was called racist is not an 'ordinary person', but a racist.
The Starmer quote is an excellent example. He was referring to the actual far right. Yet people persist in disingenuously framing it as calling people who want to stop the boats (don't we all?) far right.
The solution for right leaning not racist people who dont want to be called far right lies in their own hands. Call out the actions of the boat slasher, dissociate from violence and extremism, stop defending them just because 'the lefties' are criticising them and the enemy of my enemy.
Stop letting them hide amongst the moderate right, as one right wing poster has on this thread. No one will be calling her a racist.

I one hundred percent take your point that it is not only those on the right wing of politics who other those who have differing political opinions to them, and I hate it when name calling is used to shut down debate, whether that's labelling and dismissing 'lefties', or the word 'fascist' being bandied about too loosely.

But on the other hand, we do have to be honest with ourselves. Danny Tommo for example is a Far-Right agitator. Bardella is a Far-Right politician. And if those on the British Right - Reform in particular - choose not to condemn those figures, and indeed to stand grinning on a stage beside them, then I do think they leave themselves open to being labelled Far-Right themselves. (And again that isn't a left/ right point - I said the same about Corbyn because of some of the people he chose to share a platform with).

I’m not on X, FB or Tik Tok a lot of the stuff I see about an individual is just because mn talks about that person.

But on left v right it’s becoming difficult to use as categories wrt border control.

Meloni - in press as far right, Starmer asked for advice on crossings as she got them down.

Australia - very restrictive, one of the most to be so - centre left gov

Sweden - now centre left unlikely to reverse restrictive policies

Denmark - ditto

It’s mixed. Politicians are keen to reinforce rhetoric below as they know there’s an issue but want to stay in. So we get the far right, fascism, malign actor lines.

I’d say ditch left / right and ask is there a problem to solve yes or no? And what are the options.

So you can deny someone entering the country then?

I one hundred percent take your point that it is not only those on the right wing of politics who other those who have differing political opinions to them, and I hate it when name calling is used to shut down debate, whether that's labelling and dismissing 'lefties', or the word 'fascist' being bandied about too loosely.

But on the other hand, we do have to be honest with ourselves. Danny Tommo for example is a Far-Right agitator. Bardella is a Far-Right politician. And if those on the British Right - Reform in particular - choose not to condemn those figures, and indeed to stand grinning on a stage beside them, then I do think they leave themselves open to being labelled Far-Right themselves. (And again that isn't a left/ right point - I said the same about Corbyn because of some of the people he chose to share a platform with).

@LakieLady - Not all land is suitable for building on. Plus you have to look at the effect that building more and more houses plus extra schools, roads, hospitals, GP surgeries etc has on wildlife and our eco system.

There are already 69-70 million people in this country. When do you say enough? 80 million, 90 million, 100 million?

“The usual”? It was a question. Try this then:

What are the other ways to give refuge which don’t involve traffickers, violence and risk?

All I can say is they should read what Jesus actually says. And the apostle Paul, who talks about entertaining ‘aliens and strangers’.

One thing on discourse is both sides use it. The malign actors, far right, Starmer type rhetoric just makes people who want a change made more frustrated.

Who do you think the "some" are that is a game to?

Now me for example. I am atheist, and I do have a moral code that includes such concepts as compassion, equality, right to life and so on. Pretty much along the lines of the various UN charters. I choose to stand up for what think is right and stand against what I think is wrong.

It's not a game to me.

Why do I mention I am atheist? Well consider a Christian. And I am sure there are plenty on this board. For them, this subject is far from a game. This could be about their eternal life. To follow the teachings of their Christ or not. ( I am aware of this because I was a Christian. now ex.

It's deffo not a game for them. It is potentially well beyond that for them.

So, who does that leave ?

But hang on. I made a claim above without evidence. That there will be plenty of Christians on this board. I really should evidence that. How about I quote Rupert Lowe. Is that ok ?

"Rupert Lowe launches Restore Britain with an unapologetically Christian platform, vowing cultural restoration, mass deportations and bold defence of Western values — even at political cost.
The United Kingdom’s newest political party is asserting an unapologetic Christian position.
Rupert Lowe officially launched Restore Britain on February 13, asserting that,
“Britain is a Christian country, and under a Restore Britain Government, it will remain a Christian country.”"

Source :

Restore Britain’s Rupert Lowe: “Britain Is a Christian Country, and It Will Remain So.” - The Daily Declaration

Oh wait. Now I am confused. He said that ? And what is with all these Tommah fans with crosses and all that. ?

Well, I suppose, if we say those folk can't really be Christian, because they are not being very.... Christian... then perhaps it is a game for them ?

Bit of a leap I know. But Occam's razor and all that.