/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2402871
Previous thread:
>>2391946

hope you've all got your porn loisences ready for when Ofcom get /leftypol/.

>>2402484
BadUK mods largely control the UK subs and started banning most the Corbyn types (including myself, you should have seen the seethe when I messaged the mods personal accounts and asked why the fuck I was banned when I broke no rules lmao), most left the UK subs and retreated into the anarkiddie woke cult that is GreenandPleasant and got brainwashed by the Tumblrite pixie faggot retards there so are even more unwelcome on the rest of the normie UK spaces.
I honestly love the Corbyn derangement syndrome. I remember some retards saying to me "Corbyn is the most narcissistic person in politics" like, lmfao, another classic rUKpol type is that "Corbyn never compromised" when all Corbyn did was fucking compromise with the Labour Right to his detriment.

200k, it will go higher

>>2401657
Biggest issue is most aren't asylum seekers, just economic migrants.
I remember reading about some guy that was held with ""Asylum seekers"" for some other immigration issue, and he said they just straight up told him the reason they come is largely it's just the thing to do in their villages and towns and that it's "boring" back home and he should also lie and "claim Asylum" despite the guy they were telling this too was I think Canadian or Australian from memory.
Another thing is, yep, no cultural integration, but a point that you touched on is something I've always wondered
How in fuck are they doing the delivery jobs and Uber? Like, how in fuck are they driving around on scooters and in cars, when by law, they wouldn't have a UK license for a fucking year minimum, and with how hard it is to get driving test booked, likely year and a half. Do cops never fucking pull these people over or anything? It's CLEAR they are illegally driving.
Another point is that notice how high streets are all being taken over by these bullshit businesses? The reason noone can compete against them is say, some Indian or Pakistani or African landlord, basically buys up the entire complex, then they use the businesses to tax dodge. They don't really pay income tax, they don't pay VAT (dispite actually often having high turnover for especially off licenses), they don't pay business rates and are staffed with illegal migrants and ""refugees"" so nobody else can compete. "But but HMRC" UK Government is genuinely two tier. They know the only people who give a fuck about the law are white people, so that is who they target. The average thirdie migrant or black person or whatever won't even show up to court, nor has any assets or even real home address to fine.
Also just in general, terrible investigations anyway. The investigation for benefits fraud is that they check your main bank account for any purchases over like 10k then ask you what it's for and that's it. That's why you only have a 0.7% fraud rate despite when I lived (in an illegally sublet HMO council flat) I would say probably a good 40% of people in that estate were brazenly defrauding the system. Anyone on benefits who is engaging in fraud is using non-regulated financial apps to hide their money or cash and are hiding assets in extended family (or another persons) name. I knew literal landlords who were in council housing lmao. "Report them" did and nothing was done because their "investigation" is just check their main bank account and that's that.

Wes Streeting giving an interview in today's issue of the Daily Heil screeching about his hatred for striking workers.
Just more of the new normal for Starmer's Labour. Reminder that the half of the country voting Reform would still call him a "lefty lunatic" or some such.

>voting Reform would still call him a "lefty lunatic" or some such.
Yep. Reform voters live in a completely different reality.

>>2402989
>Biggest issue is most aren't asylum seekers, just economic migrants.
economic migrants are most asylum seekers - the boat people claim asylum in the UK; thats how they get gibs. the other portion of asylum seekers are refugees, which make up the minority of applicants.
>Do cops never fucking pull these people over or anything?
they do sometimes, but very rarely.
>It's CLEAR they are illegally driving.
the police force dont care about the law. they care about shutting you up as we delve deeper into a dysfunctional police state. they will tase a 90-year-old amputee for hold up a butter knife; they will call you a terrorist for holding a cardboard sign; they will turn you away if you tell them youve been raped; they will arrest you and invade your home for tweets - but they wont actually solve crime. they are cowards and bullies. i would suggest you look up the phenomenon of "anarcho-tyranny" described by samuel francis - the state needs crime to oppress law-abiding citizens. thats why in the US they ban guns for the average joe, yet gun ownership among criminals doesnt decrease. members of the public in the UK cant have knives yet youfs have machetes. funny that, innit?
>Another point is that notice how high streets are all being taken over by these bullshit businesses?
a lot of it is money laundering; thats why its cash only.
>I knew literal landlords who were in council housing lmao.
you are a winner in this society if you break the rules.

>>2402995
labour is to the far right of reform
thats the greatest irony

reminder that asylum seeker is a meme category invented to deprive refugees of their rights as refugees by refusing to classify them as refugees until they can be deported.

reminder that british jews should be expelled from all aspects of political and economic life.

>>2403004
blame cromwell; he let them back in

If you could apply for asylum without being physically present in Britain (which you used to be able to do) you wouldn't have any boat people.
It's our insistence on a kafkaesque system (entering Britain illegally will be counted against your application, but the only practical way to lodge an application if you're not from Ukraine or Hong Kong is to enter the UK illegally) that leads to all the issues. Allow people to apply in their own countries and if you want, you can even reject most of the applications and the problem will go away. And hey, if it doesn't, you've actually got them bang to rights on not going through the proper procedure, because the procedure is now merely harsh rather than outright absurdist.

See, I can tolerate cruelty of a dry, bureaucratic sort, so long as all the procedures really do make sense, so long as their absurdity is logically coherent. It's the right-wing's libidinal enjoyment of cruelty that I can't abide. I don't want crackdowns and deportations on the streets of Britain. I'd rather have the refugees. If you don't want refugees, get rid of them with signed forms full of legalese postmarked far far away.

>>2403012
the boat people come from france, which is categorised as a safe country. french officials push migrants out of their own country into the UK, which violates their own obligation set by the EU. if one is truly a refugee, then they wouldnt need to come to the UK. that is the most basic argument. if a boat person comes from france, should they be granted legal atay in the UK? its a yes or no question. i say no.

>>2403012
>>2403016
also, boat people make up ~10% (10,000) of applicants per year, so the rest cone in by other means. this is not a necessary path for them.

>>2403010
I think they would've wormed their way back in regardless tbh but it's true that readmitting them was probably the worst thing Cromwell did.

>>2403016
I'm afraid it's a retarded argument. Let's say I'm Australian. Australia and New Zealand go to war. Are you really telling me that I should flee to Indonesia, where I've got no friends or family or language ability, rather than going to Britain, where I've got all of those things?

I mean, I will be quite blunt about this: I will abide cruelty, but I cannot abide stupidity, and this is stupid. You can reject my argument that people have a good reason to choose Britain (it's certainly not for the quality of life over France, lol), but the fact it occurred to me in a fraction of a second as an obvious counter-argument is why I cannot swallow making "if you came from France, no." our policy. I could, however, swallow drawing up a set of criteria, or perhaps even an arbitrary target number (you could even make a whole fake model justifying that number as our "capacity" to take refugees, ooh…) and applying it consistently. Smart, boring cruelty is nice and easy to ignore. Stupid cruelty? Fuck that, I'll just be kind.

>>2402998
>labour is to the far right of reform
thats the greatest irony
I wouldn't go that far. Yes, Labour is very right wing, and probably shares many of the same beliefs as reform. But Reform voters are completely fixated on ethnic-religious nationalism with regards to immigration above all else.

>>2403021
if you live in australia, you can get a plane over to the UK, like many asylum seekers already do. you are not understanding the situation. there are many asylum seekers who have passports and enter and apply by legal means - then theres others (who smuggle themselves in, or come by boat), who do so illegally. it is illegal to cross into a country without permission. this is why we have so much security in airports, no?

i am saying that at the very least, dont break the law, but to you, this is asking far too much. and you think this is about friends and family? surely if we stopped benefits for asylum seekers, they would still make the trip to the UK then, right? empirically, removing benefits disincentivises asylum seeking in the UK, as we see in 2003 with tony blair's cuts. this then proves that *at least* 50% (50,000/year) come for the gibs. you have no facts, no stats, only hearty rhetoric.
>i'll be kind
here's a conundrum. lets say an asylum seeker rapes a woman in the UK. what would be the kind solution to this? i would say that by the standards of fairness, they should be deported for entirely disrespecting law, custom and human dignity. your perspective?

>>2403025
reform voters are more right-wing
but reform itself is moderate
thats why there is so much dissatisfaction with farage

oh jeremy corvyd

>>2403026
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a747ee940f0b604dd7ae602/applicationsfromabroad.pdf
>As a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, the UK fully considers all asylum applications lodged in the UK. However, the UK’s international obligations under the Convention do not extend to the consideration of asylum applications lodged abroad and there is no provision in our Immigration Rules for someone abroad to be given permission to travel to the UK to seek asylum. The policy guidance on the discretionary referral to the UK Border Agency of applications for asylum by individuals in a third country who have not been recognised as refugees by another country or by the UNHCR under its mandate, has been withdrawn. No applications will be considered by a UK visa-issuing post or by the UK Border Agency pending a review of the policy and guidance.

There is not, in fact, a real abundance of people who enter by legal means for the purpose of seeking refuge. What there is is a mix of people who enter by unrelated means (say, a student or work visa) and then applying for refugee status, and people from Afghanistan and Ukraine (where special exceptions are made). Everyone else is basically required to enter the country illegally to lodge an application. Discarding their application because they broke a law which they had no choice but to break in order to lodge the application is, as I've said before, retarded.

Your numbers are broadly misleading for one simple reason: You talk about Blair's crackdowns, but not his wars. There's a big spike in the number of Iraqi refugees between 1999 and 2003 and a big spike in Afghan refugees between 1999 and 2001 (you might even remember that in 2000, some of them hijacked a plane to flee the Taliban. Nevertheless our government really wanted to deport them hijackers because ~tee-hee hijacking is a crime, it doesn't matter if you're fleeing the Taliban~ and of course, our national press were furious that they ultimately got to stay.) Now, we started bombing the Taliban in 2001 because they were - let's say - bad, and the number of Afghan refugees dutifully fell. The same effect occurs in Iraq in 2003.

Now obviously it's counterintuitive that the number of refugees falls when you start bombing a place (shouldn't they be fleeing the war?), but it's not that hard to explain: You can hardly get your student visa and fly to the UK and then claim Saddam is torturing you if Saddam's been hanged and your airport hasn't had a functioning runway since 2003, and the UK's hardly going to accept that you need refuge from the evils of British and American soldiers. The wars created a lot of refugees, sure, but they're not showing up here for obvious reasons.

>>2403040
>There is not, in fact, a real abundance of people who enter by legal means for the purpose of seeking refuge.
last year we had 100,000 asylum seekers
what percentage would you say entered the UK illegally?
>What there is is a mix of people who enter by unrelated means (say, a student or work visa) and then applying for refugee status
so… they entered legally? thanks for proving my point
>Discarding their application because they broke a law which they had no choice but to break
if they are in france, then they have refuge. they come to the UK for gibs. just say that they have a right to claim gibs in the UK and you dont have to lie anymore.
>You talk about Blair's crackdowns, but not his wars
look at the stats i posted. high refugee applicancy in 2001-2003, then a sudden drop-off. why? because blair stopped the gibs. as an experiment, if we stopped the gibs, do you think asylum seeking rates would fall?

also you failed to answer my question. after an asylum seeker (a foreign national) rapes a woman in the UK, what is the "kind" solution toward this waste of life?

There is nothing in wrong with poor people getting gibs, no one is illegal and rapists should be locked up and reeducated

>>2403045
who are you talking to? yourself?
>There is nothing in wrong with poor people getting gibs
should asylum seekers have the right to come to the UK for the sole purpose of claiming gibs?
>rapists should be locked up and reeducated
ideally, they would be hung, drawn and quartered. that would be the kindest thing to do.

>>2403043
See, when you reply like this you make it too obvious you're not engaging in good faith, you're looking for holes, and you're not even very good of it.
1. "entering the UK legally" means nothing if having the means to do so are luck based: What do you do if you're fleeing war and not eligible for a temporary student or work visa? There is no means to enter the country legally PURELY on the basis that you'd like to make use of your right to seek refuge. You cannot glibly side-step the absurdity of this policy with "oh, but we had 100,000 refugees!" - yeah, so fucking what. I've already said it's not about the numbers, it's about the obvious absurdity.
2. Why should an English speaking refugee with family in Britain live in France? I'm sorry: Fuck off, retard.
3. You don't understand the stats you've posted. You've grabbed a chart and gone "look, line go down, THE SUN ASKS AND BLAIR DELIVERS!" without knowing anything about the issue at hand. The number of people seeking asylum across all of Europe followed basically the same pattern as the Kosovo war drew down, and in the UK specifically there's a big drop in the number of Afghan refugees in 2001 and of Iraqi refugees in 2003 - tell me, if we didn't cut benefits until 2003 why did the number of Afghan applications start to fall in 2002? That correlates with the invasion of Afghanistan, not with Blairite reform.

The kind solution is to lock him in a room with you and tell him if he bums you we'll make him a lord.

>>2403034
Crowcialism.

>>2403049
Let us steal the shiny things crowmrade

WORDS THAT KILL…
WOULD YOU SPEAAAK THEM TO ME
WITH YOUR BREAAAATH SO STILL
IT MAAAAKES ME BELIEEEVE

>>2403048
>"entering the UK legally" means nothing
right.
>What do you do if you're fleeing war and not eligible for a temporary student or work visa?
you go to france, apparently. again, these people have successfully fled war; they just have one more stop to go before thet get a free hotel room.
>we had 100,000 refugees!" - yeah, so fucking what.
that means that the majority (50,000<) entered legally, so they are not illegal immigrants by their own choice. you are thus depriving agency from criminals as if they are children, just like the crooked judges who let the savages run amok, carrying knives and punching police officers with no consequence.
>Why should an English speaking refugee with family in Britain live in France?
if they have a family in britain, the family can fly them in, or get them through the channel tunnel.
>tell me, if we didn't cut benefits until 2003 why did the number of Afghan applications start to fall in 2002? That correlates with the invasion of Afghanistan, not with Blairite reform.
so what war has caused unprecedented numbers entering the UK since 2020? many thousand albanians have also come in. what war are they fleeing? just say that as foreign national they should have a right to british resources - its that easy.
>The kind solution is to lock him in a room with you and tell him if he bums you we'll make him a lord.
the truth is, mate, that you just dont care about this country or the safety of its people. youre literally too corrupt and cowardly to say that we should punish rapists. madness, mate.

>>2403053
You can look up reasons that people claim asylum in the UK you know. 'War' isn't the only reason people flee a nation. It can also involve religious or ethnic persecution, political persecution, etc. For example the leading nationality of asylum seekers is Pakistani citing extremist threat. Albanian refugees on the other hand are only a small proportion.

>>2403056
Also, the majority of said applicants get rejected. You have to *let* people *apply* for asylum. That's what the numbers you cite show. Applications. Not granted asylum.

>>2403047
>should asylum seekers have the right to come to the UK for the sole purpose of claiming gibs?
Yes
>ideally, they would be hung, drawn and quartered. that would be the kindest thing to do.
Murder and punishment fantasies are great at making you feel good but are useless at fixing problems. You'd prevent more rapes by combattng rape culture, patriarchy and (re)educating people but right wingers scoff at those ideas (they like dominating and raping women and children)

>>2403053
>if they have a family in britain, the family can fly them in, or get them through the channel tunnel.
I have bad news for you: This is something called a "crime", if you commit a "crime" you are "breaking the law".
>so what war has caused unprecedented numbers entering the UK since 2020?
On the one hand, Ukraine. (Who get special treatment. Have you ever wondered why?) On the other: You have missed my argument. You cannot read. In the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, Britain going to war reduced the inflow of refugees, since those countries are far away and since it was Britain waging the war.

Anyway, have fun:
https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/commentaries/albanian-asylum-seekers-in-the-uk-and-eu-a-look-at-recent-data/
>Albanian small boat arrivals fell dramatically in the last quarter of 2022 and the first quarter of 2023 after a peak in the summer of 2022.
>Less than half of Albanian asylum applications were accepted
>Of all the positive decisions on adult Albanians’ asylum applications (main applicants) in 2022, 88% were for women.
>Albanian men have an initial decision success rate that is well below that for all men, while Albanian women have a higher-than-average success rate (Figure 6). In 2022, 88% of initial decisions for adult women from Albania were positive, compared to 11% for men.

Anyone reckon this is our local welsh /pol/ack?
https://hopenothate.org.uk/2023/08/14/id-happily-shoot-every-single-one-of-the-bastards-pa-wales-activists-violent-fantasies-exposed/

>>2403058
>asylum seekers should get gibs
is there a limit to how many gibs?
>execution doesnt solve anything
destroying evil is a good in-itself.
>just tell people not to rape
most (british) people are not rapists, in case you didnt notice - and there are dispropotionate figures around rape as well, mainly from people who do actually come from patriarchal rape cultures, like pakistan, india and afghanistan. go and lecture them on their problems.
>>2403056
>'War' isn't the only reason people flee a nation
so not every boat person is fleeing war after all.
>>2403061
>its a crime to come to the UK
not if you have a passport.
>>2403065
welsh nationalists be like:
>hate the pakis
>hate the english
<love the EU
simple as.

>>2403065
Probably one of the "locals" in Epping rn.

>>2403051
That's Magpies, you revisionist.

>>2403052
Someone needs to make a Punished Venom Corbyn.

>illegal immigration isn't illegal if you have a passport
diagnosis: braindead

>>2403080
protestor or counter-protestor?
there were a lot of people bussed in that day

>>2403084
if you have a passport then travel to UK, you can apply for a visa, and then you can seek asylum:
>Apply for a visa if you want to come to the UK for another reason (for example to work, study or remain with family). If you’re already in the UK and want to remain with family living here, apply for a family of a settled person visa.
https://www.gov.uk/claim-asylum
this is indeed a legal mode of asylum seeking. travelling on a small boat is illegal immigration.

>>2403081
Crow is at times used for corvids more generally, and that's what the myth is, that corvids are attracted to shiny objects, not just magpies.
It comes from them being intensely curious.
The fact that i can live in a city but still be surrounded by green and have magpies land outside my windows is one of the few nice things about this cunttry btw.

>>2403087
You've parsed that wrong.
>Apply for a visa if you want to come to the UK for another reason (for example to work, study or remain with family). If you’re already in the UK and want to remain with family living here, apply for a family of a settled person visa.
This is for people who aren't refugees. This is telling them that you should not claim asylum just because you want to live in the UK, that the correct pathway is to apply for a work, study, or family visa. Getting a work, study, or family visa and then applying for refugee status when using it is a legal route of entry, but it excludes all of the people who aren't eligible for one of those three visas. Those people have no legal means of entering the country.

Good luck getting on a plane to Britain from a country without a visa waiver agreement (e.g. pretty much all the shit countries you'd seek asylum from) without proof that you've got a visa for your final destination.

>>2403094
>it excludes all of the people who aren't eligible for one of those three visas
your original claim was that the reason asylum seekers come to the UK in particular is because they have family here, so why would they be ineligible for the family visa? then you say that the mere act of flying to the UK is illegal, so they are forced to break the law (even though the majority of asylum seekers apply legally). more contradictions.
>Good luck getting on a plane to Britain from a country without a visa waiver agreement (e.g. pretty much all the shit countries you'd seek asylum from)
like france? the small boats are coming from france.

UK ban on Palestine Action at odds with international law, says UN rights chief
The UK government’s ban on Palestine Action limits the rights and freedoms of people in the UK and is at odds with international law, the UN human rights chief has said.
Volker Türk, the UN human rights commissioner, said ministers’ decision to designate the group a terrorist organisation was “disproportionate and unnecessary” and called on them to rescind it.
In a statement on Friday, he said the ban amounted to an “impermissible restriction” of people’s rights to freedom of expression and assembly that was “at odds with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law”.
He added that the decision restricted the rights of people involved with Palestine Action “who have not themselves engaged in any underlying criminal activity but rather exercised their rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association”.

Maybe Murdoch owned media is actually wrong about immigration and immigrants have you thought about that?

>>2403105
talking to yourself again?

>>2403104
the UN allow israel to commit genocide. they do not enforce justice anywhere.

>>2403097
Family visa is narrow and doesn't apply to brothers/sisters/cousins. Most applications are legal because a lot of people are eligible for one of those 3 visas, but it remains a joke that people who'd have a perfectly valid asylum claim cannot lodge it without breaking the law.

>>2403052
"We pull in money, recruits, just to combat Labour. Rubbing our noses in bloody political dirt, all for revenge."

Jeremy Corbyn called a "bloody k*ke" while i was on my way to buy some pastries at Gregg. He didnt even dare to look at me in the eyes.

>>2403105
Unless the Murdoc media somehow made them act like no normal person would in front of my own eyes, I think I'll trust my own instincts.

It's hilarous how the RCP larped as epic 1917 revolutionaries for a couple years, only for them to come running back to their bourgeois masters slathering once the left wing of capital lets them back into the new social-democrat party.

221 MPs demanding Keir recognise Palestine, after Macron said France will recognise Palestine.
Will he finally do it?

>>2403672
nope.

P R O S C R I B E D O R G A N I S A T I O N !

>>2403639
The funniest bit is joining whatever this New Party turns out to be, and still calling themselves the "Revolutionary Communist Party".

What do you think of the online safety act?

>>2402996
>the state needs crime to oppress law-abiding citizens. thats why in the US they ban guns for the average joe, yet gun ownership among criminals doesnt decrease. members of the public in the UK cant have knives yet youfs have machetes. funny that, innit?
Yeah, this is definitely a good point and sadly matches my (though personal) experiences. Cops love hitting easy targets which means, generally law abiding, civic citizens, with largely nitpicking, while ignoring all the brazen open crime from certain demographics.
I always have said, I've been witness to such brazen, open, organized crime, it's wild police largely don't seem to give a shit about extremely obvious stuff if it comes from open Lumpens.
>a lot of it is money laundering; thats why its cash only.
A lot is, but apparently they do pretty high turnover as well, one of the main reasons for cash is to keep money off the boots so they don't hit 90k reported income and have to pay VAT. In a London investigation I read recently, the several they investigated had a turnover of around 600 quid per hour meaning.. yeah 90k is something they are hitting pretty fast.
This is why no one can compete, they are actually high profit (or money laundering) but paying no tax or business rates. This means legitimate businesses get forced out by landlords who basically just want a ciminal tax dodging front. Doesn't help the ethnic aspect where say, if Pakistani's take over a building, they will basically only lease out to Pakistani's etc.
>>2403104
The most annoying thing about the PA thing, is how all the centrists retards on reddit cheered it on, now all shocked pikachu face, and of course, pretending now nobody could have seen this coming, like this wasn't EXACTLY the same gameplan they had with the IHRA definition of Antisemitism which they used immediately to start lawfaring critics of Israel.

>>2403762
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
>>2404180
>it's wild police largely don't seem to give a shit
its not just apathy or malice; its cowardice. theyre all shitbags who need 10 of their mates to make one arrest. pack animals and crybabies. a lot of the lumpen act the same way as well, which further connects the police and criminal elements in their behaviour.
>A lot is, but apparently they do pretty high turnover as well
depends what business model youre talking about i suppose. indians and pakistanis are mercantile races, so put in the work to make a profit on re-selling wholesale purchases from costco in their corner shops. the indians have an advantage cos they can sell alcohol ofc. i was more talking about the barber shops or sweet shops or souvenir shops which never sell stock yet rent a commercial space for a long time.