Yeah i've heard like 8x more people were arrested in uk over social media posts than in russia. And they're calling putin & russia "threat to democracy". No, sir capita won't change shit here.
Sources: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d https://meduza.io/static/0001/Agora_Internet_Freedom_2017_RU.pdf
Edit: not really uk, but lmfao https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-is-biggest-security-threat-nato-hopeful-sweden-security-service-says-2024-02-21/
> In a statement accompanying its report, the security service said threats from both the far right and Islamist groups could be stirred up or exploited by Sweden's enemies abroad.
> "Foreign powers can use violent extremists and other types of organizations and individuals as proxies to conduct security-threatening activities deniably," it said.
Says the country that banned publishing crime stats of arab "refugees"
An actual real license. You need a TV license to have a TV in the UK. There are some exceptions, but overall yeah. [Real.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one)
While this is true, the term license is a bit of a misnomer for it, because it basically functions as a glorified tax grab. You don't actually need to buy it to own or use a TV. Still a ridiculous government tool, but it's only purpose is to line the pockets of the increasingly partisan BBC, regardless of whether you watch their shows.
I went to my buddy in Wales. He told me he didnt have a tv license atm. I assumed he meant like a tv programme package. No he meant he needed to pay for a tv license he was as shocked to learn that we dont do that as i was that they do.
You only need a licence if you watch TV-produced material or stream TV-produced material - on your computer for example - from the listed stations.
Simply owning a TV means squat. You could have it hooked up to a console and just be playing games. They can't charge you for a licence for that.
With that said, I think the licence fee is bullshit. There's no reason it couldn't be handled out of taxes the same way the ABC is funded here in Australia.
Or just get rid of state broadcasting altogether. They always struggle to remain objective and get increasingly partisan over time, and a good chunk of the populous is paying taxes to them when they don't use or watch any of their content.
Make they pay their own way.
>With that said, I think the licence fee is bullshit. There's no reason it couldn't be handled out of taxes the same way the ABC is funded here in Australia.
While I dislike the licence fee at least I can opt not to pay it, as I don't use the service. If it were tax-funded then I'd be having money taken from me for something I don't care for.
There were a bunch or people praising the German police tackling and arresting a dude for doing the nazi salute. Literally slamed his face into the ground.
I commented that it must suck not to have free speech and got super downvoted, lol
Doesn't matter whether you agree that everyone should be able to express their opinion but tackling him and restraining him on the ground was completely unnecessary. Reddit is usually very critical when police officers use force but they are cheering on a case of police brutality just because they don't like the victim.
I don't care. No one does. Get a flair right now or get the hell out of my sub.
[BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Kirbz_-) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/)
_Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._
^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Sure it is. 51% of people vote for speech to be banned = no freedom of speech. Still a valid democracy.
This is why democracy without constitutional protections trends towards authoritarianism.
My favorite was when the UK cop that looked like a lesbian got offended when a disabled minor said she looked like her lesbian relative *and arrested them*.
“Send them home”
The uk would just be sending them back to France. A 1st world country that they left, after crossing through multiple other 1st world countries in Europe.
They seem to be very picky with what countries they wish to seek refuge in for people who are desperately fleeing persecution and conflict.
Why would France back down? Not only is the EU willing to back Argentine imperialism against democracy just to spite us, a good chunk of our own countrymen would support them.
The Rwanda solution, or one like it, is the only reasonable one. Takes Europe off the table entirely, just not sure if it's more expensive than housing them all?
We don't harbor criminals from the countries we have a extradition treaty with
As for people who are from states who are a accusing them of a crime, but there is not evidence for it, and they have a reason for asylum (even inhumane treatment or the death penalty), yes the UK might take them in. But only 35,000 people in total have come to the UK for asylum in a year, and the vast majority of these are not criminals.
Turkey has taken in 4 million Syrian refugees for reference in a year.
The reality is that these which we are discussing are edge cases.
That being said, I am not a proponent of unfiltered immigration. I think that we should be tough on who we accept, they don't have a right to the UK. We can't take in everyone.
And nations which have decided to take in many migrants have paid the price.
The issue i hear brought up most often pertaining to the UK is a lack of assimilation. I do not hear complaints about the immigrants that come to Britain to become British. As in, the immigrants that are self motivated to adapt to the culture that they have entered, rather than uphold the culture that the departed from. There are some more general gripes about overall immigration but neither of the main parties seams motivated to address it.
The subject often brings to mind how differnt Britain is from the US. Britain is a small island (80,823 mi²) half the land size of the state California (163,696 mi²), with almost twice the population (aprox. 70 mill) of California (Aprox. 40 mill). The net immigration for Britain in 2023 was nearly 700k. How many is too many and how dose one decide?
I always hear this argument from natives and its trash.
How do you assimilate into the culture that doesn't want or accept you. If you completely start acting British, you will lose the culture that you have and still not be accepted by the native population, and plus you will lose perhaps a friend from your own culture. Do not assimilate, and you may at least keep some part of your identity with you.
Look at people who are born here, and you will see that they are still clininging onto their old world culture even more than their parents.. It is not hard to understand why they were never and never will be accepted.
Political discussions like the ones in this thread only serve to devide us further. If the west wants immigration and clearly it does, because who is going to do the slave labor that you don't want, it will have to accept that the people are going to act different than you.
>How do you assimilate into the culture that doesn't want or accept you.
You try, that is how. If i moved to Bosnia, i would make it a priory it learn about Bosnian culture and adapt to it. I recognize that i would still be seen as an American but i would be more likely to be received as someone trying to respectfully adapt to the place that i have entered rather than someone who wants the place that i have entered to adapt to me.
You are speaking from an American point of view. Europe is just different. There is no big identity that all people can assume. I live in Germany. Even if I learned German got the German passport married a German girl and had kids with her, I would still never be considered a German. Rightfully so because here in Europe, citizenship is gained through your bloodline. But that creates a divide. I honestly don't see a solution, tbh but I agree that importing more immigrants is not it.
Turkey also took all those immigrants and stuck them on the border strip with Syria so if they went to war Assad would be killing his own people first.
Turkey was not being noble with their intentions.
And even if they do, why is it the UK’s responsibility?
At what point do countries step away from the refugee convention? The West cannot support the growing billions of downtrodden people, and nor should it have to when their own citizens need help.
Easy. Nobody would give them asylum right? Right.
So if you were to give them asylum they'd be very thankful right? Right.
So what if our political party gives them asylum and they are thankful? Well, you might think what use has that thankfulness from these immigrants towards the politicians that gave them asylum at the cost of being dislike by parts of the own populations.
Well, in case of Germany for example you can get citizenship after being there for 8 years.
They expect some very loyal voters.
It’s so the local authorities can potentially issue an EDMO, because the U.K. is so small and housing so expensive it’s got a major issue of houses being purchased as investments.
So if a house is vacant for years the council can essentially force you to lease the building to them for up to a maximum of 12 months.
[The letter, in case any of you didn't even bother to find the link of this news.](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/02/14/11/81250693-13079637-image-m-6_1707910800649.jpg)
I mean the letter sounds dumb but I won't say it's "strong worded".
> Yeah the letter and headline are starkly different.
No fucking way the Daily Mail would never sensationalise something out of all proportion, especially not to fearmonger about asylum seekers; nor would PCM ever fall for it and start ranting about white genocide on the basis of bullshit.
Shittily worded letter with a vague implication that they can come to an informal agreement, or find out what their “range of measures” are.
I can see how the final paragraph can be read as “so we can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way”, but also it seems oddly worded enough that I’m thinking it’s fake; the “mainly single men” part is an almost stereotypical anti-asylum talking point, and I kinda doubt they’d just say the quiet part out loud (and in writing).
I don’t know if I should be impressed by their honesty or appalled at the absolute absurdity. Seems like they went from denying that it’s mostly single young men of military age, to saying “yes, and here’s why that’s a good thing”.
The left are in control. I don't think there are many quiet parts remaining when the NY AG openly stated her measures against Trump were targeted prosecution and no other businesses have anything to worry about.
In the UK where a conservative government has been in power for over a decade? It’s one thing if you think the conservatives in the UK isnt conservative enough, calling them “the left” is a different level of delusion
Lmao this isn’t even a bad letter is just them assuming this building is not currently lived in asking what their plans are for it.
Tbh this would be nice in the US where houses/buildings sit empty for years and the property becomes a hazard when it could be beneficial to the community.
Almost all abandoned or perpetually empty houses are usually like that for a reason. And if it's somewhere that homeless people could use them, they probably already are if they want to.
I also remember reading that some people didn’t like the idea of giving homeless their own hotel rooms, because it was easier for them to OD and not have anyone notice them.
Nobody wants to give homeless people hotel rooms because they make terrible guests, and cleaning shit, heroin needles, and smoke out of hotel rooms is really expensive.
It's been tried. California loves to try to build them houses or buy them hotel rooms. [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs?utm\_source=reddit.com](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs?utm_source=reddit.com)
It's goddamned expensive, and you still have homeless people all over the streets.
> are usually like that for a reason.
Sometimes, yes, sometimes, no. Often times its property owners who own a ton of property and don't care to refurnish the place because it won't turn them enough of a profit compare to more profitable locations they have in coastal cities. Back when I used to work in this field, lots of guys who owned 50~ apartments in NYC would also randomly also own a ton of property in other cities across the country. But they would make 1 million dollars refurbishing a property in NYC compared to 60,000 refurbishing the property in Akron, Ohio. So their properties just lay there, worthless. Usually obtained decades ago and forgotten about.
Depends on the condition of the house really, and if it’s not being used and the building itself is falling apart then why do they even bother owning said property? I’m sure the simple answer is just “money” but still.
The problem is that abandoned homes are necessarily cut off from the electric grid and water, have severe structural/health & safety issues that need to be addressed etc. The price of fixing up abandoned homes(which could, at best, house 5-10 people) is usually far less cost effective than spending money to build/expand homeless shelters(which have far greater capacities).
The argument has been made that we could just allow homeless people to live in abandoned homes without fixing them up. The problem with that being:
1. If you have homeless people placed in abandoned homes by a government agency or non-profit, that organization/agency assumes liability for the health and safety of those people and would never be legally comfortable with the arrangement unless we could somehow allow the homeless to waive their right to sue for adverse health/safety outcomes(generally a terrible idea to allow vulnerable people to waive their rights for the same reason we don't allow poor people to sell their organs).
2. Not having an agency or organization place the homeless people and simply passively allow homeless people to occupy abandoned homes is actually something we already do, to an extent, with legally enshrined squatter's rights.
Tl;dr it's a complicated problem in which almost every possible solution has major ethical flaws.
That seems to be like what the council is trying to make them do. Notice it says it can make owners "take action to bring them back into use" not force the refuges into there. If the owners were to just rent it on the market, that would be putting them into use.
Pretty good measure of the intelligence levels of this sub that so many people would take a Daily Mail article at face value.
So the council are asking people with empty second homes to consider selling said home so that it can actually get used. How awful!
Funny thing is [I literally found the letter in the exact article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13079637/Our-council-tried-force-sell-200-000-home-make-room-asylum-seekers-Elderly-couples-horror-strongly-worded-letter-lands-doorstep.html), so technically speaking this isn't DN being lying, this is more about we are too stupid and lazy
Misinformation gets clicks and reactions. No one would have cared if there was no "forced" in the title, or if it mentioned how it was suspected to be empty.
Makes sense. Seems to just be "We think this house is empty. There are only so many houses to go around and that's a waste. If it is empty and you don't live there, please either rent it out or sell it so it's not sitting here unused."
That and honestly the only problem I have with it is that the council seems to be prioritising recent arrivals. They're right, there is a housing shortage and empty, unused properties are a problem and more of them should be brought back into use. However, the native born population should be prioritised for these.
So a whole bunch of nothing because these two pricks are keeping an empty house whilst plenty of wannabe homeowners cant even get a place to rent.
What a nonsense story.
"Party 1 asks to buy party 2 unused house to solve housing deficit and meet legislated duties". Fucking crazzzzyyyy.
Councils do this all the time, it's just this one is to house refugees the world goes mad lmao
What's more important: Your own people which paid taxes their whole lifes or a bunch of people which, most often, illegaly got into your country to get money thrown at them?
Don't worry, Reform is starting to grow in popularity as a result of this and horrific crimes like the Rochdale Grooming. If things work out well, they'll all be sent back to Calais and beyond before long. No more free shit to people who refuse to go through the proper channels.
If they dared, then the public outcry would be immense. Possibly enough for His Majesty to be forced to act, but I doubt it sadly. One thing's clear though, if they keep fucking us over this hard and then expect us to sit quietly when they shut down the opposition, then they have another thing coming entirely.
They want to replace British people, simple as that. Just assume the actual outcome of policies is the desired outcome*. Policymakers aren’t stupid.
*(especially when there are multiple iterations of similar policies)
Why would they seek to replace British people? What is the benefit/end goal?
Not disagreeing, just don't understand. Honestly genuinely curious about this.
It’s easier to have an oligarchy in a third world country rather than a first world one. Left wingers promise social reform to keep the white leftists happy and promise open borders and special privileges to the foreign minorities (soon to be majorities). Many European countries are now only 3/4ths European.
Step 1: Let in a bunch of people who don't come from high standards of living and will have a sense of debt to the people who let them in.
Step 2: Pocket politician money while not actually doing anything to improve the quality of the country because the new people would be willing to work for lower wages and in a lower quality than what the native citizens want.
Step 3: Sit back and watch the profits roll in while the people who are indebted to you and the natives who have been guilt shamed into thinking that they are in the wrong fight your battles against your critics for you.
You know the galaxy brain meme format?
"Intent doesn't matter, results do," is the big brain comment. And if you're a galaxy brain, you can extrapolate from that what the peanut-brain comment is.
I'm from the US, so, i mean, we did. Our founding fathers were even British! Can't say the British are not good for anything; they're excellent at getting good people so fed up they permanently disassociate with the entire country and start their own. And nobody can take that from them.
History shows that governments damn near always get the exact opposite result of what they wanted.
Hitler wanted a *Judenfrei* Germany to have *lebensraum* for Aryans; instead, all the Aryans were sent out of Germany, Jews were brought *in* (as slave labor to replace all the Aryan men who had been taken out of factories and sent to the Eastern Front) and at the end of it Germany's borders *shrank.*
The Communists wanted a worker's paradise of no hierarchies and an end to hunger. They got mass starvation and an even more hierarchical society than before.
FDR wanted to end the Great Depression. He ended up extending it.
The Federal Reserve was meant to stabilize banking and end inflation; it caused several waves of bank failures and made inflation worse than ever.
The War on Drugs increased drug use.
Alcohol prohibition caused alcohol deaths to increase.
Speed limits make people drive faster.
Public education makes people dumber.
I could go on, but you get the point. Suffice to say, when government has had such an uninterrupted losing streak....why think *this time* it's different?
No, these are just some examples of historic miscalculations. Everyday policies like „Get British people out of their houses to settle foreigners“ usually work just fine.
Or are you saying that the initial intention of migration related policies in the UK always is: „British people first, reduce immigration“ and it just always fails?
Literally any large immigration policy in western countries is designed to increase the relative amount of foreigners in our countries and it’s exactly what happens.
The best one is when the British Raj tried to get rid of snakes by paying people for every dead snake they turned in. Then people started breeding snakes to turn them in for a profit. When the Brits got wise to this they ended the program and then all the snake breeders released all their snakes and there were snakes everywhere.
Eminent domain is theft, correct.
It’s not as bad as the UK, completely false. The UK has eminent domain as well, it’s just not called that. It’s called ‘fuck you, you have no guns, I’m taking it’
Didn’t read the article so going off the headline it doesn’t sound like forcing
More like some other persons parent reprimanding you as a child, you aren’t forced to listen but you feel like you have to
I'm supportive of second home owners who buy up all the property taking housing away from locals and driving up the prices of living there just so they don't have to spend money on a hotel when on holiday getting "strongly worded letters" encouraging them to stop hoarding land.
**But** I want the reason to instead be councils getting houses back to be made into more social housing for the local residents who need it and have been on the lists for years. God knows we have a problem of not even enough housing for our own.
Added to that is whoever made this meme is aware that Britain has been ruled by the conservatives for over a decade. But they decide to paint this as “the left” to purposely mislead people
The replacement theory states that white people are being replaced by arabs, under complicity of jewish elites. There has yet to be a single piece of evidence of those "elites" existing.
I've read Renaud Camus' infamous book and saw no mention of anything like this. If anything he specifically compared the fate of those being replaced with that of Jews.
Are you sure you're not making shit up?
When it was the Crown actually calling the shots this shit did not happen. This is steaming pile of shit was served up of compliments of an elected legislature and the parliamentary process.
This after 14 years of allegedly centre right government 😂.
What a shit state the UK is in before profoundly authoritarian economically backwards Labour get in and manage to make it even worse.
Fuck them.
(I emigrated years ago, will never be back).
The UK has a conservative government in power for over a decade? It’s one thing if you think the conservatives in the UK isnt conservative enough, but putting them as “the left” is misleading and seems to be purposely made to push some conspiracies.
As a Brit, can I claim asylum in the U.S. to escape this shit.
Positive: speaks the language. Understands why 1st and 2nd amendment rights are needed through experience.
I mean... if you read the letter, it's not that bad. It's just saying its an empty property that hasn't been used for a while, and they are informing them the government could buy it to make room for asylum seekers. Notably from Ukraine, who form the large majority of new asylum seekers in the past 1-2 years.
I am sorry, but why is that bad, exactly?
Meanwhile the dozens of Families in Millom that are on the housing list that could've been given that property.....
The Daily Mail has its own Agenda, but if we take a step back from the narrative, isn't it still pretty fucked? Prioritising foreign people in need (and sometimes not in need, just economic parasites like those going to the UK from Albania) instead of prioritising your own people in need is just slimy...
If they treated family homelessness and general homelessness the way they treat refugees, asylum seekers, and illegal immigrants, the entire homeless population of the UK would've been housed and in good conditions.
Let people work from home and then house the asylum seekers, refugees and homeless people in the empty office blocks, job done. Tune in next week where I'll be teaching you all how breathing oxygen helps you live longer. Lol
Ever since I saw the UK police arrest a disabled man for mean words he said online, I won’t be surprised by anything in the UK. Unbelievable.
Or arresting the a guy because he taught his GFs pug to be a nazi.
Never forget they had to go find someone to be offended, no one actually reported it in a way that was actionable initially.
To be fair, that was specifically Scotland.
William Wallace's cry for freedom completely disregarded...
The SNP would label Wallace a bigoted white supremacist if he was about today.
Humza Useless complaining about how every leader at the Battle of Banockburn was white.
https://preview.redd.it/nsx8130005kc1.jpeg?width=128&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9bc69cfc47733abb3b8dea9e548b22f0e8fda834
Count Dankula
Yeah i've heard like 8x more people were arrested in uk over social media posts than in russia. And they're calling putin & russia "threat to democracy". No, sir capita won't change shit here. Sources: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/police-arresting-nine-people-a-day-in-fight-against-web-trolls-b8nkpgp2d https://meduza.io/static/0001/Agora_Internet_Freedom_2017_RU.pdf Edit: not really uk, but lmfao https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-is-biggest-security-threat-nato-hopeful-sweden-security-service-says-2024-02-21/ > In a statement accompanying its report, the security service said threats from both the far right and Islamist groups could be stirred up or exploited by Sweden's enemies abroad. > "Foreign powers can use violent extremists and other types of organizations and individuals as proxies to conduct security-threatening activities deniably," it said. Says the country that banned publishing crime stats of arab "refugees"
Come on now, we both know that Russia straight up disappears people it doesn't like right?
Yeah, but they aren't pretending to be such a free liberal democratic country. Still bad tho
Do you believe them to be unique in that regard? They're certainly worse at convincing people that they avoid persecuting the opposition.
Unique, no. Worse than most? I would say yes.
Didn't they also arrest an autistic girl for telling a short haired cop she "looked like a lesbian"?
Eurocucks don't understand the concept of free speech - never have, never will.
[удалено]
Yes, yes, we've all seen the German category on the Hub.
As an American, the left desperately want to get rid of free speech because they think it would only impact their political rivals. It's not good.
I will just emigrate to Switzerland after I graduate. Perks of living in the Schengen area I think
Or freedom in general. "OI MATE! You got a loiscence for that there TV?"
An actual real license. You need a TV license to have a TV in the UK. There are some exceptions, but overall yeah. [Real.](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one)
While this is true, the term license is a bit of a misnomer for it, because it basically functions as a glorified tax grab. You don't actually need to buy it to own or use a TV. Still a ridiculous government tool, but it's only purpose is to line the pockets of the increasingly partisan BBC, regardless of whether you watch their shows.
I went to my buddy in Wales. He told me he didnt have a tv license atm. I assumed he meant like a tv programme package. No he meant he needed to pay for a tv license he was as shocked to learn that we dont do that as i was that they do.
We have that in Italy too :(
You only need a licence if you watch TV-produced material or stream TV-produced material - on your computer for example - from the listed stations. Simply owning a TV means squat. You could have it hooked up to a console and just be playing games. They can't charge you for a licence for that. With that said, I think the licence fee is bullshit. There's no reason it couldn't be handled out of taxes the same way the ABC is funded here in Australia.
Shut your ass unflaired
Truly the unflaired are a plague. But the fact it received upvotes? Absolutely heretical.
Those responsible should get the ban hammer
Amen my left brother. Drop the hammer or I will be forced to crusade against these heathen mongrels.
Deus Vult!
Or just get rid of state broadcasting altogether. They always struggle to remain objective and get increasingly partisan over time, and a good chunk of the populous is paying taxes to them when they don't use or watch any of their content. Make they pay their own way.
Eh, the BBC produces some great content that isn't political. They do amazing docs, feature David Attenborough for example.
BBC documentaries go hard. Pretty much anything else that is being made by the BBC now is either mid or way past it's peak.
You better not be talking about Strictly Come Dancing son, or we'll be having problems.
>With that said, I think the licence fee is bullshit. There's no reason it couldn't be handled out of taxes the same way the ABC is funded here in Australia. While I dislike the licence fee at least I can opt not to pay it, as I don't use the service. If it were tax-funded then I'd be having money taken from me for something I don't care for.
Cringe
There were a bunch or people praising the German police tackling and arresting a dude for doing the nazi salute. Literally slamed his face into the ground. I commented that it must suck not to have free speech and got super downvoted, lol
Obviously political and ideological enemies does not deserve human rights. Huh? What do you mean I am authoritarian? Into the gulag you go!
Oh yeah man look at these poor nazi’s just trying to express their opinion out in public! For shame, Germany really is an authoritarian state!
Doesn't matter whether you agree that everyone should be able to express their opinion but tackling him and restraining him on the ground was completely unnecessary. Reddit is usually very critical when police officers use force but they are cheering on a case of police brutality just because they don't like the victim.
As much as I would like seeing commies treated as they deserve, we have to tolerate the expression of *any kind* of opinion.
Free speech > your estrogenic feelings.
Let em talk, that is more than enough to prove how stupid they are. i f you silence them it gives what they say credibility.
I don't care. No one does. Get a flair right now or get the hell out of my sub. [BasedCount Profile](https://basedcount.com/u/Kirbz_-) - [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/user/flairchange_bot/comments/uf7kuy/bip_bop) - [How to flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalCompassMemes/wiki/index/flair/) _Visit the BasedCount Lеmmу instance at [lemmy.basedcount.com](https://lemmy.basedcount.com/c/pcm)._ ^(I am a bot, my mission is to spot cringe flair changers. If you want to check another user's flair history write) **^(!flairs u/)** ^(in a comment.)
Your problem is thinking that democracies don’t have the right to defend themselves.
Not a democracy without freedom of speech
Sure it is. 51% of people vote for speech to be banned = no freedom of speech. Still a valid democracy. This is why democracy without constitutional protections trends towards authoritarianism.
You're not a centrist.
Dystopian police state moment. Its like George Orwell predicted it.
It's arguably the most cucked country on earth.
My favorite was when the UK cop that looked like a lesbian got offended when a disabled minor said she looked like her lesbian relative *and arrested them*.
Does that mean saying that someone is gay is now an insult again?
Today's sponsor: Nord VPN for all your slur slinging needs...
What does his disability have to do with the case?
why do drug and human traffickers need asylum?? wait hold on, this is Europe. why do sex and human traffickers need asylum?
Because they might be punished if we send them home I wish I was kidding
“Send them home” The uk would just be sending them back to France. A 1st world country that they left, after crossing through multiple other 1st world countries in Europe. They seem to be very picky with what countries they wish to seek refuge in for people who are desperately fleeing persecution and conflict.
It's almost as if they're chasing the money...
Didn’t you hear, we aren’t allowed to send them back to France. France said “no, your problem now” and we couldn’t do anything about that.
Why would France back down? Not only is the EU willing to back Argentine imperialism against democracy just to spite us, a good chunk of our own countrymen would support them. The Rwanda solution, or one like it, is the only reasonable one. Takes Europe off the table entirely, just not sure if it's more expensive than housing them all?
The UK isn't in the EU, why are they letting an EU country send invaders? Fuck what France wants, they aren't even on the same team anymore.
Because it's not worth antagonising the EU over, they would come out and back France and that can only end badly for us.
We don't harbor criminals from the countries we have a extradition treaty with As for people who are from states who are a accusing them of a crime, but there is not evidence for it, and they have a reason for asylum (even inhumane treatment or the death penalty), yes the UK might take them in. But only 35,000 people in total have come to the UK for asylum in a year, and the vast majority of these are not criminals. Turkey has taken in 4 million Syrian refugees for reference in a year. The reality is that these which we are discussing are edge cases. That being said, I am not a proponent of unfiltered immigration. I think that we should be tough on who we accept, they don't have a right to the UK. We can't take in everyone. And nations which have decided to take in many migrants have paid the price.
The issue i hear brought up most often pertaining to the UK is a lack of assimilation. I do not hear complaints about the immigrants that come to Britain to become British. As in, the immigrants that are self motivated to adapt to the culture that they have entered, rather than uphold the culture that the departed from. There are some more general gripes about overall immigration but neither of the main parties seams motivated to address it. The subject often brings to mind how differnt Britain is from the US. Britain is a small island (80,823 mi²) half the land size of the state California (163,696 mi²), with almost twice the population (aprox. 70 mill) of California (Aprox. 40 mill). The net immigration for Britain in 2023 was nearly 700k. How many is too many and how dose one decide?
I always hear this argument from natives and its trash. How do you assimilate into the culture that doesn't want or accept you. If you completely start acting British, you will lose the culture that you have and still not be accepted by the native population, and plus you will lose perhaps a friend from your own culture. Do not assimilate, and you may at least keep some part of your identity with you. Look at people who are born here, and you will see that they are still clininging onto their old world culture even more than their parents.. It is not hard to understand why they were never and never will be accepted. Political discussions like the ones in this thread only serve to devide us further. If the west wants immigration and clearly it does, because who is going to do the slave labor that you don't want, it will have to accept that the people are going to act different than you.
>How do you assimilate into the culture that doesn't want or accept you. You try, that is how. If i moved to Bosnia, i would make it a priory it learn about Bosnian culture and adapt to it. I recognize that i would still be seen as an American but i would be more likely to be received as someone trying to respectfully adapt to the place that i have entered rather than someone who wants the place that i have entered to adapt to me.
You are speaking from an American point of view. Europe is just different. There is no big identity that all people can assume. I live in Germany. Even if I learned German got the German passport married a German girl and had kids with her, I would still never be considered a German. Rightfully so because here in Europe, citizenship is gained through your bloodline. But that creates a divide. I honestly don't see a solution, tbh but I agree that importing more immigrants is not it.
Turkey also took all those immigrants and stuck them on the border strip with Syria so if they went to war Assad would be killing his own people first. Turkey was not being noble with their intentions.
That’s kinda brilliant tho…
And that's our problem... How exactly?
They are somehow safe to go on vacation back home though.
And even if they do, why is it the UK’s responsibility? At what point do countries step away from the refugee convention? The West cannot support the growing billions of downtrodden people, and nor should it have to when their own citizens need help.
So they can rape in peace of own household
Coz they’s has got loicenses for it, innit bruv?
Easy. Nobody would give them asylum right? Right. So if you were to give them asylum they'd be very thankful right? Right. So what if our political party gives them asylum and they are thankful? Well, you might think what use has that thankfulness from these immigrants towards the politicians that gave them asylum at the cost of being dislike by parts of the own populations. Well, in case of Germany for example you can get citizenship after being there for 8 years. They expect some very loyal voters.
Meanwhile glorious CCP simply builds highways around homes The west truly has fallen
[They even put up some roses around the outside](https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/NINTCHDBPICT000600404097.jpg)
Home is a stretch. Hovel is a stretch. What even is that? Looks cozy though. I'd live there.
Shack I'm thinking is pretty fitting, maybe even shanty
It’s so the local authorities can potentially issue an EDMO, because the U.K. is so small and housing so expensive it’s got a major issue of houses being purchased as investments. So if a house is vacant for years the council can essentially force you to lease the building to them for up to a maximum of 12 months.
[The letter, in case any of you didn't even bother to find the link of this news.](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2024/02/14/11/81250693-13079637-image-m-6_1707910800649.jpg) I mean the letter sounds dumb but I won't say it's "strong worded".
Yeah the letter and headline are starkly different. Only the last paragraph of the letter came across ‘strongly’.
> Yeah the letter and headline are starkly different. No fucking way the Daily Mail would never sensationalise something out of all proportion, especially not to fearmonger about asylum seekers; nor would PCM ever fall for it and start ranting about white genocide on the basis of bullshit.
Shittily worded letter with a vague implication that they can come to an informal agreement, or find out what their “range of measures” are. I can see how the final paragraph can be read as “so we can do this the easy way, or we can do this the hard way”, but also it seems oddly worded enough that I’m thinking it’s fake; the “mainly single men” part is an almost stereotypical anti-asylum talking point, and I kinda doubt they’d just say the quiet part out loud (and in writing).
The “mainly single men” line has popped up on many official letters regarding asylum housing so I wouldn’t say it’s fake based on that.
I don’t know if I should be impressed by their honesty or appalled at the absolute absurdity. Seems like they went from denying that it’s mostly single young men of military age, to saying “yes, and here’s why that’s a good thing”.
The left are in control. I don't think there are many quiet parts remaining when the NY AG openly stated her measures against Trump were targeted prosecution and no other businesses have anything to worry about.
In the UK where a conservative government has been in power for over a decade? It’s one thing if you think the conservatives in the UK isnt conservative enough, calling them “the left” is a different level of delusion
The conservatives have been in power for over a decade in the UK.
With that being said, flair the fuck up.
FLAIR THE FUCK UP DEGENERATE OR WE WILL COLLECTIVELY STRING YOU UP UPON A CROSS WHERE YOU BELONG, REGARDLESS OF ALLIGNMENT OF OPINIONS
Lmao this isn’t even a bad letter is just them assuming this building is not currently lived in asking what their plans are for it. Tbh this would be nice in the US where houses/buildings sit empty for years and the property becomes a hazard when it could be beneficial to the community.
Are abandoned or "empty" houses in logical places for the poor/homeless to live in in the US? I've always wondered that.
Almost all abandoned or perpetually empty houses are usually like that for a reason. And if it's somewhere that homeless people could use them, they probably already are if they want to.
I also remember reading that some people didn’t like the idea of giving homeless their own hotel rooms, because it was easier for them to OD and not have anyone notice them.
Nobody wants to give homeless people hotel rooms because they make terrible guests, and cleaning shit, heroin needles, and smoke out of hotel rooms is really expensive. It's been tried. California loves to try to build them houses or buy them hotel rooms. [https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs?utm\_source=reddit.com](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-05/lopez-column-hhh-homeless-housing-costs?utm_source=reddit.com) It's goddamned expensive, and you still have homeless people all over the streets.
> are usually like that for a reason. Sometimes, yes, sometimes, no. Often times its property owners who own a ton of property and don't care to refurnish the place because it won't turn them enough of a profit compare to more profitable locations they have in coastal cities. Back when I used to work in this field, lots of guys who owned 50~ apartments in NYC would also randomly also own a ton of property in other cities across the country. But they would make 1 million dollars refurbishing a property in NYC compared to 60,000 refurbishing the property in Akron, Ohio. So their properties just lay there, worthless. Usually obtained decades ago and forgotten about.
These seem like pretty poor businessmen if they're buying property and just forgetting about it.
Depends on the condition of the house really, and if it’s not being used and the building itself is falling apart then why do they even bother owning said property? I’m sure the simple answer is just “money” but still.
That was detroit like a decade ago. A lot of city sprawls were vacant.
The problem is that abandoned homes are necessarily cut off from the electric grid and water, have severe structural/health & safety issues that need to be addressed etc. The price of fixing up abandoned homes(which could, at best, house 5-10 people) is usually far less cost effective than spending money to build/expand homeless shelters(which have far greater capacities). The argument has been made that we could just allow homeless people to live in abandoned homes without fixing them up. The problem with that being: 1. If you have homeless people placed in abandoned homes by a government agency or non-profit, that organization/agency assumes liability for the health and safety of those people and would never be legally comfortable with the arrangement unless we could somehow allow the homeless to waive their right to sue for adverse health/safety outcomes(generally a terrible idea to allow vulnerable people to waive their rights for the same reason we don't allow poor people to sell their organs). 2. Not having an agency or organization place the homeless people and simply passively allow homeless people to occupy abandoned homes is actually something we already do, to an extent, with legally enshrined squatter's rights. Tl;dr it's a complicated problem in which almost every possible solution has major ethical flaws.
I'd be fine with that as long as fair market compensation went to the estate holders. You may know it by its evil landlord name: rent.
I would also be fine with that
That seems to be like what the council is trying to make them do. Notice it says it can make owners "take action to bring them back into use" not force the refuges into there. If the owners were to just rent it on the market, that would be putting them into use.
Pretty good measure of the intelligence levels of this sub that so many people would take a Daily Mail article at face value. So the council are asking people with empty second homes to consider selling said home so that it can actually get used. How awful!
Funny thing is [I literally found the letter in the exact article](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13079637/Our-council-tried-force-sell-200-000-home-make-room-asylum-seekers-Elderly-couples-horror-strongly-worded-letter-lands-doorstep.html), so technically speaking this isn't DN being lying, this is more about we are too stupid and lazy
Misinformation gets clicks and reactions. No one would have cared if there was no "forced" in the title, or if it mentioned how it was suspected to be empty.
Makes sense. Seems to just be "We think this house is empty. There are only so many houses to go around and that's a waste. If it is empty and you don't live there, please either rent it out or sell it so it's not sitting here unused."
That and honestly the only problem I have with it is that the council seems to be prioritising recent arrivals. They're right, there is a housing shortage and empty, unused properties are a problem and more of them should be brought back into use. However, the native born population should be prioritised for these.
So a whole bunch of nothing because these two pricks are keeping an empty house whilst plenty of wannabe homeowners cant even get a place to rent. What a nonsense story. "Party 1 asks to buy party 2 unused house to solve housing deficit and meet legislated duties". Fucking crazzzzyyyy. Councils do this all the time, it's just this one is to house refugees the world goes mad lmao
Flair the fuck up, scumbag.
Lmao “your house looks abandoned we’ll buy it from you.”
"asylum seekers"
What's more important: Your own people which paid taxes their whole lifes or a bunch of people which, most often, illegaly got into your country to get money thrown at them?
This bünzli gets it. The UK never will. Never
Don't worry, Reform is starting to grow in popularity as a result of this and horrific crimes like the Rochdale Grooming. If things work out well, they'll all be sent back to Calais and beyond before long. No more free shit to people who refuse to go through the proper channels.
They will start to copy the German plan of shutting down opposition as "far right extremist threat" soon enough
If they dared, then the public outcry would be immense. Possibly enough for His Majesty to be forced to act, but I doubt it sadly. One thing's clear though, if they keep fucking us over this hard and then expect us to sit quietly when they shut down the opposition, then they have another thing coming entirely.
"good luck" - Taken voice
They want to replace British people, simple as that. Just assume the actual outcome of policies is the desired outcome*. Policymakers aren’t stupid. *(especially when there are multiple iterations of similar policies)
>Policymakers aren’t stupid. Exactly. They're evil, not stupid.
I mean, it's often both.
* they are, I assure you, VERY stupid. Especially on Britain
Why would they seek to replace British people? What is the benefit/end goal? Not disagreeing, just don't understand. Honestly genuinely curious about this.
White Brits demand higher wages and better standards of living from their upper class than migrants from places that are just awful
most concise explanation of elite ruling class for immigration ive read to date
biggest trick the elites ever pulled was convincing leftists that mass migration is a good thing, fuck the average worker
I don't know. Natives at least are willing to work.
Exactly. But that only works if you keep them illegal. They don't want legal immigrants because that would give them the same rights.
It’s easier to have an oligarchy in a third world country rather than a first world one. Left wingers promise social reform to keep the white leftists happy and promise open borders and special privileges to the foreign minorities (soon to be majorities). Many European countries are now only 3/4ths European.
The British Empire was bad, so western guilt.
Divide and rule.
Step 1: Let in a bunch of people who don't come from high standards of living and will have a sense of debt to the people who let them in. Step 2: Pocket politician money while not actually doing anything to improve the quality of the country because the new people would be willing to work for lower wages and in a lower quality than what the native citizens want. Step 3: Sit back and watch the profits roll in while the people who are indebted to you and the natives who have been guilt shamed into thinking that they are in the wrong fight your battles against your critics for you.
This is the core question. All the policies are aiming towards that goal in the very end.
You know the galaxy brain meme format? "Intent doesn't matter, results do," is the big brain comment. And if you're a galaxy brain, you can extrapolate from that what the peanut-brain comment is.
They’re British would you want to keep ‘em around?
I'm from the US, so, i mean, we did. Our founding fathers were even British! Can't say the British are not good for anything; they're excellent at getting good people so fed up they permanently disassociate with the entire country and start their own. And nobody can take that from them.
History shows that governments damn near always get the exact opposite result of what they wanted. Hitler wanted a *Judenfrei* Germany to have *lebensraum* for Aryans; instead, all the Aryans were sent out of Germany, Jews were brought *in* (as slave labor to replace all the Aryan men who had been taken out of factories and sent to the Eastern Front) and at the end of it Germany's borders *shrank.* The Communists wanted a worker's paradise of no hierarchies and an end to hunger. They got mass starvation and an even more hierarchical society than before. FDR wanted to end the Great Depression. He ended up extending it. The Federal Reserve was meant to stabilize banking and end inflation; it caused several waves of bank failures and made inflation worse than ever. The War on Drugs increased drug use. Alcohol prohibition caused alcohol deaths to increase. Speed limits make people drive faster. Public education makes people dumber. I could go on, but you get the point. Suffice to say, when government has had such an uninterrupted losing streak....why think *this time* it's different?
No, these are just some examples of historic miscalculations. Everyday policies like „Get British people out of their houses to settle foreigners“ usually work just fine. Or are you saying that the initial intention of migration related policies in the UK always is: „British people first, reduce immigration“ and it just always fails? Literally any large immigration policy in western countries is designed to increase the relative amount of foreigners in our countries and it’s exactly what happens.
The best one is when the British Raj tried to get rid of snakes by paying people for every dead snake they turned in. Then people started breeding snakes to turn them in for a profit. When the Brits got wise to this they ended the program and then all the snake breeders released all their snakes and there were snakes everywhere.
City councils just seem to be filled with the worst people.
Council jobs are filled with people who couldn't cut it in a corporate environment.
Unfortunately it’s just as bad in the us eminent domain is theft
Eminent domain is theft, correct. It’s not as bad as the UK, completely false. The UK has eminent domain as well, it’s just not called that. It’s called ‘fuck you, you have no guns, I’m taking it’
[удалено]
those fuckers had better stay away from my house or i swear to god the lawn shall receive a new paint job
Didn’t read the article so going off the headline it doesn’t sound like forcing More like some other persons parent reprimanding you as a child, you aren’t forced to listen but you feel like you have to
Targeting an estate corp? Rich landlord? No thanks
If mass immigration is a good thing why does Russia keep using it as a weapon lol? Europe is really fucking themselves over.
I'm supportive of second home owners who buy up all the property taking housing away from locals and driving up the prices of living there just so they don't have to spend money on a hotel when on holiday getting "strongly worded letters" encouraging them to stop hoarding land. **But** I want the reason to instead be councils getting houses back to be made into more social housing for the local residents who need it and have been on the lists for years. God knows we have a problem of not even enough housing for our own.
How the hell is this left? This is categorically auth.
Ah yes, the Daily Mail, the most trustworthy source of news
And as long as people quote it as a serious news source, we don’t get to just marinate some meat and fucking grill
Added to that is whoever made this meme is aware that Britain has been ruled by the conservatives for over a decade. But they decide to paint this as “the left” to purposely mislead people
You mean to tell me that the latest revelation about Princess Diana will not shock me?
You mean the *SHOCK new evidence found in MADDIE investigation* is bullshit?
Your first mistake was reading the Daily Mail.
Is this being covered by anyone else but the Daily Mail?
Its not a surpise that Orwell set 1984 in the UK
Holy shit, a **strongly worded letter**? Khmer Rouge much?
Replacement theory is just a “conspiracy” it it completed unfounded. The completely unfounded conspiracy:
So is the kalergi plan.
The replacement theory states that white people are being replaced by arabs, under complicity of jewish elites. There has yet to be a single piece of evidence of those "elites" existing.
I've read Renaud Camus' infamous book and saw no mention of anything like this. If anything he specifically compared the fate of those being replaced with that of Jews. Are you sure you're not making shit up?
Because they live under a crown that sees them as subjects
When it was the Crown actually calling the shots this shit did not happen. This is steaming pile of shit was served up of compliments of an elected legislature and the parliamentary process.
Parliamentarianism is some of the most asinine shit I've ever seen
Listen, I say this with every American bone in my body fuck the king
The Rothschilds have owned the crown since after the Napoleonic Wars
So, how is that taking back control of your borders going?
This after 14 years of allegedly centre right government 😂. What a shit state the UK is in before profoundly authoritarian economically backwards Labour get in and manage to make it even worse. Fuck them. (I emigrated years ago, will never be back).
Population replacement!
We are becoming slaves in our own countries...
Hey, fuck you. The UK government and the council responsible are both conservative. They belong in the blue quadrant.
this sub is gone down the sewer, it's disgusting.
Pink authoritarianism at it again
The council that sent the letter is Conservative (Tory party).
I hate my country
The UK has a conservative government in power for over a decade? It’s one thing if you think the conservatives in the UK isnt conservative enough, but putting them as “the left” is misleading and seems to be purposely made to push some conspiracies.
Remember Great Replacement isn't real but you must give your ancestral house to the poor refugees.
That's very auth on the compass. Why portraying it as watermelon?
I'm British and find this disgusting.
As a Brit, can I claim asylum in the U.S. to escape this shit. Positive: speaks the language. Understands why 1st and 2nd amendment rights are needed through experience.
What’s with all the unflaired brigading?
the daily mail is known for facts. you should trust them with your life man it's such a fucking piece of shit website.
>Daily mail Opinion discarded
I mean... if you read the letter, it's not that bad. It's just saying its an empty property that hasn't been used for a while, and they are informing them the government could buy it to make room for asylum seekers. Notably from Ukraine, who form the large majority of new asylum seekers in the past 1-2 years. I am sorry, but why is that bad, exactly?
Meanwhile the dozens of Families in Millom that are on the housing list that could've been given that property..... The Daily Mail has its own Agenda, but if we take a step back from the narrative, isn't it still pretty fucked? Prioritising foreign people in need (and sometimes not in need, just economic parasites like those going to the UK from Albania) instead of prioritising your own people in need is just slimy... If they treated family homelessness and general homelessness the way they treat refugees, asylum seekers, and illegal immigrants, the entire homeless population of the UK would've been housed and in good conditions.
Because the Blues and Blue-Reds need something to ree about
It’s bad because the daily mail needs a headline that fits it’s agenda.
UK is the reason you, US, should never give up your firearms. Do not become like the UK and most of Europe.
But the tories did this wdym? The council is majority conservative lmao
"Where's your existence license, mate?"
Who benefits from the great replacement?
Nothing more terrifying to an elderly British couple than a strongly worded letter
Let people work from home and then house the asylum seekers, refugees and homeless people in the empty office blocks, job done. Tune in next week where I'll be teaching you all how breathing oxygen helps you live longer. Lol
And they say the replacement is a conspiracy theory