Here is the link for the UN report
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/venezuela-harsh- repression-and-crimes-against-humanity-ongoing-fact-finding
interesting......
Job 8:20-a Behold, God will not cast away a perfect [man], neither will
he help the evil doers:
Ps 26:5-a I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit
with the wicked.
Ro 13:4-a For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for
he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that
doeth evil.
But it's odd though, don't you think? That Russia can do as it likes but Venezuela gets taken to task by the USA?
On 03/01/2026 10:06, mick falconer wrote:
Here is the link for the UN report
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/03/venezuela-harsh-
repression-and-crimes-against-humanity-ongoing-fact-finding
interesting......
Job 8:20-a Behold, God will not cast away a perfect [man], neither will
he help the evil doers:
Ps 26:5-a I have hated the congregation of evil doers; and will not sit
with the wicked.
Ro 13:4-a For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou
do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in
vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath
upon him that doeth evil.
But it's odd though, don't you think? That Russia can do as it likes but Venezuela gets taken to task by the USA?
On 04/01/2026 06:57, Timreason wrote:
But it's odd though, don't you think? That Russia can do as it likes
but Venezuela gets taken to task by the USA?
The American action is problematic, because if it can impose regime
change in Venezuala, why is it wrong for Russia to do the same in Ukraine?
The Monroe Doctrine, which has been used to justify various illegal
actions by the US, has no standing in international law, but you'll
remember that the Americans did something similar in Panama a few years
ago and also in Granada(?) Certainly in the latter two the results have
been happy, but it is still a dangerous precedent.
That said, there is no doubt that Maduro and his predecessor Chavez have done terrible things to Venezuala, ruining the economy, clamping down on those who oppose them or even killing them, rigging elections, and so on.
I am not aware that Starmer has killed anyone, but the two-tier justice which puts one person in prison for a post that disagrees with
government policy and lets even worse escape justice because they are supportive of the government, is not a good sign. The other two -
ruining the economy and rigging elections (by postponing them without reasonable cause) - show that left-wing politicians are all tarred with
the same brush.
Of course if Trump removes the VP in the same way he did
the President, he could then install his own puppet leader, which I very much doubt will be the de facto winner of the last elections or the lady
who wasn't allowed to stand, but then she did steal Trumps Nobel peace
award (sarcasm)
I am not aware that Starmer has killed anyone
Can you elaborate on your first sentence?
Has he ruined the economy? Well not him personally but certainly Rachael Reeves business taxes aren't helping in the slightest, and I suspect is going to get worse.
Has he rigged elections? can hardly be rigged ifA pity that point wasn't reached last year.
they don't hold them lol but I know what you mean. Last years
cancellations were fair enough as reorganisations meant these councils
would cease to exist. I think the same argument is being used this year
but I haven't delved into it yet. However, despite that I think the
labour Govt are going to get a bloody nose come the May elections and I think that's the point when Kier Starmer has to go.
It's summed up in a 3 letter word, OILBut that one word is a bit too simplistic.
On 05/01/2026 14:21, John wrote:
I am not aware that Starmer has killed anyone
Can you elaborate on your first sentence?
Has he ruined the economy? Well not him personally but certainly
Rachael Reeves business taxes aren't helping in the slightest, and I
suspect is going to get worse.
He appointed her, he supports her, he's responsible for her.
On 05/01/2026 11:17, John wrote:
It's summed up in a 3 letter word, OIL
But that one word is a bit too simplistic.
For example, one could claim that Trump wants to control Venezuela's oil
so that the money flows into his pocket. I don't think that would be true.
It was claimed in the Daily Mail yesterday that by controlling
Venezuela's oil Trump will be able to put pressure on China, India and
some other countries which are aiding Russia in its war in the Ukraine.
That certainly involves oil, but it is a much more commendable motive
than simply grabbing the money.
Why have you snipped part of your quote?-a To complete the sentence you said, "but the two-tier justice which puts one person in prison for a
post that disagrees with government policy and lets even worse escape justice because they are supportive of the government"
I was curious as to what you meant, as I'm not not aware of anyone being sent to prison for a post that disagrees with a Govt policy, or of
anyone evading justice because they are supportive of the Govt. They are quite serious accusations, which is why I asked you to elaborate.
Indeed, roll on May, it can't come quick enough for me, and I say thatWe can hope so. Unfortunately the left-wing has a history of ruining
as a labour supporter.-a Rachael will also be gone if there's a new PM.
Not directly, but certainly the aim is to enrich America.-a Stephen
Miller has said as much, also saying it will enrich Venezuela as well.
If the latter happens then maybe it's not a bad thing, but I'm not
hopeful that is the case.
I'm rather fearful for America now, in the last year it has slowly
turned from a democratic nation to not being that far from a
dictatorship. Trump now has his sights set on Greenland, which if he's stupid enough to go for, will be an utter disaster for Nato and Europe.
Time will tell, I really hope that is the case.
On 06/01/2026 12:04, John wrote:
Why have you snipped part of your quote?-a To complete the sentence you
said, "but the two-tier justice which puts one person in prison for a
post that disagrees with government policy and lets even worse escape
justice because they are supportive of the government"
The case of the woman imprisoned for a posting that criticised illegal immigrants is so well known that surely even you cannot be ignorant of
it.
Subsequently a Muslim posted something calling for the death of
Zionists and was more or less let off.
A NHS doctor who claimed that she
refused to treat Jews was cleared of any wrong-doing (though public
outcry forced the NHS board to revisit the case and conclude that yes,
she had brought the profession into disrepute. I forget what the penalty
was - six minutes of having her licence suspended or something). There
heave been other examples.
I was curious as to what you meant, as I'm not not aware of anyone
being sent to prison for a post that disagrees with a Govt policy, or
of anyone evading justice because they are supportive of the Govt.
They are quite serious accusations, which is why I asked you to
elaborate.
If you believe that it is government policy to put a stop to illegal immigration I have a large statue in New York you may be interested in purchasing at a bargain price.
Indeed, roll on May, it can't come quick enough for me, and I say thatWe can hope so. Unfortunately the left-wing has a history of ruining countries with their unrealistic policies, from Maduro in Venezuela to Stalin or Putin in Russia to Gordon Brown or Keir Starmer in Britain. Unfortunately, left-wingers seem to have a touching belief in the magic money tree which no amount of experience has been able to shake.
as a labour supporter.-a Rachael will also be gone if there's a new PM.
They tax the rich and are then astonished when the rich pack up house
and move away and don't stay to be taxed. They tax the schools to which
rich people go and are flabbergasted when the schools close down,
because the government has made no plans for providing spaces in
government schools for all these additional students. And so on.
On 06/01/2026 12:04, John wrote:
Why have you snipped part of your quote?a To complete the sentence you
said, "but the two-tier justice which puts one person in prison for a
post that disagrees with government policy and lets even worse escape
justice because they are supportive of the government"
The case of the woman imprisoned for a posting that criticised illegal >immigrants is so well known that surely even you cannot be ignorant of
it.
I was curious as to what you meant, as I'm not not aware of anyone being sent to prison for a post that disagrees with a Govt policy, or of
anyone evading justice because they are supportive of the Govt. They are quite serious accusations, which is why I asked you to elaborate.
Of course if someone was posting, for example
Are you referring to the recent case of Alaa Abd El Fattah?-a If so these tweets, which I agree were abhorrent and, if made recently in this
country, should be treated exactly the same as Lucy Connolly was.
However, these tweets were made in 2010-2012, outside this country, when
the person wasn't a British citizen. The man has apologised and regrets these tweets.
I've told you a million times, stop exagerating!!-a It was actually 15 months but I'm not sure how that ties in with supporting Govt policy.
I can't recall ever saying that, current Govt policy is to get these
people processed as quickly as possible. Under current law there's not
much else they can do.
That's the subject of a new thread I'll start in a few weeks. (Up to my
eye in tax returns at the moment)
If you're thinking of Lucy Connolly, that is not what she was imprisoned
for. She was prosecuted for, and pleaded guilty to, incitement to violence. Which is a very serious crime, whether it takes place online or offline. It has absolutely nothing to do with criticising illegal immigrants, or criticising government policy.
Saying that Lucy Connolly was put "in prison for a post that disagrees with government policy" is a flat out lie
On 06/01/2026 12:04, John wrote:
I was curious as to what you meant, as I'm not not aware of anyone
being sent to prison for a post that disagrees with a Govt policy, or
of anyone evading justice because they are supportive of the Govt.
They are quite serious accusations, which is why I asked you to
elaborate.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15443179/NHS-doctor-posted- antisemitic-conspiracy-theories-Jews-9-11-medical-tribunal.html
It will be interesting to see what happens in this case.
On 07/01/2026 13:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
If you're thinking of Lucy Connolly, that is not what she was imprisoned
for. She was prosecuted for, and pleaded guilty to, incitement to
violence.
Which is a very serious crime, whether it takes place online or
offline. It
has absolutely nothing to do with criticising illegal immigrants, or
criticising government policy.
Yet somehow a Muslim, committing almost exactly the same offence and
facing the same charge, was let off. Mrs Connolly was honest and
confessed, the other person was perhaps better advised and refused to confess and so escaped justice.
Saying that Lucy Connolly was put "in prison for a post that disagrees
with
government policy" is a flat out lie
Really? So correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that
it was the government which puts all these people in expensive hotels in
the middle of communities which don't want them? And who is it that
welcomes them into the country instead of sending them back to France?
And who gives them generous financial allowances which allow them to
sponge off British workers?
Of course the government will loudly proclaim that it does not have a pro-illegal immigration policy, but actions speak louder than words.
On 07/01/2026 09:35, John wrote:
Of course if someone was posting, for example
Which, of course, you would never dream of doing?
Are you referring to the recent case of Alaa Abd El Fattah?-a If so
these tweets, which I agree were abhorrent and, if made recently in
this country, should be treated exactly the same as Lucy Connolly was.
He is just the most recent - and the most dramatic example of two-tier
Keir.
However, these tweets were made in 2010-2012, outside this country,
when the person wasn't a British citizen. The man has apologised and
regrets these tweets.
As did the woman you referred to in your first paragraph above.
I've told you a million times, stop exagerating!!-a It was actually 15
months but I'm not sure how that ties in with supporting Govt policy.
Unwritten and unacknowledged government policy - which is to support anything and anyone Muslim and oppose anyone British and/or Christian.
I can't recall ever saying that, current Govt policy is to get these
people processed as quickly as possible. Under current law there's not
much else they can do.
If true, then perhaps they need to make changing the law a priority,
more important than taxing schools, robbing pensioners, or rigging elections.
On 07/01/2026 13:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
If you're thinking of Lucy Connolly, that is not what she was imprisoned
for. She was prosecuted for, and pleaded guilty to, incitement to
violence.
Which is a very serious crime, whether it takes place online or
offline. It
has absolutely nothing to do with criticising illegal immigrants, or
criticising government policy.
Yet somehow a Muslim, committing almost exactly the same offence and
facing the same charge, was let off. Mrs Connolly was honest and
confessed, the other person was perhaps better advised and refused to confess and so escaped justice.
I've merely reposted what Lucy Connolly said.
You can't retrospectively charge someone, who wasn't a British citizen
at the time and not living in this country, with the same offence.
There's certainly an argument for that, although I don't think you can
deny that the Labour Govt are attempting to tackle the issue (smashing
the gangs was one of them, which I admit hasn't worked as well as they hoped), but refusing to process any new arrivals between March 2023 and
July 2024 only added to the problem.
Or you could simply follow what the Lord your God says:
rCLYou shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner,
for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt."
Exodus 23:9 (ESV)
So he wasn't let off, a group of 12 men and womwn, good and true,
decided Mr Jones hadn't encouraged violent disorder, taking just over
half an hour to reach that decision.
The Lisbon Treaty, which allows us to send people back to the first safe coutry they landed in, no longer applies. Of course, lets not forget
that it is the Conservatives who began putting people in hotels, and
labour who are phasing it out.
Eh, can you live on -u50 a week including food, or -u10 a week if food is provided?
The pro illegal immigration policy, as you put it, would be the ECHR,
which the UK helped write, and the 1951 refugee convention.
We have been through this soooo many times. Why do you persist? You're
not impressing anyone, and you're certainly not persuading anyone.
On 08/01/2026 14:55, John wrote:
Eh, can you live on -u50 a week including food, or -u10 a week if food
is provided?
Sure, when the housing is free. Plus all the perks of enterainment,
classes, excursions. For all I know the government is providing belly dancers to keep these people enterainted in a "culturally sensitive" way.
Could you provide proof of the entertainment, classes and excursions (1)https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/councils-spend-taxpayer-money-playstations-asylum-seekers/?msockid=3bb69c3c363a6e5a342d8aba37e76f7c
you claim they receive, or are you lying?
On 12/01/2026 13:20, John wrote:
Could you provide proof of the entertainment, classes and excursionshttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/02/04/councils-spend-taxpayer- money-playstations-asylum-seekers/?msockid=3bb69c3c363a6e5a342d8aba37e76f7c Asylum seekers and refugees have been given taxpayer-funded PlayStations
(1) you claim they receive, or are you lying?
and DJ lessons by councils which have spent millions to host new
arrivals, The Telegraph can reveal.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?! &&p=42007bc3267f6abe42cfe0a02e2d0247e67a52c25f8f59518ec3f0b9eb276f8fJmltdHM9MTc2ODE3NjAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3bb69c3c-363a-6e5a-342d-8aba37e76f7c&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZXhwcmVzcy5jby51ay9uZXdzL3VrLzIwMDk5OTkvbWlncmFudHMteW9nYS1jaXJjdXMtY2xhc3Nlcy1wbGF5c3RhdGlvbnM
Councils have splurged millions on recreational classes, days out and
gaming tech for asylum seekers. Asylum seekers and refugees are being lavished with yoga classes, circus
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?! &&p=d912cfb12e3f6b363cae59147e5b5b4ff202aae3d400612d2d084c2a0cad66fdJmltdHM9MTc2ODE3NjAwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3bb69c3c-363a-6e5a-342d-8aba37e76f7c&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cudGVsZWdyYXBoLmNvLnVrL25ld3MvMjAyNS8wNi8xNy9jaGFubmVsLW1pZ3JhbnRzLWdpdmVuLWZyZWUtdHYtbGljZW5jZXMvP21zb2NraWQ9M2JiNjljM2MzNjNhNmU1YTM0MmQ4YWJhMzdlNzZmN2M
Illegal migrants have been given free TV licences funded by the
taxpayer, a Reform UK rCLDogerCY audit has found.
An apology from you will be graciously received. I will, however, also advise you to keep up to date with the news before shooting your mouth
off. Arguing from ignorance and prejudice - as you do - is never wise.
Could you let me know the reason you would like an apology. Even if the things you said were offered exclusively to asylum seekers as a matter
of course, which is the impression you wanted to convey, I can't see how asking questions of you warrants an apology.
On 12/01/2026 21:52, John wrote:
Could you let me know the reason you would like an apology. Even if
the things you said were offered exclusively to asylum seekers as a
matter of course, which is the impression you wanted to convey, I
can't see how asking questions of you warrants an apology.
Asking questions is legitimate. Suggesting that I was lying is not.
The "fact checking" URLs you provided merely confirm the truth of the stories I quoted. For example, illegal immigrants are being given free
TV licences; not every illegal immigrant it is true, but even one is
cause for concern when British pensioners have been deprived of their
free licences and people unable to pay are being prosecuted.
On 13/01/2026 07:15, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 12/01/2026 21:52, John wrote:
Could you let me know the reason you would like an apology. Even if
the things you said were offered exclusively to asylum seekers as a
matter of course, which is the impression you wanted to convey, I
can't see how asking questions of you warrants an apology.
Asking questions is legitimate. Suggesting that I was lying is not.
I asked if you were lying, I never suggested you were. However, you made
a claim that I didn't believe. and asked you to post links. The links
you posted were deliberately misleading, and fact checking proved that.
The "fact checking" URLs you provided merely confirm the truth of the
stories I quoted. For example, illegal immigrants are being given free
TV licences; not every illegal immigrant it is true, but even one is
cause for concern when British pensioners have been deprived of their
free licences and people unable to pay are being prosecuted.
Your inability to read isn't my problem. The illegal immigrants aren't receiving free TV licences.-a This is from the Reuters website.
"The money, which comes from a Home Office grant, covers licences in
shared accommodation that houses children under the care of Kent County Council, *some* of whom are unaccompanied asylum-seeker children, added
the spokesperson.-a (My emphasis)
The grant also covers TV licences in the reception centres that house
newly arrived, unaccompanied asylum-seeker children for up to 10 days
before they are transferred to other UK authorities. Kent County Council lists, opens new tab 10 such centres on its website, which collectively
have capacity for around 300 children."
For the avoidance of doubt, it is the reception centre who receives the
free TV licence, not the children themselves
With regards to he other links you posted, and what the fact checks
showed, is that the "illegal" immigrants received the benefits anyone of their income level could receive, not because they were "illegal" immigrants.
On 13/01/2026 12:10, John wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt, it is the reception centre who receives
the free TV licence, not the children themselves
I would thoroughly approve of free TV licences for asylum seekers. They
are not allowed to work. They have a tiny weekly allowance with which to amuse themselves. Letting them watch TV is sensible:
It keeps them off the streets
They improve their English
The marginal cost is nil (not entirely convinced by marginal accounting, though)
For the avoidance of doubt, it is the reception centre who receives the
free TV licence, not the children themselves
With regards to he other links you posted, and what the fact checksEven if your "fact checking" is correct, can you explain why people who
showed, is that the "illegal" immigrants received the benefits anyone of their income level could receive, not because they were "illegal" immigrants.
I don't see a problem with it either.I don't have a TV and haven't watched the programme, but I'm not
I would thoroughly approve of free TV licences for asylum seekers. They
are not allowed to work. They have a tiny weekly allowance with which to amuse themselves. Letting them watch TV is sensible:
On 13/01/2026 12:10, John wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt, it is the reception centre who receives
the free TV licence, not the children themselves
Do old folks homes receive free licences?
Even if your "fact checking" is correct, can you explain why people who commit a crime - entering the UK illegally - are loaded with free money, free housing, free taxis to doctors' appointments, and so on?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 13/01/2026 23:23, John wrote:
I don't see a problem with it either.I don't have a TV and haven't watched the programme, but I'm not
convinced that "Strictly" is the best way of improving one's English.
On 13/01/2026 15:23, GB wrote:
I would thoroughly approve of free TV licences for asylum seekers.
They are not allowed to work. They have a tiny weekly allowance with
which to amuse themselves. Letting them watch TV is sensible:
Why not expect them to do useful work? Mine clearing in Angola springs
to mind, but if you don't want the expense of shipping them out there,
we have a lot of potholes that need filling and I am sure there are
other jobs just crying out to be done.
On 15/01/2026 07:25, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 13/01/2026 12:10, John wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt, it is the reception centre who receives
the free TV licence, not the children themselves
Do old folks homes receive free licences?
Yes! At least in the same way the asylum seekers do.
As explained just over a day ago:-a "The money, which comes from a Home Office grant, covers licences in shared accommodation that houses
children under the care of Kent County Council, *some* of whom are unaccompanied asylum-seeker children, added the spokesperson.-a (My emphasis)
Old folks homes similarly get grants for looking after the old folks,
and some of that gets spent on a TV licence.
It's worrying that your memory is so poor.
Even if your "fact checking" is correct, can you explain why people
who commit a crime - entering the UK illegally - are loaded with free
money, free housing, free taxis to doctors' appointments, and so on?
The real question is what to do with these people. Let's rule out
anything homicidal, please!
On 13/01/2026 12:10, John wrote:
For the avoidance of doubt, it is the reception centre who receives
the free TV licence, not the children themselves
Do old folks homes receive free licences? What about schools or day-care centres? Or is it only centres that deal with illegal immigrants which receive these free licences?
With regards to he other links you posted, and what the fact checks
showed, is that the "illegal" immigrants received the benefits anyone
of their income level could receive, not because they were "illegal"
immigrants.
Even if your "fact checking" is correct, can you explain why people who commit a crime - entering the UK illegally - are loaded with free money, free housing, free taxis to doctors' appointments, and so on?
Why not expect them to do useful work? Mine clearing in Angola springs
to mind, but if you don't want the expense of shipping them out there,
we have a lot of potholes that need filling and I am sure there are
other jobs just crying out to be done.
You do realise that they aren't allowed to work don't you, but I'm
thrilled at how well you are following the Sermon on the Mount. What a
fine upstanding Christian you are!!
You do realise that they aren't allowed to work don't you, but I'mIt's called "work fare" and I totally support it. The lack of it is the
thrilled at how well you are following the Sermon on the Mount. What a
fine upstanding Christian you are!!
I've never watched it, and no doubt you're right.-a I do have a TVActually, unless the TV programme is intended to teach English (ie. some
licence and I am currently watching Judge John Deed, Trial &
Retribution, Motorway Cops and The Bill.-a On my recordings I have the
Vicar of Dibley, Stay Lucky, Watching, 3 or 4 documentaries and on my
wife's TV (I watch live sport which she doesn't) we have recordings of
or have recently watched The Tower, Happy Valley, The Bay, The Teacher, Unforgotten-a etc, all great programmes in which to learn English.-a Stop being tight and fork out -u3.50 a week for a TV licence it's well worth it.
Old folks homes similarly get grants for looking after the old folks,
and some of that gets spent on a TV licence.
Personally, I see nothing inherently abhorrent about getting them to
work. I suspect that most asylum seekers want to work, not spend their
days in frustrating idleness.
Because, under current law, the Govt have a legal duty to do so.
Why do the disabled get loaded with free money, why do the unemployed
and low paid get loaded with free money, why do churches and charities
get loaded with free money?-a I could go on.
Once they have claimed asylum, that is , when they land on the shore and hand themselves over to border force, they are not illegal, hence why I
put it in quotes wehenever I use the term, although I really should take
a cue from GB, and properly define them as asylum seekers.
Now, if only there were safe routes so they wouldn't have to risk their lives travelling here by dinghies.There is a safe route. Turn up at the British embassy in your country of origin and apply for a visa.
On 15/01/2026 11:49, GB wrote:
Old folks homes similarly get grants for looking after the old folks,
and some of that gets spent on a TV licence.
First time I've of heard of that. It is true that some old people get
grants to cover their care, but their care wouldn't be so expensive if
the home got a free TV licence. (Admittedly the difference wouldn't be great, but we're talking principles here.)
On 15/01/2026 13:22, John wrote:
Be honest, how many of the programmes you list have a compulsory (and usually gratuitous) homosexual?
On 15/01/2026 13:26, John wrote:
You do realise that they aren't allowed to work don't you, but I'm
thrilled at how well you are following the Sermon on the Mount. What a
fine upstanding Christian you are!!
It's called "work fare" and I totally support it. The lack of it is the reason why so many people follow Labour in believing that money grows on trees.
On 15/01/2026 11:49, GB wrote:
Old folks homes similarly get grants for looking after the old folks,
and some of that gets spent on a TV licence.
First time I've of heard of that. It is true that some old people get
grants to cover their care, but their care wouldn't be so expensive if
the home got a free TV licence. (Admittedly the difference wouldn't be great, but we're talking principles here.)
Personally, I see nothing inherently abhorrent about getting them to
work. I suspect that most asylum seekers want to work, not spend their
days in frustrating idleness.
I notice with amusement that John disagrees with you. He believes (apparently) that expecting people to earn their money is un-Christian
and contrary to the Sermon on the Mount. (I think his Bible must have an extra verse: "Blessed are the dole bludgers, for they shall be filled."
On 15/01/2026 11:49, GB wrote:
Old folks homes similarly get grants for looking after the old folks,
and some of that gets spent on a TV licence.
First time I've of heard of that. It is true that some old people get
grants to cover their care, but their care wouldn't be so expensive if
the home got a free TV licence. (Admittedly the difference wouldn't be great, but we're talking principles here.)
On 15/01/2026 13:43, John wrote:
Because, under current law, the Govt have a legal duty to do so.
If true, then the law needs to change.
Why do the disabled get loaded with free money, why do the unemployed
and low paid get loaded with free money, why do churches and charities
get loaded with free money?-a I could go on.
I have no objection to help for the disabled, I have always supported
"work fare" for the unemployed, churches and charities are given money
in exchange for the social work they do. More to the point, none of
those you mention are committing illegal behaviour, whereas people who
enter Britain illegally are criminals.
Once they have claimed asylum, that is , when they land on the shore
and hand themselves over to border force, they are not illegal, hence
why I put it in quotes wehenever I use the term, although I really
should take a cue from GB, and properly define them as asylum seekers.
Very very few of those who enter Britain illegally are actually asylum seekers. Where are their wives and children?
Now, if only there were safe routes so they wouldn't have to risk
their lives travelling here by dinghies.
There is a safe route. Turn up at the British embassy in your country of origin and apply for a visa.
I'm in favour of work fare, but given they aren't allowed to how do you propose to resolve that?-a The previous Govt, which I understand you are/ were a supporter of,
had 6 years to change the rules, instead theyDeliberately?
deliberately allowed asylum seeker claims to build up, meaning people
can be waiting up to two years to have their claims assessed.
If you are over 75 and receiving Pension Credit, you do qualify for aIt used to be that if you were over 75 you got a free licence. Now, if
free TV licence.
How highly disingenuous of you. I would appreciate it if you could
pinpoint where I said that
If the home is local authority, the council will cover the *singular* TV licence fee, in exactly the same way Kent Council covered the *singular*Ah yes, I forgot about all those golden-hearted care providers who dig
TV licence in any of the reception centres.-a If it's a private nursing home, the the home care provider will cover the cost of the *singular*
TV licence required.
Reform have said they wil do that if they come into power in 2029.
Out of interest, you're in a foreign country, and you are in fear of
your life, would you stay there and risk being killed, or would you move
to a safer country, even if it meant entering it illegally.
66% of all asylum applications are granted.
39% of people arriving here are women and children ander the age of 17.
Source UK.gov. statistics to June 2025.
For those coming here for economic reasons, certainly that's an option, although there are strict criteria.-a Someone in a war torn country inOf course there are strict criteria. You try going in the opposite
fear of their life won't have that option.
Out of interest, you're in a foreign country, and you are in fear of
your life, would you stay there and risk being killed, or would you move to a safer country, even if it meant entering it illegally.
What a silly question. Silly because all these Syrian refugees have succeeded in finding safety as soon as they cross the border into
Turkey. Not only safety, but they get UN provided hand-outs in the
refugee camps. Yet somehow they don't "feel safe" until they have risked their lives to come to Britain, passing through Greece, Italy,
Switzerland and France to do so. Poor dears.
On 16/01/2026 15:29, John wrote:
I'm in favour of work fare, but given they aren't allowed to how do
you propose to resolve that?-a The previous Govt, which I understand
you are/ were a supporter of,
Well, you must admit they did a better job of governing than this lot have!
had 6 years to change the rules, instead they deliberately allowed
asylum seeker claims to build up, meaning people can be waiting up to
two years to have their claims assessed.
Deliberately?
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 16/01/2026 12:04, GB wrote:
If you are over 75 and receiving Pension Credit, you do qualify for a
free TV licence.
It used to be that if you were over 75 you got a free licence. Now, if
you have worked hard and accumulated a bit in savings, you get penalised while if you have bludged off the dole all your life you get rewarded.
On 16/01/2026 16:55, John wrote:
Reform have said they wil do that if they come into power in 2029.
A good reason to vote for them, then.
Out of interest, you're in a foreign country, and you are in fear of
your life, would you stay there and risk being killed, or would you
move to a safer country, even if it meant entering it illegally.
What a silly question. Silly because all these Syrian refugees have succeeded in finding safety as soon as they cross the border into
Turkey. Not only safety, but they get UN provided hand-outs in the
refugee camps. Yet somehow they don't "feel safe" until they have risked their lives to come to Britain, passing through Greece, Italy,
Switzerland and France to do so. Poor dears.
66% of all asylum applications are granted.>Which, I'm afraid, tells you nothing whatsoever about whether the people
are genuine asylum seekers.
39% of people arriving here are women and children ander the age of 17.
39% eh? So we have 100 people entering Britain illegally. 39 of them are women and children. Let us be generous and assume that these Muslims
only have one wife and only have two children. Divide 39 by 3. That
means that of the 61 male illegals, 13 are married men. 48 are unmarried illegals. That equates to 78% of the illegals are unmarried. Discover
that there are three children and more than one wife and the numbers are even higher.
Source UK.gov. statistics to June 2025.
Lies, damned lies, and cherry-picked (or misunderstood) statistics. I am charitably assuming that adding 2+2 is not your forte.
For those coming here for economic reasons, certainly that's an
option, although there are strict criteria.-a Someone in a war torn
country in fear of their life won't have that option.
Of course there are strict criteria. You try going in the opposite
direction and see if the criteria for permanent settlement are any more generous. And those in fear of their lives can settle down in Turkey or France or wherever and be perfectly safe. They don't have to come to Britain.
Yes, a new law was introduced in 2023 which meant they refused to
process any new arrivals from then. The intention was to detain and
deport all new arrivals back to the country they came from, but found it wasn't as easy to do as they thought, which-a increased the already high backlog.-a Labour repealed it as soon as they got in power.
Those receiving pension credit are those who have worked but haven't accumulated 30 years of national insurance contributions eg a woman*Some* of those receiving pension credit.
bringing up her kids whilst the man remains working.
Not really, Reform wants to deport all asylum seekers, and kick out
everyone who has indefinite leave to remain.-a Farage will come unstuck
when he finds it's not as easy as he thinks. What do you do if the
country of origin refuses to take them back?
You do realise Brexit put a stop to them having to seek asylum in the
first safe country, don't you? People choose to come to Britain for a variety of reasons, one of them because English is widely spoken internationally (I'm aware that some don't speak the language) but, in general terms we take in less than Germany, France, Italy and Spain do.
I would hazard a guess their knowledge of decision making is superior to yours, and without bias.
39% eh? So we have 100 people entering Britain illegally. 39 of them
are women and children. Let us be generous and assume that these
Muslims only have one wife and only have two children. Divide 39 by 3.
That means that of the 61 male illegals, 13 are married men. 48 are
unmarried illegals. That equates to 78% of the illegals are unmarried.
Discover that there are three children and more than one wife and the
numbers are even higher.
Nice of you to assume 100% of asylum seekers are Muslim.
Perhaps you'd care to come up with reliable statistics that dispute the
ones I've quoted, rather than resorting to put you downs.-a I've noticed that you often do this when you're losing the debate.
I'll let you have the last word as I'm going to be quite busy over theAh, so you'll be helping put all the pubs out of business. I hope you
next 2 weeks adding 2+2 together, so that hard working businessmen and
women can pay the taxes the Govt requires from them, as I'll only be
dipping in on the odd occasion, should I feel the need.
On 16/01/2026 15:45, John wrote:
How highly disingenuous of you. I would appreciate it if you could
pinpoint where I said that
Certainly. 15/01/2026 13:34
On 16/01/2026 15:45, John wrote:
How highly disingenuous of you. I would appreciate it if you could
pinpoint where I said that
Certainly. 15/01/2026 13:34
GB
"The real question is what to do with these people. Let's rule out
anything homicidal, please!"
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 18:17:54 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (21,017K bytes) |
| Messages: | 193,694 |