Far-right protests

[AlterEgo]

Indeed. Precisely my point. We can't absorb that number, and are indeed "stuffed" as you put it.

We can. We are choosing not to.

 

[bspahh]

But we don't live in a small flat. The United Kingdom has about 70 million people in it and we get about 80,000 claims for asylum a year. Something like 0.001% of the population.

The UK population was 67.6 million in 2022. In 2023 there were 67,337 applications for asylum which is 0.0996%

 

[najaB]

Indeed. Precisely my point. We can't absorb that number, and are indeed "stuffed" as you put it.

We can. For one thing, there's something on the order of a million empty homes in the UK.

 

[SuspectUsual]

The biggest issue we currently face is the absence of a returns agreement with France / the EU. We had one when we were in the EU. Why don’t we have one now? Because the Tory government chose not to negotiate one as part of our exit.

The operators of the small boats know this, and so do people hoping to come to the UK.

So whilst it’s true that there is a huge and growing backlog in processing asylum claims, the problem behind that is surely how do we then deal with those whose claims are rejected.

 

[nw1]

The "small flat" in my analogy is the UK. We are a small country. Just like the small flat doesn't have the capacity to accommodate an unexpected large crowd of people, nor too do we. We can't even support our own citizens at the moment, never mind other country's citizens.

Except a small flat might have 1-3 people, and you were talking of 30 people turning up, i.e. between 10 and 30 times the population of the small flat.

So are you talking of something like between approximately 700 million and 2.1 billion asylum seekers turning up?

So it's not at all analagous. It's fear-mongering hyperbole.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

Indeed. Precisely my point. We can't absorb that number, and are indeed "stuffed" as you put it.

About 100,000 asylum seekers for a 70 million population.

So knock off five zeros and we end up with one asylum seeker per 700 people. For every 700 people there are now 701. Big deal. Scarcely worth getting stressed about!

I do often find that anti-immigration alarmists don't really understand the concepts of ratio or proportion.

 

[Haywain]

The UK population was 67.6 million in 2022. In 2023 there were 67,337 applications for asylum which is 0.0996%

Missing a zero there, should be 0.00996% (or 0.01% rounded up).

 

[Merle Haggard]

Missing a zero there, should be 0.00996% (or 0.01% rounded up).

There seems to be some doubtful percentage calculations quoted in this thread. 67,000 as a proportion of 67,000,000 is the same as 1000 as a proportion of 1,000,000 (having divided by 67). That's the same as 1 in 1000 (dividing by 1,000) 1 in 1000 is a tenth of a percent, 0.1%.

 

[bspahh]

There seems to be some doubtful percentage calculations quoted in this thread. 67,000 as a proportion of 67,000,000 is the same as 1000 as a proportion of 1,000,000 (having divided by 67). That's the same as 1 in 1000 (dividing by 1,000) 1 in 1000 is a tenth of a percent, 0.1%.

I just wrote almost exactly the same reply

 

[Haywain]

There seems to be some doubtful percentage calculations quoted in this thread. 67,000 as a proportion of 67,000,000 is the same as 1000 as a proportion of 1,000,000 (having divided by 67). That's the same as 1 in 1000 (dividing by 1,000) 1 in 1000 is a tenth of a percent, 0.1%.

What can I say? There's something embarrassingly amiss with my mental arithmetic this evening!

 

[SteveP29]

The "small flat" in my analogy is the UK. We are a small country. Just like the small flat doesn't have the capacity to accommodate an unexpected large crowd of people, nor too do we. We can't even support our own citizens at the moment, never mind other country's citizens.

The percentage of people coming into the country, using your analogy, is like an ear, that's it, an ear.
Not 30 full bodies.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Interesting bit of data in the attached graphic, showing the difference between the proportion of people who feel an issue affects them directly, and the proportion feeling it affects the country as a whole. One of them sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb

 

[AlterEgo]

Interesting bit of data in the attached graphic, showing the difference between the proportion of people who feel an issue affects them directly, and the proportion feeling it affects the country as a whole. One of them sticks out like the proverbial sore thumb

Only 4% feeling poverty and inequality affect them raises questions about the methodology.

 

[DarloRich]

Only 4% feeling poverty and inequality affect them raises questions about the methodology.

I'm all right jack!

It is amazing the number of people who are unable or unwilling to recognise how much thier "prosperity" is built on sand (aka debt) and how easily and quickly that can change.

I wonder what savings levels are like for most people................

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Oct 2024 ==

We can't even support our own citizens at the moment

It isn't a case of cant. We voted for governments who have chosen not to support our own citizens.

We can't absorb that number, and are indeed "stuffed" as you put it.

We can absorb that number. Once again: We voted for governments who have chosen to create this situation.

 

[Harpo]

Spot on @DarloRich.

We are a nation that wants 'the penny and the bun' and have been badly served by snake oil salesmen telling us that Brexit and more would give us both.

The failure to deliver higher standards of living, infrastructure and support services (schools, health etc.) fuelled a blame game from the very heart of government, something which continues in the Tory leadership race.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

It isn't a case of cant. We voted for governments who have chosen not to support our own citizens.

Entirely agree with you!

 

[SuspectUsual]

Only 4% feeling poverty and inequality affect them raises questions about the methodology.

As a rough piece of context 4.6% of the population used a food bank in 2023 so I don’t know that’s its miles out

My point was more about the range between “affects me” and “affects the country” being so much wider for immigration than for anything else

 

[ainsworth74]

I'm all right jack!

It is amazing the number of people who are unable or unwilling to recognise how much thier "prosperity" is built on sand (aka debt) and how easily and quickly that can change.

I wonder what savings levels are like for most people................

I think there's definitely an element of that and to your question about savings the Resolution Foundation published a report at the start of the year suggesting that around a third of working age families (increasing to half of those on a low income) have less than £1,000 in savings and less than half of working age families have savings worth at least three months of their usual income:

The report finds that one-in-three working age families – rising to almost half of low-income families – don’t have basic level ‘rainy day’ savings of at least £1,000. This was exposed during the cost of living crisis, as families with low savings were more than twice as likely to have used credit cards, overdrafts, or borrowed money from formal lenders in order to meet daily expenses compared to those with more than £1,000 of savings.

However, while modest savings of £1,000 can help with unexpected costs such as broken fridges and car repairs, larger savings are needed to cope with bigger life events such as unemployment or family breakdown. The report notes that far too few families have these larger savings either – less than half of working age families have savings worth at least three months of income.

As a result, Britain has a £74 billion savings shortfall versus a country in which every working age family has at least three month’s income in precautionary savings.

Families need help in rising to the ‘triple savings challenge’ of saving more for rainy days, bigger life events and retirement • Resolution Foundation

www.resolutionfoundation.org

But I think the other thing at play here is perhaps people's perceptions of what is impacting on them. The question asked in that survey is "what do you see as the most important issue facing Britain and you personally". I suspect that poverty and inequality score lowly for personal impact because people don't necessarily see that the things that they are scoring higher (such as healthcare, prices/inflation, or housing) are directly impacted by poverty and inequality. If you're in poverty (or on the cusp of) you're going to feel the impacts of prices and inflation harder than someone who isn't, the quality of your accommodation is going to be lower, statistically your health is going to be worse.

So you may well consider those things to be more important to you personally even though, in reality, the real factor is poverty driving all those things that you're struggling with!

 

[DarloRich]

Tory politician's wife jailed for race hate post: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo

The wife of a Conservative councillor has been jailed for 31 months after calling for hotels housing asylum seekers to be set on fire.

Lucy Connolly, whose husband Raymond serves on West Northamptonshire Council, posted the expletive-ridden message on X, formerly known as Twitter, on the day three girls were killed in Southport.

The 41-year-old childminder called for "mass deportation now" and added: "If that makes me racist, so be it."

 

[railwalker]

Tory politician's wife jailed for race hate post: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3wkzgpjxvo

Whilst on the face of it the sentence may seem harsh, it has to be remembered that part of any justice system is to act as a deterrent to others.

 

[AlterEgo]

Doesn't seem harsh for direct, deliberate incitement of an event which did eventually transpire in someone committing arson with intent to endanger life.

 

[1D54]

Doesn't seem harsh for direct, deliberate incitement of an event which did eventually transpire in someone committing arson with intent to endanger life.

Are you saying the two are linked? I highly doubt it.

It was a ridiculous tweet but it was taken down and she apologised. She was rightly charged but 31 months for someone who has no previous convictions and has recently lost a child is way over the top.

 

[bspahh]

The sentencing remarks from the judge say:

11. I have to apply the Sentencing Council Guidelines for this offence.
12. In relation to your culpability this is clearly a category A case – as both prosecution and your counsel agree, because you intended to incite serious violence.
13. In relation to harm it is again agreed, correctly, that what you did encouraged activity which threatened or endangered life and therefore falls within category 1. There is also further relevant factor in relation to harm in that you sought, and achieved, widespread dissemination of your statement by posting it on social media.
14. The starting point after a trial is therefore one of 3 years imprisonment.
15. There is a further significant aggravating factor namely, the timing of the publication when there was obviously a particularly sensitive social climate. It would be difficult to think of a more sensitive such time than during the evening of the 29th July of this year.
16. All of those factors would require a significant increase in the sentence beyond the starting point.
17. As to mitigation. You are now 41 years of age. It is clearly a mitigating factor that you have no previous convictions. I have also read the character references on your behalf from those who know you. They speak of a caring person including those for whom you acted as a child minder for their children. You have a good family and a young daughter who is undoubtedly missing you terribly. I also take into account that this will be the first time you have been in prison and present circumstances.
18. In relation to the offence I have regard to the fact that although it was widely read, you did not repeat any such statement and in due course deleted it and you sent some messages to the effect that violence was not the answer.
19. You have had tragedy in your own life with the loss of your very young child some years ago. I have read the psychiatric report from some twelve years ago as to the psychiatric difficulties you then suffered.
20. I accept that you still very keenly feel that loss.
21. There is no recent psychiatric evidence and whilst you may well have understood the grief of those who suffered their own tragic losses in Southport you did not send a message of understanding and comfort but rather an incitement to hatred. There is no evidence of any mental disorder having any material affect on you committing this offence.
22. Similarly whilst I accept you regret your actions and I have been referred to messages in which you say that you disagree with racism and violence, it is clear from the evidence of your own words in the days following your actions, what you said to the police and what you said to the probation officer that you have little insight into, or acceptance of, your actions.
23. I have to balance all of those factors.
24. The minimum sentence after a trial would have been three and a half years imprisonment.
25. You pleaded guilty at the Plea and Case Management hearing and you are therefore entitled to a reduction in that sentence of twenty five percent.
26. The sentence on count 1 therefore is one of 31 months imprisonment. You will serve forty percent of that sentence. When you are released you will remain on license for the balance of the sentence and if you fail to accord with the terms of the license or commit any further offence you can be returned to serve the balance of the sentence.
27.I make a deprivation order in relation to the digital device seized.
28. The victim impact surcharge will apply

 

[alex397]

It was a ridiculous tweet but it was taken down and she apologised. She was rightly charged but 31 months for someone who has no previous convictions and has recently lost a child is way over the top.

I don’t think it’s over the top at all. Especially considering her later comments after the original tweet, showing no remorse and joking about it. That shows it wasn’t just said in the heat of the moment. She had no choice but to remove it and ‘apologise’.
It’s about time there was a crackdown on vile hate speech. People think there is ‘freedom of speech’ without realising that hate speech is illegal. Constant exposure to hate speech, such as the messages I often see on my local Facebook residents group, gives impressionable minds the idea that a certain group of people are a problem and they shouldn’t be here. History should teach us that’s not a particularly good thing….

Every time a certain type of person is suspected of or convicted of a serious crime, it’s almost guaranteed to be followed by comments such as ‘send them back’, ‘get them out’, ‘stop the boats’, ‘not surprised’ etc. These comments arn’t just from the odd loony who can be ignored, but are depressingly common.

 

[1D54]

I buy everything you say but I'm struggling to understand why a woman who is doubtless respected in her local community should suddenly come out with such vile trash.

Totally understand the comments by the judge kindly posted bspahh but something just doesn't make sense to me. There was surely a better defence to what she did than what her team put before he court.

Maybe she will appeal sentence, i hope she does and is successful. It just doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Haywain]

There was surely a better defence to what she did than what her team put before he court.

A better defence than a guilty plea?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2024 ==

Maybe she will appeal sentence, i hope she does and is successful. It just doesn't sit right with me.

The only grounds for appeal would be on the severity of the sentence and it appears that the sentencing guidelines have been followed correctly. As for how it sits with you, and the "free speechers" on social media, isn't of any importance.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2024 ==

And, to clarify, she will be serving 12 months or so in prison and that includes time on remand since early August. The rest of the sentence will be on licence unless she misbehaves again.

 

[1D54]

Oh, I'm not defending the rubbish that is posted by people on social media under the banner of the 'free speachers' but the government are bang in the middle of this because of comments made by the Starmer in the immediate aftermath of all the trouble. A vast majority deserved all they got, this woman did not!

 

[railwalker]

Oh, I'm not defending the rubbish that is posted by people on social media under the banner of the 'free speachers' but the government are bang in the middle of this because of comments made by the Starmer in the immediate aftermath of all the trouble. A vast majority deserved all they got, this woman did not!

In your opinion. clearly the courts felt differently.

 

[AM9]

Oh, I'm not defending the rubbish that is posted by people on social media under the banner of the 'free speachers' but the government are bang in the middle of this because of comments made by the Starmer in the immediate aftermath of all the trouble. A vast majority deserved all they got, this woman did not!

In your opinion.

 

[bspahh]

In your opinion. clearly the courts felt differently.

The courts implement the law. She pleaded guilty, and her lawyers accepted it was a category A case.

I'm not a lawyer, this document is from a 2018 consultation public order offences. It might not describes the precise rules that were used, but it gives an idea of the issues that were covered. The bold highlights are from the original document, not me.

The "Intention to incite serious violence" looks like it was a key factor.
This is from page 49 of the PDF file.

Section seven:

Racial hatred offences and hatred against persons on religious grounds or grounds of sexual orientation

There are a number of other hate crime offences provided for by the Public Order Act.

Part 3 of the Public Order Act prohibits activities intended or likely to stir up racial hatred. Part 3A of the Act prohibits activities based on hatred against persons on religious grounds or grounds of sexual orientation. The legislation prohibits a range of activity including: use of words or behaviour or display of written material; publishing or distributing written material; public performance of play; distributing, showing or playing a recording; broadcasting or including in a programme service; and possession of racially inflammatory material where the offender intends to stir up racial hatred, and in some cases having regard to all the circumstances, racial hatred is likely to be stirred up. All offences carry a 7 year statutory maximum sentence.

The essence of each offence is the intention to stir up hatred. However, the offences contain an important distinction in that the racial hatred offences can include use of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, while the offences relating to hatred against persons on religious grounds or grounds of sexual orientation provide for threatening words or behaviour only, and do not extend to activity which is abusive or insulting.

It is proposed that one guideline could sufficiently capture all types of hatred offences. Although racial hatred activity can be broader and include abusive or insulting elements, the mischief of all offences is the incitement of hatred and potential harmful activity then being directed at particular groups.

Volumes of these offences are extremely low and there have been no offenders sentenced for some offences. However, given the recent social climate and an enhanced focus on this type of offending, the Council considers it would be useful for sentencers to be equipped with guidance on sentencing these offences.

STEP ONE The first step of the guideline is to consider the culpability level of the offender and the harm caused by the offence by the assessment of a series of factors.

The court should determine the offence category with reference only to the factors listed in the tables below. In order to determine the category the court should assess culpability and harm.

Culpability demonstrated by one or more of the following:
A – High culpability

• Offender in position of trust, authority or influence and abuses their position to stir up hatred
• Intention to incite serious violence
• Persistent activity

B – Medium culpability

• Other cases falling between categories A and C

C – Lesser culpability

• Reckless as to whether hatred would be stirred up

High culpability
The factors proposed were identified as factors increasing seriousness of offences in the limited numbers of cases available for analysis. Among the cases analysed there were a number of ‘hate speech’ type offences, where inflammatory speeches were given by influential figures with the intention of stirring up racial hatred. Other cases involved publication on YouTube of content inciting serious violence towards particular racial or religious groups, websites being published including abusive and insulting content, with some activity continuing over a long period of time and intended to reach global audiences. The Council considers that activities of the type listed represent the highest level of culpability for these offences, as they demonstrate a serious intention to stir up hatred towards particular groups.
Medium culpability This category is intended to capture cases where culpability falls between a serious intention and reckless behaviour.
Low culpability This factor provides for those who may have been reckless as to stirring up hatred. While no cases involving such activity were identified, an example of such a case may be the reckless sharing and adding commentary to a social media post directing threats towards particular groups.

 

[Harpo]

Punishment addresses the individual’s actions and provides deterrence to the wider public. Hopefully those who consider Ms Connolly’s sentence harsh have absorbed the latter.