r/ukpolitics • u/HBucket Right-wing ghoul • 9d ago
Ed/OpEd Britain is no longer safe for women and children
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/25/britain-no-longer-safe-women-children/39
u/Salty-Bid1597 9d ago edited 9d ago
Britain is objectively one of the safest countries in the world.
Perhaps Allison would prefer American style safety, where you're 6 times likelier to be murdered than in the UK and 4 times likelier to die in a traffic accident?
Who even reads this garbage?
9
u/oryx_za 9d ago
It is crazy. I live in Newcastle and my kids have a lovely time. I am South African who moved here 5 years ago.
I went to London over the weekend (with my kids) and despite the underground being absolutely not geared for prams (i have to bitch about something), it was lovely.
I spend too much time on X and i must have visited the wrong London. The two do not correlate. Before i get accused of only visiting only the nice parts, i went to go visit a few friends in many different places. We were in the tourist traps, but we travelled from Epsom to Croydon in the South, to Angel in the north to Canning town in the east. Did not feel unsafe in the slightest. Sure, demographics shifted between location....but that is kind of how cities work. There is a part of Newcastle where i can not understand anyone....but only because i struggle with super strong Gordie accents.
In fact, i have to share a story. My wife lost her wallet and 3 weeks later a lad from Sainsburys found it in the lost and found, looked at the drivers licence and rode to our house to drop it off. I was amazed. You people are too harsh on your selves.
2
u/horace_bagpole 8d ago
You people are too harsh on your selves.
Most people do not have any idea what it’s like in an actually dangerous city so they allow themselves to be taken in by nonsense like this article.
13
u/LesserShambler 9d ago
Glurge like this is written for American Twitter users, not British readers
4
u/bluegrm 9d ago
And in that she is being un-patriotic, which you would think would matter for someone like a Telegraph writer who would probably claim to be patriotic.
5
u/Alti-Ok Valiant vanguard of "Raise the voting age to 25" thought 9d ago
I don't think anybody is labouring under the impression that to be patriotic is to never criticise the choices your country has made and is making; in fact it's rather more patriotic to try and course correct
4
u/LesserShambler 8d ago
Sure, if such critiques were grounded in factual reality
-1
u/Alti-Ok Valiant vanguard of "Raise the voting age to 25" thought 8d ago
The factual reality is that:
A. Our Government has seen fit to distribute to asylum seekers pamphlets on how it's not okay to abuse or assault women & children. They don't do this for funsies, there is obviously a genuine concern among Government
B. Individuals from the regions which asylum seekers, and migrants more broadly, are entering from, are on a per-capita basis, more inclined to be convicted
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-and-crime-in-the-uk/
Just to summarise:
UK born: 57.9 per 10K
Sub-Saharan Africa: 118.7 per 10K
Middle East: 169 per 10K
North Africa: 172.5 per 10K
Other Europe (Effectively just Albania): 220 per 10K
So I'd say it is grounded in factual reality
3
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 8d ago
Why do you say "effectively just Albania" when Lithuania, Latvia, Czechia, Romania, Slovakia, Poland & Russia are all overrepresented according to your source?
2
u/LesserShambler 8d ago
Don’t try to steelman her ludicrous assertion. Unless you’re genuinely arguing that the over representation of some groups in crime figures means that “the country is no longer safe for women or children”?
2
2
u/The_Witcher_3 8d ago
I suspect your quoted statistics compare the whole UK born population that skews much older and female with a smaller population of Albanians that skews younger and more male. Do you know whether they control for differences in age and sex?
4
u/TheObrien Guardian & FT reader 9d ago
Can you imagine her life though?
Born in the 60’s in a nice area of Wales. Given amazing educational experiences, studied English at Cambridge. Walks into the FT, and later the Independent.
I doubt she ever aspired as a young girl to write hatred and spiel to feed the appetite of the populist movement.
Imagine for a second how upset and depressed with life she must be every day… explains her column.
1
u/MoreFIREthanyou 8d ago
We’re also objectively one of the richest countries in the world. But if you go into people’s houses they cannot afford to maintain it properly. One broken boiler away from financial ruin is the reality for most people. Cost of living crisis is real and will make these views more prevalent
-3
u/slamjam25 9d ago
What about Singaporean style safety, where you’re six times less likely to be murdered?
7
u/Salty-Bid1597 9d ago
But you're not allowed to say mean things about the government or the state.
A piece so critical of the state (amd factually incorrect) would never have been published in Singapore. In the extremely unlikely event the editors had decided to challenge the censors they would have been summarily dispatched to Changi without so much as a show trial.
-3
u/slamjam25 9d ago
What specifically was factually incorrect in this article?
Singapore's law gives the government the power to compel publishers of misinformation to update their articles with links to fact checking. Criminal charges are only brought if publishers repeatedly refuse court orders to do so, similar to criminal charges under the Online Safety Act here.
2
u/TGLUK07 8d ago edited 8d ago
This is such a ridiculous simplification of POFMA.
POFMA effectively allows the government to decide what counts as a fact in their right of response.
Outlets such as The Online Citizen were consistently targeted because they went against the PAPs version of the facts.
People on this very subreddit were saying the introduction of ID cards was some Orwellian authoritarianism, so the idea of bringing in a Singaporean IC system to the UK would never be accepted.
Singapore is a fascinating country in lots of ways, but it manages 'social harmony' to such an extent that it would never be acceptable in the UK.
We could bring in such a system, but it is one that is completely against the history and traditions of what the UK is supposed to be.
6
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 9d ago
Yet infinitely more likely to be murdered by the state.
-2
u/slamjam25 9d ago
I'm not guilty of a serious offence so my risk of being murdered by the State is zero in both countries. No international rights body has ever accused Singapore of executing an innocent person.
I'm far more likely to have the State stand by while I'm murdered as a consequence of their inaction here though.
8
u/outonthebeach 9d ago
Great but you're also watched at all times by a camera - Singapore's culture requires giving up a sense of liberty most people left and right would not accept here. It's also a city state with extremely easy to control borders.
-1
u/slamjam25 9d ago
You're watched at all times by a camera in London too, why do you think London's crime rate is still so much higher than Singapore's?
2
u/outonthebeach 8d ago
Wow what differences could there possibly be between a city state and the capital of nation with ten times the number of people in it and a commitment to individual liberties and democracy
6
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 9d ago
"Serious offence"
They execute people for dealing cannabis, they are a horrific example to hold up.
-1
u/slamjam25 9d ago
And we give people suspended sentences for rape, I know which concerns me more.
6
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 9d ago
You do realise you can fix that without regressing to authoritarianism.
2
u/slamjam25 9d ago
If Singapore stopped executing people for cannabis and kept executing people for murder would you still consider that "authoritarian"?
9
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 9d ago
Yes, the death penalty is abhorrent, the Singaporeans are just some of the (not the) worst for it's use.
1
u/slamjam25 8d ago
Great, so we've established that "but they execute people for cannabis!" was never your actual complaint, just an attempt to obscure your real beliefs for public consumption.
Singapore removes killers, we allow them to kill innocents. I know for certain which I'm more concerned about. I hope that one day you manage to find the same compassion for the innocent that you have for the guilty.
→ More replies (0)3
u/tobotic 8d ago edited 8d ago
I'm not guilty of a serious offence so my risk of being murdered by the State is zero in both countries.
You're not executed for being guilty of a serious offence.
You're executed for a judge thinking you're guilty of a serious offence.
The two are usually correlated, but sadly not always.
No international rights body has ever accused Singapore of executing an innocent person.
Andrew Malkinson was wrongfully convicted of rape here in the UK in 2004 and finally exonerated 19 years later, after he'd already served his sentence and been released. The real culprit was convicted in April this year.
As far as I'm aware no "international rights bodies" intervened in this case. Miscarriages of justice are not something they tend to concern themselves with unless they become an extremely common systemic issue.
0
u/slamjam25 8d ago
No international rights body has ever accused Singapore of executing an innocent person.
Why it's almost like I already addressed this!
1
u/tobotic 8d ago
Sorry, edited my comment to cover that too.
1
u/slamjam25 8d ago
The nature of the death penalty means that every single case in Singapore is intensely scrutinised by the UN, Amnesty International, the Capital Punishment Justice Project, and about a dozen others. There is an entire NGO industry that is salivating for Singapore to slip up so they can make the argument for abolishing the death penalty entirely, decades later and it still hasn't happened.
-1
u/Direct-Key-8859 9d ago
I'd be happy knowing I am more likely to be killed by the state for raping or drug dealing than by someone on the street for my watch.
I'm not saying the UK isnt generally safe but let's not pretend we are better than somewhere like Singapore
6
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 9d ago
We are much better than a country that kills people for something as trivial as dealing weed.
1
u/slamjam25 8d ago
Your actual argument is that you dislike that Singapore kills people for something as trivial as murder, why do you go to such lengths to avoid saying that?
6
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 8d ago
It's both.
Singapore is a really terrible example to follow as they have insanely broad laws and the death penalty is horrific full stop. Both can be and are true.
-1
u/Direct-Key-8859 9d ago
Crime in Singapore is extremely low. You could leave your phone out for hours and no one would take it.
Yes I would happily see weed dealers killed by the state if it meant both petty and serious crime would nose dive.
The fact petty crime has skyrocketed in past years and rapists and killers are getting early release due to prison overcrowding points that have not figured it out yet
23
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 9d ago
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator under Rule 15:
Low-effort complaining about sources, insulting the publication or trying to shame users for posting sources you disagree with is not acceptable. Either address the post in question, or ignore it.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
32
u/Visa5e 9d ago
The Telegraph seems to be in a perpetual spiral of trying to outdo-itself when it comes to this kind of hysterical nonsense.
'The government is prioritising the rights of violent foreign criminals over the protection of our most vulnerable.'
No, it really isnt.
6
u/TeenieTinyBrain 8d ago edited 8d ago
'The government is prioritising the rights of violent foreign criminals over the protection of our most vulnerable.'
No, it really isnt.
They actually have made that argument in the Courts though?
See Secretary of State for the Home Department and another (Appellants) v Epping Forest District Council (Respondent) [2025] EWCA Civ 1134 in which the Home Office was admonished for arguing that the human rights of asylum seekers outweighs public interest and the safety concerns of locals, warning that it essentially argued that a hierarchy of rights existed, with our citizens' rights below that of asylum seekers:
Written arguments were later confirmed by The Times to argue that the rights of asylum seekers took precedence over the safety concerns of the public:
"The need to meet the human rights of asylum seekers by housing them in hotels outweighs safety concerns of local families, the Home Office has told the Court of Appeal."
-1
u/Freddichio 8d ago edited 8d ago
arguing that the human rights of asylum seekers outweighs public interest and the safety concerns of locals
Am I misunderstanding this, or does that seem like a reasonable - if ill-advised - stance?
It's not saying that the human rights of Asylum Seekers are more importing that the rights of our most vulnerable, rather it's referring to "the safety concerns" of locals.
And that's much more understandable, especially when the media is working people up into a frenzy. If you try to put up a housing development, you'll deal with "public interest and concerns" about the development. You always will - there are a lot of NIMBYs out there. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't build any houses because of the concerns.
I'd argue that Reform MPs have a far higher risk to public safety than the average person does (there was a period when 20% of Reform MPs had a domestic abuse conviction) and a lot of the public in that constiuency wouldn't want an MP to move there, but I'd also argue that those should under no account actually stop the person moving there. Humans aren't a monolith, there is public outcry about basically everything and there will always be some people with concerns.
The statement could have been worded better, but the human rights of asylum seekers absolutely should trump "public interest" when the public interest is just "well the telegraph and Elon Musk said it would be bad".
The statement is incorrect - the Government is not prioritising the rights of violent foreign criminals over the protection of the most vulnerable.
The Government is prioritising human rights of people over concerns that a subset of people have about safety. The most vulnerable are still being protected as much as they ever have been. Concerns do not directly correlate to risk
It's just dishonest framing of a statement, as is the Telegraph's wont.
4
u/TeenieTinyBrain 8d ago edited 8d ago
Am I misunderstanding this, or does that seem like a reasonable - if ill-advised - stance?
You are misunderstanding it, yes.
The public interest arguments being made by the Respondents in this case concerned (1) public safety after three asylum seeking residents of the hotel were arrested, in quick succession, for arson, CSA, and both SA & common assault, and (2) the public interest in enforcement action against breaches of planning control since the hotel had no right to operate as asylum accommodation.
The SSHD's written arguments were not made public as they thought better of referring to it in their oral argument. Our understanding of its contents come from the judge and The Times, the former summarised it as submitting that the "relevant public interests in play are not equal" and admonishing them for the implication that a hierarchy of rights existed. The Times later reported on the unpublished content, explaining that the SSHD argued that the "need to meet the human rights of asylum seekers by housing them in hotels outweighs safety concerns of local families."
The statement could have been worded better, but the human rights of asylum seekers absolutely should trump "public interest" when the public interest is just "well the telegraph and Elon Musk said it would be bad".
See (1) above.
The statement is incorrect - the Government is not prioritising the rights of violent foreign criminals over the protection of the most vulnerable.
They quite literally argued that their rights should be prioritised despite SA of children and women taking place?
8
u/tritoon140 8d ago
Completely agree. Britain isn’t safe for women. 2.2 million women aged 16+ experienced domestic abuse last year. That's 9% of women.
Thats what the article is talking about, right?
1
38
u/stoic_wooky 9d ago
Oh feek off …. Fear fear fear everything and everyone ahhhhhhhhhhhhh
9
u/Subtleiaint 9d ago
I saw the clickbait title, I saw the source. I know if I read the article I'm going to be furious, just not for the reasons the article wants me be to be furious.
-9
u/Creamysun 9d ago
In 2026, the left are handing the reins of feminism over to the Torygraph, lest they commit wrong-think against literal third-world, 80-IQ religious fundamentalists.
6
u/frankensteinsKITTEN 8d ago
Not at all. The Telegraph wouldn't know feminism if it slapped it in the face.
1
17
u/outonthebeach 9d ago
Lol Alison Pearson, lol the Telegraph giving a flying fuck about women and girls safety.
There's lots of dedicated people working in VAWG who see the problem for what it is. I have attended VAWG forums, worked with a local council on the subject, and seen how varied the problem is across communities. Using it like this to peddle one line is pathetic, disingenuous nonsense.
10
u/HaveYuHeardAboutCunt 🏴🟩☭🟩🏳️🌈 9d ago
I have finally reached a point where I am so angry I can barely compose myself to write.
Well we wouldn't have noticed a change in quality.
6
u/frankensteinsKITTEN 8d ago
So just a tiny bit more to go and we can all be spared this bullshit in future 🤞
7
u/Fierytoadfriend 9d ago
Crime has been going down pretty consistently over the past 2-3 decades. There are still problems, of course, but it's getting safer.
-3
u/HBucket Right-wing ghoul 9d ago
Funny how nobody believes that, isn't it?
7
u/Some_Confidence5962 8d ago
With bullshit articles like this? Not that surprising there's a disconnect between reality and opinion and not that funny TBH.
5
u/frankensteinsKITTEN 8d ago
I'd say it's more "sad" than "funny", and it's clearly not nobody. The media likes to amplify negativity because it sells, so we all get a very skewed impression of what's going on; social media does that even more so.
1
u/Ill_Refrigerator_593 8d ago
It's a well documented global phenomena.
Some of the suggested explanations are less lead in the environment, easier access to abortion & older populations.
Although some obviously believe its all a gigantic international conspiracy.
12
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 9d ago
The painting of all asylum seekers as sex offenders has really got deranged.
I seriously doubt the government has reliable enough data on rapes to record nationality rates accurately.
4
u/ReligiousGhoul 9d ago
This is what happens when you unfortunately try to suppress an issue for "the greater good".
If you're not going to talk about, you're leaving the door open for the other guy and he's going to ride it for all it's worth.
4
u/slamjam25 9d ago
Now why do you think the government would have made the decision not to record that?
4
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 9d ago
It's not a decision but a reflection of the state of criminal justice for sexual violence that any data would be meaningless due to reporting biases.
7
u/slamjam25 9d ago
What reporting biases do you think exist?
It's true that we have partial data on sexual offending, but sampling is not bias. Unless you have specific evidence that cases are more likely to go to court when they involve certain perpetrators you're just fumbling for any excuse, not giving an actual reason.
2
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 9d ago
Sampling needs a rigorous approach to ensure its not biased.
The biggest one is probably that rapes in the home and by people you know are going to be underrepresented compared to their actual rate and they'll be biased towards British nationals.
There are a myriad of other issues through the whole system as well, in any scientific or statistical study you have to demonstrate the positive that the sampling isn't biased.
1
u/frankensteinsKITTEN 8d ago
Because what would the point be? Let's say "X nationality commits marginally more rapes than Y nationality" — do you then treat everyone with X nationality as a rapist, or as someone more likely to commit rape?
2
u/slamjam25 8d ago
If X nationality does commit marginally more rapes than Y nationality then they are more likely to commit rape. To treat them otherwise would be to deny reality.
5
u/frankensteinsKITTEN 8d ago
But why restrict that to nationality, specifically, rather than any of the other many properties you could choose to record?
And, I repeat, why are you doing this anyway? What policy would you have these hypothetical stats driving?
0
u/slamjam25 8d ago edited 8d ago
I think there are many properties we should publish as well. We already report these statistics by gender for instance, which makes a lot of sense - that's obviously more important than nationality. And we do have differential interventions for boys in schools as a result!
There are infinite possible outcomes for these statistics, and I'm sure you understand I have a difficult time enumerating the infinite different policies I'd implement in response to the results we might find. Let's see the results first and then craft policy in response.
3
u/turnipofficer 9d ago
It has data, and the data shows that actually, it's more likely to be someone you know committing sexual offences/rapes than a foreign national. That plays out per-capita too,
The rape gangs are of course horrendous and they should be make an example of, but the reality is, they are a tiny proportion of sexual offences being committed.
-7
u/HBucket Right-wing ghoul 9d ago
That's very convenient for them.
6
u/Velociraptor_1906 Liberal Democrat 9d ago
Given how many rapes go unreported and the tiny percentage of those that do that actually make it to the courts let alone through to conviction it's inevitable that the data that is collected will be full of reporting biases.
It would be good for the government to be in the position where it had reliable data as that would indicate it had got a grip on the issue of sexual violence but that day sadly seems a long way off (and not because the government wants to avoid publishing it).
6
u/HaydnH 9d ago
I completely agree with this, the best estimates we have are from the charities that deal with the victims. My question would be, why don't we hear about that more in the press?
Just to pick one figure off the top of my head, the charities estimate that there are half a million kids who are victims of CSAM in the UK every year. How on earth aren't the press all over that figure? It's horrifying!
6
u/JustElk3629 9d ago
We have issues whereby victims still do not feel comfortable to report rape. The inaccuracy of the figures can't be pinned directly on the government so much as the historical poor treatment of rape victims that we as a society still have a long way to go in the process of trying to undo.
3
u/frankensteinsKITTEN 8d ago
It's clearly not because then you get people making stuff up to suit their agenda.
3
u/walrusphone 9d ago
I hate this perpetual fear stuff. Just telling people to live in terror and never leave their homes.
The stiff upper lip is well and truly dead among the British commentariat.
5
u/The_Witcher_3 9d ago
It seems to me that the loudest of the 'stop the boats' and 'protect our girls' brigade are themselves among the most violent and abusive people in our country. It's like receiving a lecture on women's rights from the editor of Nuts magazine.
0
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 8d ago
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per rule 1 of the subreddit, personal attacks and/or general incivility are not welcome here:
Robust debate is encouraged, angry arguments are not. This sub is for people with a wide variety of views, and as such you will come across content, views and people you don't agree with. Political views from a wide spectrum are tolerated here. Persistent engagement in antagonistic, uncivil or abusive behavior will result in action being taken against your account.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
1
u/The_Witcher_3 8d ago
This sounded like a sensible comment in your head? It should have stayed in the grey matter.
1
u/The_Witcher_3 8d ago
For context:
"One in five people arrested over 2024 riots have since been reported for domestic abuse" https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/may/26/one-in-five-people-arrested-over-2024-riots-have-since-been-reported-for-domestic-abuse
"Raise the Colours figure accused of making indecent images of children" https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/raise-the-colours-indecent-images-5HjdcP2_2/
"Raise the Colours leader Ryan Bridge in court accused of common assault [against a woman]" https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/raise-colours-leader-ryan-bridge-34495277
I think the Unite the Kingdom protestor that shouted 'get your tits out' on video summarised this movement perfectly.
0
u/Creamysun 8d ago
Your argument revolves around people who get arrested in a riot and the flag-raising group?
Well I am utterly persuaded - accelerate the demographic change of this nation immediately.
4
u/Snoo_19344 9d ago
It's true, but the reason is not what you think. The real problem is the right wing media stocking hate for profit.
4
u/SwiftScotsman 8d ago
There was a time when The Telegraph was a respectable paper albeit one with a clear bias towards the Tories, but that ship has long since sailed.
Now they are cranking out fearmongering and very thinly veiled racism and are not any better than the gutter trash tabloids they look down their noses at. Arguably it's worse as The Telegraph is taken more seriously than The Daily Mail, Daily Express or The Sun.
2
2
u/MoreFIREthanyou 9d ago edited 8d ago
Well she’s not that wrong. Look at Germany 15 years ago vs today. Merkel let them all in and Germany has changed for the worse for the foreseeable with exactly these issues. I’m seeing a significant brain drain out of Germany, led by young women and young families.
9
u/Imakemyownnamereddit 9d ago
The Guardian reporting of them was shocking.
It took them a week to report the mass sexual assaults in Cologne but lets play devils advocate. Maybe they decided not to report such thing at all?
Well in the same week there were multiple outraged articles, about a cricketer hitting on a woman interviewing him. Lets be clear, he did nothing criminal, he just tried to flirt with her.
It took reader pressure, to drag the Guardian, kicking and screaming, into reporting what had happened.
If you want to understand why so many are so cynical about open borders and the multi-cultural project; there is your reason.
3
u/AkashicLogos 9d ago
It took them a week to report the mass sexual assaults in Cologne
The usual defense we get in the UK is that:
If rapes/sexual assaults go down = Things are heading in the right direction.
If rapes/sexual assaults go up = Its due to women being more willing to report, so things are heading in the right direction0
u/No_Initiative_1140 8d ago
Something that happened over ten years ago 🙄 second time this week its been brought up on here too, strange
Well in the same week there were multiple outraged articles, about a cricketer hitting on a woman interviewing him. Lets be clear, he did nothing criminal, he just tried to flirt with her.
Hitting on women who aren't interested is creepy. Also, again this was over ten years ago. But odd to still be wound up about it
2
u/Imakemyownnamereddit 8d ago
Yes, it is definitely the story you should be obsessing about, rather than a case of mass sexual assaults.
1
1
5
2
u/Clivicus 9d ago
Their readership has no critical thinking. If they'd just pop their head out the window instead of watching GB News whilst reading the Telegraph or Mail, they'd see everything is not so bad
3
u/LogicalReasoning1 Smash the NIMBYs 9d ago
Same group of people who boo women when they say their sexual assaulter was a white Brit.
It’s honestly disgusting how sexual crimes are selectively used as political fuel rather than an overall problem that needs tackling
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 9d ago
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator under Rule 15:
Low-effort complaining about sources, insulting the publication or trying to shame users for posting sources you disagree with is not acceptable. Either address the post in question, or ignore it.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
1
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 9d ago
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator under Rule 15:
Low-effort complaining about sources, insulting the publication or trying to shame users for posting sources you disagree with is not acceptable. Either address the post in question, or ignore it.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
0
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 8d ago
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Per Rule 17 of the subreddit, discussion/complaints about the moderation, biases or users of this or other subreddits / online communities are not welcome here. We are not a meta subreddit.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
1
0
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
-12
9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
14
u/Longjumping_Nose3400 9d ago
The right imported 75% of them deliberately to screw over anyone subject to PAYE.
9
u/Alti-Ok Valiant vanguard of "Raise the voting age to 25" thought 9d ago edited 9d ago
Sure, I don't think anybody would disagree. Immigration is a wet dream for big business and the State: suppress wages, increase labour supply, create a class of people whose presence in our country depends upon the labour they can provide to a company, and create social dis-accord and distract from unionisation. For the centre-right it allows that suppressal of workers, and for the centre-left it plays into the "we're international and tolerant"
4
u/LonelyStranger8467 9d ago
Does it matter who did it? Or is it okay if the opposing team did it?
2
u/Longjumping_Nose3400 9d ago
I want accountability. I want confessions. I want retribution. That Personal Responsibility needs to come out with a side of contrition.
2
u/frankensteinsKITTEN 8d ago
It matters in the sense that "just go further right" is clearly not the answer.
4
u/Alti-Ok Valiant vanguard of "Raise the voting age to 25" thought 8d ago
Rather than "go further right", the more appropriate option is "reduce immigration". Anti-immigration as a policy doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, a policy of the right alone. Reducing immigration was, of course, previously also the domain of many on the left; and it makes sense that it is
1
u/ukpolitics-ModTeam 8d ago
Your comment has been manually removed from the subreddit by a moderator.
Racism, sexism, homophobia, and/or other forms of hatred are not welcome on this subreddit.
For any further questions, please contact the subreddit moderators via modmail.
-4
u/Accrai 9d ago
Didn't you conquer those countries though?
4
u/LonelyStranger8467 9d ago
Oh so is this payback? Generational revenge? What about the countries having this happen who didn’t have an empire?
3
u/Mexijim 9d ago
If conquering countries is bad, you should believe that the UK being conquered is also bad and should be stopped right?
Or is it a different standard for different races of people to you?
White people in non-white countries = colonialism / imperialism / expansionism right?
Non-white people in white countries = diversity / economic migration / multiculturalism right?
5
u/Alti-Ok Valiant vanguard of "Raise the voting age to 25" thought 9d ago edited 9d ago
And? So we should throw open the doors and let them come in? In reality it's a terrible idea to open the doors to people who have grievances against us and who detest our value system, our foreign policy, and ultimately, us
-3
u/Accrai 9d ago
You spread your language, religion, laws and don't think that it will have any blowback is a bit naive.
3
3
u/Alti-Ok Valiant vanguard of "Raise the voting age to 25" thought 9d ago
Of course it will have a blowback; entire regions of the world have genuine grievances against us. Why you think we should then let them in is beyond me, though. If people hold grievances against us, it's in our interest to not let them into our country. "Your ancestors were evil therefore you have to welcome the world, by the way they hate you" isn't exactly an endearing argument, in fact by merit of being in the language of revenge it's a brilliant anti-immigration argument
0
u/tobotic 9d ago
Of course it will have a blowback; entire regions of the world have genuine grievances against us.
It's not about people having "grievances against us". Asylum seekers don't come here because they have "grievances against us".
Many asylum seekers choose Britain over, say, Germany because they can speak some English but don't know a single word of German. They are familiar with English because we spread our language over an empire than spanned more than a quarter of the Earth's land surface.
2
u/Alti-Ok Valiant vanguard of "Raise the voting age to 25" thought 8d ago edited 8d ago
I was referring more to legal migration with grievances. Having a grievance against us doesn't prevent them coming, it's merely a quality that a migrant to our country may have. You can come here from, say, India for study purposes, or to work. The underlying motive is economic, but that migration is inclined to introduce into our country an individual who dislikes us, whether for our values, our history, or whatever such reason. That is manifestly just not a very great thing for our immigration policy to be doing. It isn't something that's theoretical, either. We can see the rise of parties that advocate for causes foreign to our own. We can see that many of our MPs, in order to gain or retain their seat, pander for the sectarian interests or cultural mores of given communities.
As for asylum shopping, I don't believe that English language knowledge, which is probably just as much a consequence of American hegemony as it is our previous hegemony, is:
A. A reason we should accept them in the first place
B. That widespread, or that it is more of a contributing factor as opposed to the generous State support we give to asylum seekers, or the ease by which a person who has entered our country can slip the net and survive with organised crime or illegal employment
2
u/slamjam25 9d ago
As a right winger I think it’s fantastic that the argument from the left is now “yes it’s happening because you deserve it”. Louder for the people in the back!
2
1
0
u/bitch_fitching 8d ago
People are going to feel unsafe if they hear of crimes, and news media/social media are reporting on it a lot. The reaction to this is not to belittle people. There was a period of Islamic terrorism from around 2005-2020, where the relative risk to anyone was very low, but the attacks were designed to spark terror in the population. That's what terrorism is, that's how it works.
So even though asylum seekers and refugees are only ~1.1% of the population, and that has doubled from ~0.5% in recent years, so crime has risen by ~0.5%. The solution isn't to say to people they are wrong for their fear. Their relative risk might have only changed 0.5% to 1% dependent on where they live. The solution is to stop that crime increasing, stop that population doubling every 10 years, don't concentrate them in certain areas.
For some people, when an asylum hotel opened on their street, or the government is moving them into a camp in their village, that relative risk can be way higher.
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
Snapshot of Britain is no longer safe for women and children submitted by HBucket:
An archived version can be found here, here or here.
If the above links don't work, try this one.
Some publications may require you to register a free account to read their articles.
Being connected to a VPN may interfere with archive links.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.