To think Starmer is utterly reprehensible

[Thegreyhound]

I know everyone will disagree, that’s ok- But I just have to say that Starmer today seems to have sunk lower than I ever believed he would with his incendiary ‘island of strangers’ and ‘incalculable damage’ rhetoric.
I find it particularly shocking because he has calculated this and decided it’s worth it to throw immigrants under the bus and essentially give all the ground in the debate to Farage, Tommy Robinson and Enoch Powell types.
Policy can be altered without making statements that are designed to impact race relations and make life even more difficult for people who are just trying to get along and make a living here.
Starmer is vile. This country does indeed feel like an island of strangers these days but the strangers are not the immigrants :(

I don't believe for one minute that poster has lived in an inner city, especially Birmingham.

One could argue that any use of the word hysterical is misogynistic- a bit problematic when you’re accused oppressed women of misogyny.

The “so what” part comes when those communities are overrun with people with dangerous and disrespectful misogynistic ideologies. And/or people who don’t continue the economically but take take take and don’t engage with services at all, putting a strain on the economy and have a knock-on effect on the most vulnerable.

I lived just down the road from the Saddam Hussein mosque for a few years (you are correct the name has changed but everybody in my age category will always call it “The Saddam Hussein mosque”.)

The only people I have seen on this thread acting as if immigrants are a monolith are anti-immigration people.

But to repeat “ethnic minoroty” == “immigrant”.

Two completely different things.

Is that really what you want? Because when I lived abroad I had to prove that I could support myself and would not cause any kind of cost to the host country.

You could argue any use of the word “hysterical” is misogynistic.

You would be an idiot to do so though.

As for latter part of your post - none of that has anything to do with an area having an ethnic minority majority. Which was the specific concern. If the concern is non-economically active people or misogynists then state that.

Women will have A LOT less power and influence. And given asylum is for those escaping dangerous oppression, it’s fitting for women to claim but not for men. Men in Afghanistan are not oppressed (except gay men).

I think you think you’re being clever trying to throw out “gotchas” but actually you just look rather silly.

I take it you actually looked then? Because you’ve gone from not knowing child brides existed to now having read all of the information and demographics on the 100+ countries that have legal child marriages. You must be a fast reader!

Read my post again.

What power or influence do fleeing men have in their new country than fleeing women do?

It’s not a gotcha. It just makes no sense.

There is no one common denominator.

Well that’s nice for you. But on planet earth we need to go off more than “I’m my own person” and be deeply concerned at those coming from high risk parts of the world.

Do you often emigrate to other countries as a rule?

Or Dewsbury, Batley, Ravensthorpe. There's no denying areas have become squalid, it's plain to see.
Lived in the Bradford postcode for 42 years, it's plain to see with the naked eye what mass immigration has done to certain areas.

Ok.

Do you understand the origins of the word “hysterical”? Of not, swat up.

Of course it has to do with being a minority - if you’re part of a hated group in your own community, that’s problematic.

JFC.

Actually you’re so right. A couple fleeing from a country where sh married him aged 13 and he was 28, and she had been raised as a literal second class citizen and in an unequal marriage, are definitely the same.

1. What does “woke” mean?
2. I genuinely do not care one jot if people want to blame, “people like me” for their voting choices. It’s a tired old trope now.

What on earth are you talking about?

So you did look at all the countries and explored the demographics to identify there’s “no one common denominator”? You did that very quickly!

I was answering your question when you pretended that men and women coming over from a country where women are deeply oppressed, are equal. What’s so hard to understand?

I am fully aware of the origins.

I am also aware that’s irrelevant when talking about two men being hysterical about the risk of being shot in London.

So if you’re fully aware of the origins, why use it? Any use of it is unacceptable.

I also FWIW think worrying about newborns being stabbed in London is a bit odd and OTT. And plenty of children live in London and have safe journeys to school every day. However, this doesn’t mean that immigration hasn’t had a negative impact on London, among other things - but given I don’t live there I can’t say if that’s an accurate statement or not.

No you didn’t. You gave a random anecdote about a marriage with a clear power imbalance between an abuser and victim.

That has nothing to do with my question on why, if your fear is the importation of misogynistic attitudes, from misogynistic cultures, why you think all men are influenced by those cultures and no women are.

He could simply go back to not counting International students in the figures. That's about a 400,000 drop with the stroke a pen.

What common denominator do you think exists across 100+ countries from diverse geographical locations, governments, cultures etc?

I did read your post?

Anyway, it sounds as though we grew up quite locally. I think if you would deny that while there were many positives, there were also many serious problems in the area, I think you are being dishonest.

Like I said, some people treat immigrants as a monolith. If you did live in Handsworth for a long time, then you are fully aware that there have been long term problems with sexual harassment and abuse of young women.