I very much doubt it. Immigrants are an essential part of the MO of the shits who ostensibly control this planet. Strong communities encourage solidarity, which is rather undesirable when one wishes to subjugate. What better way to dilute and destroy a strong community than introduce foreign elements, preferably with the highest capacity to cause friction. Nothing new there, perfectly servicable practice perfected by the Romans.Perhaps he could be waiting until we're out out of the EU?
I'll wager there's talks going on about our unwanted nocturnal maritimers in there somewhere, official or not
Attitudes to immigration are very interesting. There is no international obligation that I know of to accept immigrants, inasmuch as States are free to terminate any existing international agreements they may be signatory to. The only penalty as such is approbrium from other States, which in my opinion can be easily deflected by the perfectly rational and logical argument : Sorry, we have sufficient social and economic problems amongst our own native, born and bred population, and it is to them we owe primary responsibility, so sorry, the door is shut and locked.Change the Law if necessary.
Stop accepting that this bullshit must continue because it just ....Well .....must.
Something which might act as a deterrent to those already in the country, although I see it more as an honest attempt to accommodate the religious beliefs of others is this: A law should be enacted that any avowed Muslim offender commiting a criminal act in the UK be tried according to the practices and process of the Law of England and Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland but if found guilty be subjected to the punishments of Sharia ( Islamic ) law, even where that punishment is not legal ( death penalty etc.) for non- Muslims.I don't know. I'm not a legal expert and it's not my problem or responsibility to sort out.
A couple of starters:
If they are asylum seekers they should have sought asylum in the first safe country they reach. France is a safe country so they should have sought asylum there or, if they have passed through other safe countries, the first of those. It should be the principle that the UK refuses asylum on those grounds and returns any asylum seekers arriving from France back to France for the French to process the claim.
The same principle should apply to refugees.
Where they are economic migrants - they are entering the country illegally. They should be tried and when convicted be deported. They are not British citizens and have no right of abode.
I would have thought that African immigrants are as likely, if not more so, to speak French as English.
Send them back again. Every time. Rinse and repeat. It should be the policy that every individual that arrives in this country should be deported back to the country they arrived from. It should also be the policy that no individual that arrives in this country illegally can ever be granted British citizenship.
Back this up with a national ID card. Without which no one is permitted to open a bank account, apply for a job, obtain housing, obtain healthcare, obtain benefits of any kind, enrol their children in schools etc.
Anybody that employs a worker without them having proof that they are entitled to be in the UK should face massive punitive punishment.
If and where the law needs to be changed to make this happen - change the law.
What do you think happens when people legally arrive at airports and ferry ports from other countries? They arrive at passport control and enter the country legally.
If they don't have a valid passport or if there is an issue with it or their visa they can be refused entry. Even though they are on British soil they can be removed. There will be a legal mechanism for that and we will legally be able to send them back. If we couldn't there would be no point in having passport control because anybody arriving would be able to just walk on in.
Something which might act as a deterrent to those already in the country, although I see it more as an honest attempt to accommodate the religious beliefs of others is this: A law should be enacted that any avowed Muslim offender commiting a criminal act in the UK be tried according to the practices and process of the Law of England and Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland but if found guilty be subjected to the punishments of Sharia ( Islamic ) law, even where that punishment is not legal ( death penalty etc.) for non- Muslims.
Interestingly Sharia is not quite as brutal as painted...when a death penalty is imposed, for murder or any other serious offence, either the victim or their next of kin can opt to intervene for mercy, usually in return for a substantial payment..seems totally fair. Bearing in mind, however, the factual propensity for Muslim males to rape often underage non-Muslim girls and women I'm not sure how often the option of mercy would be taken.
Of course the offender could claim to have renounced Islam...unfortunately that carries a mandatory death sentence which would be carried out by their compatriots.
Considering the number of convicted sexual offenders in particular from the Muslim community, it could readily be attributed to the fact that according to the religion, infidels are fair game and our penalties are laughable. I am sure that the introduction of Islamic penalties would have a marked effect on crime figures and, I suspect, large-scale emigration to anywhere not applying them.
You won't get far using facts on this site.For the timeline attached to the rebooted franchise starring Tom Hardy, see Timeline of events (rebooted franchise). 1 Introduction 2 The Persian Gulf War (Pre-Mad Max) 2.1 Impact on Australia 3 Mad Max 4 Further decay (Pre-Mad Max 2) 5 Mad Max 2 6 Nuclear apocalypse (Post-Mad Max2) 7 Mad Max...madmax.fandom.com
There are a couple of points I received from the article and video.
David Whitely said:But the BBC sanctioning the N-word being said on national television by a white person is something I can't rock with.
Why would he willingly jack in a secure,well paid job ?There are a couple of points I received from the article and video.
Firstly this spitting of the dummy doesn't feel right, I think it's an excuse rather than a reason.
eg. Has he been warned off that he might not be working for them as much as he believes he should ?
Secondly his own words:
While I'm used to British English maybe I've got this wrong, but is specifying that it was because a white had said "nigger" the use of the word was wrong ?
The way I read it it implies that if a black had used the word it would have been ok, which in turn is a pretty racist point of view.
Would he have reacted the same way if an asian or coloured had said it ?
Happy to be corrected if I've misunderstood his use of the language.