So does "far right" mean you're concerned about the impacts of mass immigration?

As far as I'm aware the men involved were British, not asylum seekers.

This article in the Telegraph (if its not behind a paywall) sums up where we are very well for those that care about the vulnerable children in this country. It's truly shocking although I suppose if thousands of young men come illegally from countries where women are treated like chattels and white girls are fair game it shouldn't be that surprising.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/01/04/grooming-gangs-scandal-cover-up-oldham-telford-rotherham/

Yes, it was stated in the HOL with nothing to evidence it and cited as an extrapolation.

What evidence is there that grooming gangs are active in every city in the UK?

Do you have a link to this figure? I find it hard to believe. I just Googled and saw an item on gov.uk that there had been approximately 4000 victims. This is, of course, 4000 victims too many.
There are more white grooming gangs than Asian so if 250,000 girls have been raped by Muslims alone in the UK, then the numbers of children raped by white grooming gangs must be in millions.

It was stated in the House of Lords that 250,000 white girls have been raped by Muslim grooming gangs in the last couple of decades. This was with referral to reports of Rotherham/Telford/Oxford etc.

The Chief Constable of Northumbria police also stated that these grooming gangs operate in every city in the UK. Everyone needs to be aware of this. It must not be swept under the carpet again by misguided people. That betrays the young victims.

What evidence do you have that hundreds and thousands of girls have been effected and it's happening in every single city in the UK?

We shouldn't be squeamish. But the Labour Party seem to be carrying out a cover-up which is extraordinary. It affects every city in this country and hundreds and thousands of children and has been going on for years. I don't agree with Elon Musk's support for Tommy Robinson etc but I do see the benefit in someone with such a vast reach as him as actually speaking up for the victims and saying what on earth is going on and who is taking responsibility? Keir Starmer should be leading this but is hiding as he was the one responsible for the failures.

One story told by the investigative journalist from the Times outlined a mother reporting that her 13 year old little girl was missing. The police did nothing. Someone then late in the night called the police as they heard screaming coming from next door to them (so must have been bad). The police attended and found two naked little girls who were drunk and seven adult Asian men.

The police arrested the child for being disorderly and she was convicted. The adult Asian men she was with weren't even questioned.

That also seems very plausible to me.

Being called racist or Islamophobic is a pretty powerful slur, public sector bodies have a duty to promote good ethnic relations, and council members also need to avoid offending their electorate.

The girls are seen as unimportant and there’s a big political incentive not to rock the boat.

Terrible when it’s paedophilic Western sex predators in South East Asia, targeting Asian girls because they think they’ve got a green light and a free pass. Terrible when it’s Pakistani gang sex abusers in the UK, targeting White and Sikh girls because they think they’ve got a green light and a free pass. We shouldn’t be squeamish about discussing either.

I agree. And the other distinguishing factor is of course that because the men were Pakistani, the police were more likely to turn a blind eye in case they were accused of Islamaphobia, which is presumably not a factor in their approach to general male violence and paedophilia.

But isn't that like saying that most violent deaths are not MVAWG, so we must not mention men? That to do so is to distract from the broader issue.

In the child gang rape/torture/grooming case, 80% of perpetrators from six investigations were Pakistani heritage and 97% were Asian. (I haven't seen more extensive data on all 30+ towns that have had child gang rape cases and I stand to be corrected if you have and they show a very different picture.).

At that point, the person saying 'it's not a Pakistani problem' is like the person saying 'it's not a man problem'.

Of course not all men. Of course not all Pakistanis. But almost always men. Almost always Pakistanis.

On this particular issue, of course. But this particular issue is serious and particular enough to be taken on its own terms. To treat it otherwise seems to be pretty callous of the girls abused.

I agree with you @MrsTerryPratchett but I do feel that we have ended up with Trump and Musk in the States (and possibly Farage for us) because the other side (Democrats) simply refuse to engage on issues that actually concern people.

And if people insist on having the conversation they are shut down as ignorant, far right etc.

It is very dangerous to have such intolerance. It creates vacuums that self serving arseholes will fill.

Good question.

First you are incorrect, the largest number are study visas. This is a well-known, and rather dubious route. Universities actively recruit huge numbers of people mainly from India and Nigeria who mainly want to come to the UK for an opportunity of settling. If they pay large fees they get a chance to turn their visa into an opportunity to work and settle. These study immigrants cost the UK more than they contribute. Twenty years ago UK higher education was able to train our own professionals without relying on fees from these 'pretend' students. Universities should go back to focusing on educating UK students not taking money from people who want to emigrate not be educated.

Second are work visas. That is very obvious, the UK should train and educate its own workers and not import people who a) would do much more good in their own countries b) are often not trained to the same standards and skills as in the UK c) cost tax-payers more than they pay in taxes. Most low-paid workers (care, food, services) are a large net cost to tax-payers as has been convincingly shown by studies from the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark.

Third is family re-unification or chain migration. This should just be stopped. It obviously doesn't make sense that if one person comes and then they bring their six children and seven siblings and the seven siblings have six children each and they all get to come and then the six children's partners bring their parents and siblings....And if they come from Africa, the middle east or Asia they end up costing the taxpayer around one million USD over their life time as well as adding to pollution, congestion, housing shortage and decline in social capital.

How would those of you who say you are concerned about immigration propose it is managed? I have asked this twice already.

Would you cut work visas? - by far the biggest group of immigrants to come to the UK hold a work visa. Many fill labour shortages, e.g. in health and social care. And yes they bring dependents. You can’t expect to attract the calibre of skilled workers needed otherwise.

Some say, we should train more school leavers in shortage professions. Whilst I agree this should be part of the longer term plan, it will make taxes / prices rise and will take years. A surgeon is not trained in a few years!

Or maybe you’d like to cut the numbers of foreign students? The second largest group of immigrants. How will UK universities afford to train more domestic doctors and nurses without the hefty course fees from international students? Who are mostly here temporarily anyway.

You can’t reasonably stop people who are originally from the UK but have made another place their home, returning. They make up the third largest group of immigrants.

You could stop people coming across on small boats to claim asylum. But these represent less than 3% of immigrants overall, with a majority going on to attain refugee status and ending up working in useful roles.

What other options are there?

Are they? How many?

(We don’t have official numbers because the UK doesn’t do comprehensive exit checks, but estimates are about 90,000 per year. It’s a minority, but not really a drop in the ocean.)

I see it is in the press tonight that people from certain groups are being allowed to jump the queue at A & E to allow them to be seen with 15 minutes of arrival.

Exactly and they're a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of visas we give out per year.

By far the largest group of ‘illegals’, as far as we can estimate, are visa overstayers (or people who overstay their visa-free period).

There is nothing wrong with a managed decline in population along with AI and robotics advances to help with ageing populations. Arguably England is over-populated and we are losing too much farmland and natural habitat.

Immigration for ageing populations is the ultimate Ponzi scheme. So we have 30 million old people and we need to import 40 million Africans and Asians to take care of them. But then the 40 million Africans and Asians will get old and we will have to import 50 million more to take care of them, and then the 50 million will get old....

Not to mention it is a well-established fact that immigrants from rich countries to Europe pay more than they receive in taxes but immigrants from poor countries are on average a burden to the taxpayer. They cost more than they contribute.

So you're not talking about immigration, you're talking about asylum seekers.

Seeking asylum is not illegal, no matter how you get into the country. Asylum seekers are only about 2% of immigrants into the UK.

You want to prevent 2% of people and continue to take in 98%?

@username299

"You knew it was pure fantasy."

Not necessarily- if the actual birth rate is below replacement levels and you restrict legal immigration then the population will naturally decline.

Illegal immigration is by definition illegal so you cannot prevent it entirely but you can make the UK a less attractive destination for illegal migration.

Some people use the term far right to hush anyone that dares to mention immigration. That’s bollocks though! In the same way they use ‘racist’ when anyone mentions immigration. They try to silence genuine concerns

No it doesn't only mean that, as well you know. Crafty, OP.