This migrant problem is going to let Reform in isn’t it?

It didn't get into the media. God forbid. There was also a knifing. Our local rural police officer and there's only one covering a huge patch which includes towns, villages and Hamlets.

Which hotel? Do you have a link please? I vaguely remember something, but can't quite recall the details.

A village with a hotel near us had 40 men and two sexual assaults on local women. The hotel shut after 16 weeks. I've read where women get grabbed in the street in broad daylight recently. One man grabbed a second person when the first escaped.

That's sex mad in my book.

Over a 2 year period, from that FOI request, Afghans were convicted of sexual offences at a rate of 59 per 10,000 of their population versus 2.66 per 10,000 Britons.

So with the pp's 180-man hostel, they could expect an average of 1 sexual offence conviction every 2 years on average by an asylum seeker in the hostel.

Compared to 1 sexual offence conviction every 4 years by anyone else (1800 people) in the village.

That one hostel - 10% of their village population - triples the risk of sexual assault for women in the village.

That's not OK.

And it's what people are seeing played out. Then people on here and politicians try to gaslight them that it's all in their minds - racism and bigotry - when it evidently is not.

<spoiler alert> Afghans and Eritreans had more than 20 times more sexual offence convictions than British citizens per 10000 population of that nationality.

Both victims and perpetrators are in there. Checking that data set again though, that one is just ethnicity rather than nationality, which is too broad for understanding immigration.

The telegraph link breaks down conviction rates per 1000 population for different nationalities, based on FOI requests.

When I can access my laptop I’ll download the data and have a proper look.

I looked for this a while ago actually, I’m sure they said that they don’t publish or always collect ethnicity data of perpetrators.

That's what I thought

Aren’t these stats about victims?

Here's an (editorialised) overview if you don't want to wade through the data

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/10/foreigners-commit-up-to-quarter-of-sex-crimes/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/sexualviolenceintheukbyethnicity

Do you have a link those documented differences in rates?

The pp did say that not all would be dangerous. But some are, as seen by the assaults.

There are documented differences in rates of sexual offending by nationality. Not a pleasant fact, but a fact nonetheless.

It's a numbers game.

Genuine progress would be significant, verified reductions in numbers of:
1.legal immigrants (further drops after the ones from the changes the Conservatives brought in before losing power)
2.small boat arrivals
3.housing of asylum seekers within communities
4.successful asylum claims (total, not percentage)

Each assault against women or children by an illegal immigrant will mean that the numbers would need to drop further and faster in order for it to be considered progress. Not fair (individuals are responsible for their own actions, not a group) but true.

And they can be identified as dangerous and not genuine?

Do you mean the pp who said that it doesn't take a genius to deduce that the groups of non-English-speaking men who suddenly appeared in her village of 2000 people, and are now hanging around their local park all day with nothing to do are asylum seekers?

Um.. that's quite a lot easier than knowing whether your pizza delivery driver or your building firm's labourer are legally employed. Yes.

Oh and the media has suddenly exploded on immigration since Labour got in. Despite it being caused by the Tories and in particular Brexit.

But individuals have to means to identify dangerous asylum seekers?

What does genuine progress mean to you?

Farage’s mostly illegal immigration plans:

1. Recognise a National Security Threat

Legal.
• The UK government can declare a national security emergency if it deems there is an existential threat (e.g. terrorism, uncontrolled migration).
• But this declaration must be proportionate and evidence-based.
• It cannot be used arbitrarily to override all human rights protections, especially if the UK remains party to the ECHR or UN treaties.

2. Leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

Legally possible, but politically and diplomatically explosive.
• Parliament can vote to withdraw via the Human Rights Act 1998 repeal.
• However:
• It would violate parts of the Good Friday Agreement (Northern Ireland).
• It could damage trade deals, especially with the EU (the ECHR is embedded in some agreements).
• It would likely remove individuals’ ability to appeal to Strasbourg, but UK courts would still be bound by some human rights law via other international treaties.

3. Zero Illegal Immigrants to Be Resettled in the UK

Not entirely legal under current obligations.
• The UK is bound by:
• 1951 UN Refugee Convention
• European Convention on Human Rights (unless exited)
• These allow for asylum claims, even from those who arrive illegally.
• Blanket refusal to resettle any illegal migrants would violate non-refoulement rules i.e. not returning someone to a place where they face torture or persecution.

4. Offshore Processing for Illegal Arrivals

Legally complex; politically controversial.
• Countries like Australia and Rwanda have done this, but:
• It must comply with international humanitarian law.
• UK’s Rwanda plan has been blocked by UK and ECHR courts for now, due to safety concerns.
• Would require:
• Treaty agreements with safe offshore countries.
• Strong human rights safeguards.

5. New Department of Immigration

legal.
• Creating a standalone immigration department is a domestic administrative choice.
• Would likely involve restructuring the Home Office or carving out a new ministry.

6. Pick Up Migrants and Return to France

Illegal under current treaties.
• International law (UNCLOS and SAR Convention) obliges rescue at sea, but not forced return to another country without their consent.
• France must agree to take people back which they do not currently.
• The claim that “we are legally allowed to do this” is not accurate under current treaties unless the migrant was rescued in French waters or France agrees.

7. Secure Detention for All Asylum Seekers

Legally questionable in blanket form.
• UK can detain individuals on case-by-case grounds (e.g., flight risk), but:
• Indefinite or automatic detention violates UK case law and ECHR rulings.
• Reform would require significant legislative changes and likely exit from ECHR.

8. Offshore Processing in British Overseas Territories

Legally possible, but raises concerns.
• Technically feasible, if the territory consents (e.g., Ascension Island).
• However:
• It would likely face judicial review under domestic and international law.
• Could be seen as evasion of asylum rights.

9. Immediate Deportation of Foreign Criminals
Possible, with limits.
• UK already deports foreign criminals, but:
• Deportation must respect Article 8 (right to family life) of the ECHR.
• Courts often block deportations for individuals with UK-born children or long-standing ties.
• A new policy would require a change in the legal balancing test.

10. Withdraw Citizenship for Immigrants Who Commit Crime

Legally possible, but subject to strict limits.
• UK law allows revocation of citizenship in cases involving terrorism, treason, or serious national harm, especially if the person has dual nationality.
• You cannot make someone stateless unless the person is not born British and citizenship was obtained by fraud or error.
• Withdrawing citizenship for “significant crime” would require new definitions and would be legally challenged.

Same.

Yes this is happening on my feed too despite me hiding the posts every time.

Individuals don't have the means to identify illegally eorking employees. 🙄

A government agency with the power to request proof of eligibility is obviously the only way they can be identified.

Governments and police have repeatedly ignored people expressing concerns. They've dismissed their experiences, tried to gaslight them that there's nothing to see here, and called them racists and bigots.

I don't want civil unrest, but it is pretty obvious that unless Labour make some genuine progress, it will happen. No one trusts the platitudes any more.

This is why we need to try to coordinate internationally as regards tax on the super-wealthy. Nobody has the right to that amount of wealth, so we just need to try to claw back as much as possible from them. They have enormously increased their own wealth over the last two decades, and they do not care that the rest of society is falling apart.

I agree that the NI employers rise is not necessarily the best choice.

It could get much worse if they 1) Move our healthcare system to a more American model and make the majority of the workforce, and everyone else even more ill (this would be a good pretext for cutting statutary annual leave as well - if you are reliant on your job for medical care, they have more power over you). 2) Undermine our democratic constitutions, making it harder for other parties to unseat them, as we have seen in Turkey, Hungary, Poland to some degree, and which we are starting to see in the US. 3) Trial extremely risky tax changes which may trigger Truss-esque financial difficulties (only this time the rest of the party won't be there to chuck Farage, or whoever, out). 4) Undermine the existing expertise in the Civil Service (which isn't perfect, but image people like Robert Kennedy being put into ministerial positions and how they would behave). 5) Not only undermine climate change efforts but continue to deny the science behind them, that commands a consensus of the scientists who actually know about this stuff and which has done for years. Potentially they may undermine even the infrastructure we already have in place regarding this if they are puritanical enough.

This I am sure is just a selection. I've not even included anything which tends to get leftwingers like me incensed such as economic inequality, racism, sexism, and so on. Any reasonable conservative would agree that at least one of these would be a worry. The people in Reform (note: not the voters) are just people who want the world to be like they want, and will be completely unable to confront reality in the face. They will potentially ruin this country.

Individuals can report businesses or not use them.

People can express their concerns without it leading to civil unrest

Farage is good at stirring the pot.

Why shouldn't they come to the UK?

The black economy is always blamed as the reason, and ID cards and digital money only will be the only way to solve that one.
They are just getting a grip of the level of fraud going on
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-powers-yield-real-world-impact-in-companies-house-economic-crime-crackdown

• queried and removed false, misleading or incorrect information from the registers, with an impact on 100,400 companies - this often relates to the hijacking of innocent people’s identities or addresses, usually to enable criminality such as fraud or money laundering
• rejected 10,200 suspicious applications including where evidence has suggested mass incorporations at certain addresses are taking place - this practice has a known link with money laundering
• collaborated with The Insolvency Service and partners to identify approximately £50 million in UK property related to companies owned by organised criminals, which is now subject to ongoing asset recovery investigations
• played an active role in the first Europol Asset Sprint, which saw 43 law enforcement agencies across 28 countries, along with private sector partners, participating in this unique initiative aimed at enhancing the number of criminal assets seized globally