To ask if you'll be attending the anti fascism protest on 13 September

[Whatafustercluck]

I'd like to go in solidarity with like minded people, but worry about it turning violent. I won't be taking my children and will likely be going alone. Lots of people I know detest Tommy Robinson but will stay away due to the likelihood of trouble, but I really want to help send a message that racism and hatred won't win. Is anyone here considering going, or decided to stay away?

I’m not interested in having a long debate or arguing or insulting you, but what I will say is this. Throughout this thread people have provided you with facts and sensible, logical counter arguments, and every single time you have been totally dismissive and called it ‘outdated’ ‘tired’ etc.

History repeats the same patterns, always, by virtue of the human condition! It just does. You can dismiss things all you like, it doesn’t make them not true. It seems you just don’t want to face them because you have built a narrative in your head and to challenge that would be too much for you to handle.

It takes a certain strength and humility for someone to admit they are wrong, because for a lot of people, having to admit they are wrong triggers shame. Admitting you are wrong about your beliefs equates, to some people, to admitting they are fundamentally flawed because they’ve been fooled and by extension, must be an idiot. That’s why people double down on things and will not allow themselves to challenged. It really dents their sense of self worth, which these people who punch down on others don’t tend to have much of to start with.

If people like you were genuinely concerned and not just hateful, you would be interested in learning about the other side of the debate, you would want to know what was what, you would really consider things, you would challenge your beliefs of your own volition so that you could become more informed. The fact you are doubling down on your stance and dismissing everything else says that you’re not concerned, you are miserable and want any excuse to be hateful and angry towards people less fortunate than yourself. You are choosing to regurgitate things that are so easy to prove untrue or exaggerated.

This is further proved when people on the other side of the debate call people stupid, gammons, whatever other insult, and people respond with, ‘’well calling people stupid is the reason why people vote reform, you push us to it!’’ - that is nothing but spite and tantrums. People would vote to remove their own human rights and to suffer themselves just because they want people who called them stupid to suffer more. Cutting your nose off to spite your face. Silly, eh? and kind of proves the stupidity in and of itself!

It’s okay to be wrong, it’s human and it makes us more respectable when we’re able to admit we fucked up! Nobody is perfect.

The OP is asking if it would be wise to go to the demonstration and side with the illegal migrants, and demonstrate against the fascists?

I AM RIGHT ABOUT THE USE OF THE WORD FASCIST. I will not apologies for saying so. I believe that implicitly. There is no one like Hitler in the world today, nor does anyone want to be associated which what that monster did.

Hitler killed people who did not match up to his Aryan race ideology. It was not just Jews either. In the 20th century there was no one his equal. He was cruel and sadistic. He invaded the countries of Europe, took captives to work as slaves in his factories to build up his military and to help the economy.

There is no one in Britain today who is doing that, or thinking of doing anything that Hitler did that can be proven.except Hamas, Hezbollah et al who have vowed to 'kill all Jews wherever they are until there are none left'.

As soon as anyone says the word 'fascist' it puts fear into the minds of children and adults alike, who know what it means in history, but who cannot understand it is just an insult. They think it is happening all over again.

It might well happen again. It depends on who wants desperately to be the only like minded people on the planet. Just saying the word makes people fear for their lives, because they know what the men did who coined it.

Absolutely nailed it. The playbook of ultra nationalists is not to argue by logic or reasoned argument. It's to gaslight, name call and make vague, generic put-downs such as "clutching at straws". They also try to shut down discussions by saying "shut up" .

Furthermore:

The provisional net migration estimate for the UK in the year ending December 2024 was 431,000, which is almost half the level of the previous year. This decrease was mainly due to fewer people arriving on work and study visas.

Well I appreciate your blatant gaslighting, as it just shows everyone watching this post exactly what playbook is used by Reform supporters. They suspected it of course, but it's lovely to get proof in writing. So, to coin a phrase you like, keep up the gaslighting.

I can't make head nor tail of what you are saying. The grammar seems all wrong. But nobody cares about the chronology of a term. They want to know its current usage.

You are misinformed.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/childsexualabuseinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2019

Please note these extracts from the report

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) estimated that 7.5% of adults aged 18 to 74 years experienced sexual abuse before the age of 16 years (3.1 million people); this includes both adult and child perpetrators.
The abuse was most likely to have been perpetrated by a friend or acquaintance (37%); around a third (30%) were sexually abused by a stranger.

This doesn't make the crimes any less heinous but gives some perspective.

.

@IneedAniffler https://facts4eu.org/news/2024_jan_money_for_migrants

shows how much money we lose via migrants ^

I thought the question being asked was which religion is responsible for most paedophilia. I can't see why it would be asked in any other way. Clearly it must have been.

What you mention is very common knowledge, or it should be. Indeed any form of abuse, including murder, is usually by a perpetrator known the victim, typically in a domestic environment. Be careful to whom you fall in love.

@IneedAniffler From Full Fact

There is no single "correct" answer to the question of how much immigrants contribute to public finances
The net fiscal impact of immigration is the difference between the taxes and other contributions migrants make to public finances, and the costs of the benefits and public services they receive.
Establishing the fiscal impact of immigration is a challenge both in theory and in practice. Not everyone agrees on how to calculate it, which makes it difficult to make strong claims about the exact size of the fiscal impact of immigration. In particular, assumptions need to be made about:

• How immigration affects the costs of providing public services.
• Conceptual matters include things like what costs to attribute to immigrants, such as the costs of educating the UK-born children of immigrants, or the cost of things like defence spending that do not necessarily depend on the size of the immigrant population.
• Practical matters include things like data limitations – for example estimates of taxes paid depend on earnings, but there are no statistics on what immigrants earn if they are self-employed, nor on the number or earnings of seasonal workers.
• Whether to take a snapshot of the fiscal impact in a given year or period based on historical data (the "static approach"), or attempt to consider impacts over immigrants' entire lifetimes (the “dynamic” approach).

These stats are from USA.

I have no reason to believe they wouldn't be similar in UK

• *A 2018 study by three criminologists revealed that hundreds of claims of sexual abuse are made every year against pastors and other Protestant church leaders (despite the fact that most Protestant pastors are married). According to the study’s authors:
  Three faith-based insurance companies that provide coverage for 165,500 churches—mostly Protestant Christian churches and 5500 other religious-oriented organizations—reported 7,095 claims of alleged sexual abuse by clergy, church staff, congregation members, or volunteers between 1987 and 2007. This is an average of 260 claims of alleged sexual abuse per year, which resulted in $87.8 million in total claims being paid.

• I would argue that s*ex abuse isn't a distinctly religious problem.
  A 2004 report from the U.S. Department of Education indicated that one out of ten public school students experience some kind of unwanted sexual advance from an educator. Two-thirds of those students say the advance involved some kind of physical contact. According to the report’s author, “more than 4.5 million students are subject to sexual misconduct by an employee of a school sometime between kindergarten and twelfth grade.”

Like most people in the UK, I am not religious and don't distinguish between different factions of Christianity. Most people are simply shocked that a person preaching good versus evil should do anything so vile.

DreamyBalonz I was thinking the exact same thing. I am not racist in the slightest, it's about our children's future.

It’s fine to have concerns, but go about asking those questions in the right way.
Aha, now the tone policing.
So like women being criticised for expressing concern on Gender Issues - be nice, be kind. And, whatever you do, don't be angry.

The abuse was most likely to have been perpetrated by a friend or acquaintance (37%); around a third (30%) were sexually abused by a stranger.
This doesn't make the crimes any less heinous but gives some perspective.

Yet again. This conveniently ignores the proportion of each group that commits sexual crimes. I.e. is a distortion of the truth

Yes it's a depressing figure and very few people disagree about the need to take control of our borders.
The gist of what and I others dislike is blaming the migrants for this. They did what one would expect from all humans, staying alive after fleeing danger such as civil war in Syria. The UK governments has to step up on reducing irregular migration. And what's also unreasonable is suggesting that one bad apple in 137 means the whole barrel is condemned as "terrifying". I suggest THEY are are the terrified ones, with people protesting metres from their accommodation.

Dead end if you want that.
Official government crime statistics in the United States, such as those from the FBI or the Bureau of Justice Statistics, do not typically collect or publish data on sexual convictions broken down by the religion of the offender.
Same situation when I asked about UK.

It is incredibly difficult to collect accurate statistics for this for many reasons.

Both myself and a childhood friend were sexually abused as children. Myself by a stranger and my friend by her stepfather.

In both cases our mothers didn't believe us.

My abuser was caught when he abused another girl who was believed. My friend's relationship with her mother became none-existent and she married early to get away from home.

Exactly. Not to mention the government fuelling the trade of the people traffickers transporting would be asylum seekers across the Channel.

While the marketing blurb they can use can publicise free hotel accommodation, free food, games room, new clothes and phone if needed - that’s going to attract plenty of non asylum seekers trying their luck. Why wouldn’t it?

Guess what? I'm not here to endear myself to anyone. It's a forum, not a debutante ball.

So let me get this straight: you don’t like links, you won’t read evidence, you admit you’ve no inclination to look at sources but somehow I’m the problem for having them. That isn’t a debate position, that’s just announcing you prefer ignorance.
Nobody said you were incapable of opening a link I said you refuse to engage with information. And you’ve just confirmed that yourself in black and white.
Free speech isn’t “only up to the point” where it flatters you. If you’re going to throw opinions into a discussion, expect people to test them against facts. If you can’t handle that, maybe stick to echo chambers where “feelings over facts” is the standard.
The truth is, evidence doesn’t make me “better” it just makes me right. What makes you worse off is proudly rejecting it.

Gosh, is that poster still excusing racism when its against white people?

I agree either way your final bullet point but I am interested in how you conclude that gammon is not racist when it is a word specifically based on the appearance of a white person.

Are there any equivalent pejorative words used specifically to refer to the looks of a brown or black person that are not deemed to be racist?

I believe all of my genius posts to be worth paying for!! 😂Thankyou llizzie x

I think you find everything patronising because you argue from a point of refusing to engage with real information, preferring your fictitious narrative.