Please or to access all these features

Petitions and activism

Piddington Roars

523 replies

dreamingofgoodhair · 21/08/2026 03:31

Can I draw your attention to this please ?
A village of 400 people in Oxfordshire, the government want to house 1200 migrants in an old RAF barracks nearby. No consultation and no infrastructure to support.
Before anyone accuses me of being racist, my family make up negates that.

https://thevillagethatroared.org/

OP posts:
Thread gallery
10
Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 19:40

WonderfulSmith · 21/08/2026 12:33

So where do you want them to go while it’s worked out what country they are from and a plane found for them? It’s not as simple as picking them up off a small boat, saying ‘where are you from?’ and then putting them straight onto a plane.

  1. If they knew that if they arrive into the UK they will be securely detained until they are sent to Rwana they wouldn't cone.
  2. Securely detained/Rwanda (or any third country that they would find less desirable than France,)....then they won't come.
WonderfulSmith · 28/08/2026 19:42

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 19:40

  1. If they knew that if they arrive into the UK they will be securely detained until they are sent to Rwana they wouldn't cone.
  2. Securely detained/Rwanda (or any third country that they would find less desirable than France,)....then they won't come.

And who is paying to send them to Rwanda, that isn’t free? And why should Rwanda have them, or are the lives of women and girls there worth less?

AndyKitten · 28/08/2026 19:43

OneFunBrickNewt · 28/08/2026 19:01

You're making it about my gender, when it really isn't.
Argue about the ideas and the issue, not the person....

Mate, I’ve moved on.

Not bothered about your mansplaining. It’s your problem, you deal
with it.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 19:50

AmberHollow · 21/08/2026 12:44

Can I ask a genuine question? I don’t understand why these centres are “open door”. Surely the happy medium is to use the bases, as yes they need to go somewhere, but remove the option to leave the site freely until identity is established and claim is processed.

Is there a reason this is not the case? I’d feel very differently about a secure processing site nearby, than an open door base. Presumably this would also weed out people who are coming here for less than valid reasons, knowing they can’t just disappear.

I can’t imagine a scenario where I entered another country illegally and wasn’t then detained until they figured out who I am and whether I have a valid reason to be there.

How do you identify and background check a man (who could be from from Afganistan, Sudan, Syria wherever)

The man that carried out the attempted beheading in Belfast. First he was from one country, then another, then they admitted they didn't know what country.

These countries aren't like the UK and can give you a DBS check and a reference from a registered employer.

We have to accept that we have no idea who most of them are or what they have done in the past and it is impossible to find out.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 19:59

BoredZelda · 21/08/2026 13:13

50% of people granted asylum in the U.K. are women/children.

A little thought experiment for you. Your home is in danger of being bombed, you have to leave. 150 miles up the road, there is a refugee camp, but you don’t know anyone in the area. You have no connections, and the camp is known to be a pretty awful place. If you go there with your family it could be years you are there, no hope for returning any time soon, you have 2 school age children. You have people you know in Sweden and you speak the language. You could go there and start afresh, get a job, get your children in to school and give them a future. The only way to get there is to make a 600 mile journey on foot by land, then take a boat to Sweden. It might take a few attempts but you think you can do it. There is nowhere near you to apply for a travel visa.

Do you:
A) All travel together, make the long, arduous, treacherous journey to Sweden with two small children in tow, not knowing where the next meal/resting place is available.
B) All stay in the refugee camp, risking disease, no education for your children, no opportunity to provide for your family, and hope you get back home quickly enough so your children’s entire future isn’t damaged.
C) Send the strongest most capable of the group, allowing them to make the journey to somewhere you can get set up, have access to an embassy to get your family the correct travel visas and make their own asylum claims, and enough money to join you in a safer way?

If you pick A or B, you are a liar or an idiot.

Our country has been at war and we evacuated children not adult men. Hope that helps.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 20:22

OneFunBrickNewt · 21/08/2026 13:20

I'd rather that than my child be anywhere the white chavs who congregate outside asylum hostels trying to burn alive the people inside, especially given that many of these 'protestors' have criminal records for domestic violence and sexual offences against children.

https://www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/police-data-shows-1-in-5-men-arrested-during-2024-riots-have-since-been-reported-for-domestic-abuse/

Not answering the question though is it?

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 20:24

WonderfulSmith · 28/08/2026 19:42

And who is paying to send them to Rwanda, that isn’t free? And why should Rwanda have them, or are the lives of women and girls there worth less?

Because if they know they are going to Rwanda they won't come.

Because Rwanda agreed to have them for £££ and I assume plans to make sure they can't pose a risk to their citizens with that money.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 20:27

Switchnow · 23/08/2026 21:48

’‘Men from cultures where they regard women to be used’.

I just don’t understand this logic at all. The position of women in Iran or in Afghanistan is dreadful, on that we agree. But if you believe all men in those nations support their government, you must surely oppose all men from those countries being allowed to reside here, whether they arrive by small boat or not.

So by your logic, would you put a travel ban on men from certain countries? And which ones?

Look up Ross Kemp interviewing men about the effect of rape on women. He asks them what effect they think being raped has on a woman and they don't even understand the question.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 20:33

LBFseBrom · 21/08/2026 13:24

I couldn't care less.

They won't be there forever, might make life more interesting for a while though you don't want rent-a-mob turning up, flag waving and throwing things.

You clearly haven't got a teenage girl that will need to walk home through the area then.

I can't imagine the most blinkered of lefties not caring if their teenage girl had to walk around alone in that area.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 20:40

EasternStandard · 21/08/2026 13:30

Why would you need more info on that?

I think what the poster is getting at is there is not an ethnicity which can't be racist.

The opening post kind of implies OP is not white or mixed race and that means that she/he cannot be racist. Unless there is some other characteristic of a family that means they can't be racist but I'm not aware of any.

E.g. the OP might mean I'm Indian so can't be racist - but of course someone from India (or any country) can be racist.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 20:49

LakieLady · 21/08/2026 13:38

No-one can say with any certainty whether someone has a right to asylum or not until their asylum application has been determined.

The Government is not allowing student visas for people from Sudan, Afganistan and a number of other countries now because too many claim asylum. Some of those claims would have been successful - or unsuccessful and the people not leave anyway- so they can obviously prevent claims being put in when they want to.

Literally half the world could probably put in a successful claim at the moment (if they could get here and didn't mind the odd lie) so you have to do things to make sure that is not the case.

You believe these fit/able young men jumping on and off boats are the eople most in need of British protection in the world? Utter rubbish they simply have the fastest legs and sharpest elbows.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 20:59

MildlyMoist · 21/08/2026 13:52

And you would tear them down. International law applies to us too.

As an historian, I would remind you and others of Germany in the 1930s and how circumstances can change very quickly in any country.

True.
Some countries where circumstances changed I've found listed in a quick Google:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei, Chad, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Western Sahara, and Yemen.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 21:03

LakieLady · 21/08/2026 13:53

I'm increasingly alarmed by number of people who appear very willing to lock up people who haven't broken any laws.

Makes me wonder what other fundamental human rights they'd like to abandon.

How about prioritising the right to liberty and security for women and children rather than asylum seekers?

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 21:10

BoredZelda · 21/08/2026 13:59

Do we all know? I think you might think you know, but as far as I can tell there could be a few reasons they still aren’t doing it.

A) the police don’t want the public to know about an epidemic of crime by ethnic minorities. - Unlikely, because surely it would benefit them to make it public, or at least have it factored into government policy on immigration.

B) the police are being pressured by government not to release these data. - Possible, but that would mean every government of every colour has done this for decades. Wouldn’t the Boris/Braverman era tories have benefitted from this if immigrant crime was a huge issue? Perhaps they realised the figures wouldn’t benefit them and asked to keep them quiet, who knows?

C) the police in publishing this data would face public scrutiny, from both ends of the political scale. If the figures show, for example, that a much larger number of immigrants were being stopped, searched and arrested, it would lead to further accusations of institutional racism, or “two tier policing” - This seems plausible, and further, if the number of those arrests resulting in a conviction would be liable to question too and whether it was more or less than average for the country in general, someone has questions to answer.

D) the police are aware that in publishing these data, it could lead to further unrest in the country at a time when race relations are a powder keg. Statistics will be taken by either side to support their cause, and the complexities of reporting crime (particularly in sexual assault cases), of bias in investigating and prosecuting these cases from start to finish will be ignored. - This also seems plausible. In my anecdotal experience, whenever a report is put out on SM by local police forces and the ethnicity isn’t mentioned, the comments are flooded with “doctor or engineer” or veiled racist tropes, suggesting our women and girls are not at all safe, all whilst making no mention of the victim of the crime. They are conspicuous by their absence when later in the day someone points out it was a local white man who has been arrested. I don’t think anyone can argue that any crime by and non white person is taken as an invitation to brand an entire culture in the way we don’t do with white individuals.

E) the police are just really shit at capturing data. Paperwork is filled in too quickly, never properly completed, potential out of a boredom of it, or because they have so damned much of it to do. - Knowing a few police officers and hearing their tales of paperwork woe, this is plausible too.

F) another reason I haven’t thought of, feel free to add yours.

I have no idea what the real reason is. I suspect it’s a combination of C, D & E, but until someone actually tells us, I don’t think we’ll ever know.

I think the fact the Government are fighting a legal battle to avoid having to produce this data answers your question.

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 21:16

BoredZelda · 21/08/2026 14:14

If you are for human rights for one, you are for human rights for all. None of those rights are contradictory. If a government decides it can lock up one group of people without any crime being committed, you are relying on that government never to do that to you.

If we removed every single asylum seeker from our shores, the risk to that teenage girl barely changes. Women’s’ right to walk safely in a park hasn’t been enforced or even cared much about by a lot of people for centuries, I wonder why it is only when asylum seekers commit these crimes we suddenly care?

It isn’t gaslighting to say that all humans deserve basic human rights. It is gaslighting to weaponise safety of women and girls when targeting only one group, yet all the while pretending we can’t see and hear you doing it.

Absolute bollocks.

The risk assessment for a teenage girl walking a dog in a village with 1000 asylum seeking young males and none is not the same. I'd laugh if it wasn't so utterly tragic.

If your teenage daughter lived in the area you would not be letting her walk the dog (either alone or with a friend etc) I can guarantee it. You are offensive in your utter blinkered wokeness - no one believes you that 1000 asylum seeking males pose barely any risk. No one. Which is why when the "refugees are welcome here" mob are asked if they will house a refugee they say no!

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 21:18

BoredZelda · 21/08/2026 14:16

I think they have the same access to these things as any other person who lives in, or visits the U.K. The only difference is, we forbid them to have any way to work and pay for these things themselves. It’s not a benefit, it is a basic right.

The rest of the world has the "right" to be fed, watered and sheltered by the uk..all they need to do is rock up?

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 21:35

OneFunBrickNewt · 21/08/2026 15:31

And all the while we rightly- totally correctly- have a white woman (involved in childcare and wife of a Tory councillor) imprisoned as she incited rioters to burn asylum seekers alive inside their hostel. And she pleaded guilty. Seems like many on this post agree with her.

So not wanting unknown men from misogynistic cultures to be allowed to roam freely is the same as wanting to burn them to death. What utter rubbish.

Switchnow · 28/08/2026 21:47

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 20:27

Look up Ross Kemp interviewing men about the effect of rape on women. He asks them what effect they think being raped has on a woman and they don't even understand the question.

Plenty of violent men are clueless about their impact, that’s not news. The question is how do we predict who the violent men are, and prevent violence. Does Ross Kemp help us with that?

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 22:00

Switchnow · 28/08/2026 21:47

Plenty of violent men are clueless about their impact, that’s not news. The question is how do we predict who the violent men are, and prevent violence. Does Ross Kemp help us with that?

Still trying to argue there is no cultural difference in attitudes towards rape? Disgusting.

How do we predict who the violent men are?
Well we seem to have established on this thread that a man from Afganistan is 14x more likely to carry out a sexual assault - and that is from the mouths of the wokies trying to disprove the 22x claim - so there is that.

I'd go with not allowing men from misogynistic cultures where women have to cover up or be punished/assaulted to move here would be a start.

The rights of our citizens to be safe trumps the right of these men to move here for me.

Switchnow · 29/08/2026 00:14

Winter2020 · 28/08/2026 22:00

Still trying to argue there is no cultural difference in attitudes towards rape? Disgusting.

How do we predict who the violent men are?
Well we seem to have established on this thread that a man from Afganistan is 14x more likely to carry out a sexual assault - and that is from the mouths of the wokies trying to disprove the 22x claim - so there is that.

I'd go with not allowing men from misogynistic cultures where women have to cover up or be punished/assaulted to move here would be a start.

The rights of our citizens to be safe trumps the right of these men to move here for me.

I’ve argued no such thing. Nuance is tough for some people, I understand.

I don’t know where you think that’s been established but it certainly hasn’t. If it had if absolutely support an outright ban on men from Afghanistan. Alas, it’s not that easy to work out who the dangerous men are, regardless of skin colour or tax bracket.

If you do believe these statistically dodgy claims, why aren’t you supporting a total travel ban, why only get your knickers in a twist about the men seeking asylum, not the interpreters and guides who came in via the government scheme?

MaturingCheeseball · 29/08/2026 08:00

An Afghan on the “government scheme” has just been sentenced for abducting and raping a female passenger in his taxi in Edinburgh. Rather interestingly this Interpreter needed an interpreter in court. We Are Mugs.

EvangelicalAboutButteredToast · 29/08/2026 14:47

Are you saying this Afghan was previously a translator which is part of the reason he is here but now he is in court he needs a translator to understand English?

MaturingCheeseball · 29/08/2026 15:06

Yep.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page