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

Ignore the efforts. I had it the other night.

Becky clarified, on Site Stuff, the rules around posting threads. You're doing nothing wrong.

Is that all you can do - post another pathetic slew of articles?

Why can't you just say it yourself?

Its your thread.

Here goes, shall I help you ...

I. Believe. Migrants. From. Muslim. Countries Are Sexual Criminals. And. I. Want. This. Proved And. I. Think The. Government. Are Hiding. The. Evidence I. Need. To. Confirm. My. Beliefs.

Wasn't that hard was it.

it's blatantly obvious what your beliefs are so just woman-up (man-up?) and own it.

'They' this 'they' that. I speak for myself. In my own words. I don't need to hide behind news articles because I can't even admit to my own beliefs.

CBA to read thread. YABU. HTH.

If you're not happy, you could always exit the thread.

I'd ignore you too. Do you speak to people like that IRL?

Well looks like OP has no more to say. Probably fallen down a particularly dark rabbit hole on X, or she's having fun scouring those Fox News archives for an even higher quality of articles.

Hurry up Labour, get these statistics out soon - before the next thread....

Not your problem. They should take it up with mods if they're not happy. To be told exactly the same thing - again.

Um, proving something doesn't exist would be nigh on impossible. You do realise this don't you.

If you believe the organisation does exist, then you should be able to provide evidence. If there is no evidence, then it proves my point.

This is not a difficult thing to understand.

I've been around here a long time, and I don't recognise any of these acronyms.

Are you quite well?

The riff raff violent mob would be most offended that you believed otherwise. I can understand your mistake, given how insignificant the movement is though. Plenty of black gear, face coverings and weapons. Amazing they've never made it onto the official terrorist list.

Mnhq frowns upon misuse of the "react" emojis.

Do you believe Antifa is one group?

No.

So how would Antifa make it onto a terrorist list?

I assume the majority of people would say they are anti fascist.

The article you linked appears to me to be indicative of the issue here, because it looks to me to be misrepresenting the facts.

From what I can work out, and I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, the organization "Migration watch" put in a FOI request for specific crime data. The government said no. And it listed its reasons why.

Migration watch were not happy with this of course, so they put a complaint into the Information Commissioners office. and they broadly agreed with Migration watch that the guv should honour the FOI request, But with changes, to protect individuals that might be identifiable from the data requested.

The Government did not agree. And it appealed the decision, listing its reasons, and that appeal started the next rung of the ICOs procedure. And that is where we are now. Is that all correct ?

Yet that article claims, as do posters on this thread, quote "The Labour government has taken the egregious step of launching a legal bid to prevent the publication of migrant crime statistics."

But from my understanding, that is simply not true. And read further down the article, and there is this - "It was a freedom of information request by the Centre for Migration Control that sparked this stand off, and we will be deploying every available mechanism to block the blocking of this data. We intend to fight it in court, and are currently fundraising our legal costs."

It is not in court. It is still in the ICO office going through the system. It is migration watch who are saying they will take it to court, and are fundraising to do so. And I assume that means they will do so if the ICO appeal goes against them.

It is basically like taking a jumper back to the shop for a refund. The customer service desk said no, the customer demanded to see the manager. The desk said ok. And here we are, waiting for the manager, while the customer says " I will take this to court, whatever it takes".

That comparison does not quite fit, but close enough. Because at the moment it is an internal matter at the ICO. Yet people are claiming it is in court and it is a cover up, without looking at the reasons the government gave in their appeal. It is not in court.

And look at the loaded statements in this article. For example. "But we should not be too surprised. The Labour Party has a woeful track record of cover ups. In October last year, Labour MPs marched en masse through the voting lobbies to block an amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would require the publication of this data."

Yeah. So there is a bill for sentencing going through. Someone wanted an amendment made to it over reporting data, and the MPs voted no. I do not know what was in that amendment, but whatever was in it, the MPs said no. I might try to look it up later. I suspect there was something performative there that really nobody could vote for. My speculation. Needs checking.

Reading on, also in that article, this

"People would rightly expect for foreign criminals to actually be deported, not allowed to continue living in Britain, and they would expect visa bans to be introduced for those nationalities that commit crime at a disproportionate rate. "

Ah right. Now that is an issue. Because now that is into the world of pre-emptive collective guilt by association. That is, blatant discrimination.

So, it is not in court. It is at the ICO office going through the system. With migration watch yelling "COVER UP". And there are bloggers etc happy to amplify what Migration watch are yelling, with good old loaded emotive language, and a fair bit of bending of the truth.

As I said above. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

An addition to my post above,

@CoventryCity posted a link to this article.

The migrant crime cover up | Rob Bates | The Critic Magazine

And that article says this -

" In October last year, Labour MPs marched en masse through the voting lobbies to block an amendment to the Sentencing Bill that would require the publication of this data."

Here is the list of proposed amendments to that bill

Pdf (parliament.uk)

42 amendments, and other stuff with word order etc, The MP's vote, and each amendment is passed or rejected. All normal stuff, and it is good seeing MPs doing their jobs. Things like " I propose the sentence for death by dangerous driving should be increased. " All good stuff, because MPs can represent their constituents.

Here is the specific amendment that was voted against, and seems to be the one mentioned in the article.

NC41
Nigel Farage
Richard Tice
Lee Anderson
Sarah Pochin
Danny Kruger
Mr Peter Bedford

To move the following Clause— “Sentencing statistics: duty to publish (1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, direct His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) to record and retain, in relation to all offenders convicted and sentenced in the Crown Court or Magistrates’ courts, the offender’s— (a) country of birth (b) nationality, (c) ethnicity, (d) immigration status, and (e) the offence(s) for which they were sentenced. (2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the data recorded under subsection (1) to be published and laid before Parliament— (a) within twelve months of the passing of this Act, and

b) annually thereafter.” Member's explanatory statement This new clause would require the Government to record and publish statistics on convicted offenders’ birthplace, nationality, ethnicity and immigration status.

I would say that is pretty performative. In my opinion. Because the bill is about sentencing, not data recording. If one looks at the other amendments tabled, they are about sentencing. And probation. That sort of thing.

Some other amendments tabled by this group-

Nigel Farage
Richard Tice
Lee Anderson
Sarah Pochin
Danny Kruger
Mr Peter Bedford

For example, NC24

"To move the following Clause— “Deportation of foreign criminals: European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (1) Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 is amended as follows. (2) At the start of subsection (5), insert “Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7A of the European Union Withdrawal Act 2018 and Article 2 of the Windsor Framework,”.” Member's explanatory statement This new clause would seek to disapply section 7A of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (as amended under the Windsor Framework) to the deportation of foreign criminals, with the aim of preventing the courts from disapplying those provisions to Northern Ireland if they are deemed incompatible with the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights."

And NC38

To move the following Clause— “Sentencing Council (1) The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”

And NC 39

To move the following Clause— “Deportation of foreign criminals (1) A foreign criminal who has been sentenced to— (a) a custodial sentence of at least 6 months; or (b) a community sentence of at least 6 months, must be the subject of an immediate deportation order, subject to subsection (2) below. (2) The Secretary of State may determine, in exceptional cases, that a deportation order under subsection (1) does not apply. (3) In this section, “foreign criminal” means a person who— (a) is not a British citizen or an Irish citizen, and (b) is convicted in the United Kingdom of an offence.” Member's explanatory statement This new clause would apply an automatic deportation order to foreign criminals sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment or a six month community sentence.

Seems to be a theme there. As for this one - NC38 To move the following Clause— “Sentencing Council (1) The Sentencing Council of England and Wales is abolished.”

What the hell ? There is no way on earth they proposed that amendment and expected it to pass. That one is pure performance.

Thank you @RedTagAlan for that information. It's really helpful that anyone reading along now has the facts rather than the misrepresentation and hyperbole favoured by the OP.

The appeal is in preparation stage.

And this

The First-tier Tribunal is an official part of the UK justice and court system.

Hence the contempt of court if they don’t publish.

It’s interesting you see it that way, some of the definitions are not correct. It’s not an internal process, it’s the U.K. court system.