Guardian reading, tofu eating wokerati

Malced said:
I support and cherish the right to peaceful protest.
But I don’t support people causing chaos.
There’s ways and means of effecting change. These people keep comparing themselves to the suffragettes. Well the suffragettes didn’t have the vote. These folk do. But instead they want to circumvent any form of democracy and impose their beliefs on others.
Most of them do indeed appear to be a breed of over privileged toffs - or at least their spokespersons do.
Quite frankly I do understand their causes but I don’t agree with how they’re going about it. Nor do I agree with their rank hypocrisy in that they want to stop pollution yet they want to hold onto their modern day polluting items such as their iPhones.
I like straight talking politicians and I like suella braverman or whatever her name is. She connects with the public more so than many others will ever be able to do eg Starmer and Truss - who both appear as dull as dishwater and merely espouse the usual expected political platitudes with all the charisma of a punch drunk slug.
Click to expand...
Another post that’s aged well.
 
She sent an official document from her personal email account on migration, which is an infringement of ministerial code. Actually quite like her, she says it as it is and is honest, fairly refreshing for a politician
 
Malced said:
It's aged absolutely fine thanks. I said I like her for her straight-talking and her personality. Nothing has changed with respect to my post. So what's your point?
Click to expand...
I was just a bit concerned about you. Good to hear you’re ok 👍

Trammo is worryingly quiet though.
 
Malced said:
It's aged absolutely fine thanks. I said I like her for her straight-talking and her personality. Nothing has changed with respect to my post. So what's your point?
Click to expand...
I can think of other straight talking, charismatic leaders from history. Your posts do make wonder if you’d be a fan of theirs too…
 
TheRealKingKenny said:
I can think of other straight talking, charismatic leaders from history. Your posts do make wonder if you’d be a fan of theirs too…
Click to expand...

say who and say what posts and say why or do the silly sniping. or in other words, put up or shut up. i said i like straight talking not veiled comments with no substance. I'm all ears.
 
Malced said:
say who and say what posts and say why or do the silly sniping. or in other words, put up or shut up. i said i like straight talking not veiled comments with no substance. I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
Hush now. Don’t get yourself in a tizz just before KO.

That’s what the footy is supposed to do.
 
Malced said:
say who and say what posts and say why or do the silly sniping. or in other words, put up or shut up. i said i like straight talking not veiled comments with no substance. I'm all ears.
Click to expand...
I don’t think I need to.
 
Malced said:
thought not
Click to expand...
Ok, I couldn’t be bothered as the game was about to start but I’m happy to speak frankly.

In this thread alone you are talk about liking politicians with charisma, you like Suella Braverman’s personality and straight talking despite her policies, you have defended deporting immigrants to Rwanda (a country with a very questionable human rights record) and describe immigrants as Albanian criminals.

That’s just this thread, there’s been other things that have helped me form the opinion that you’d probably have extreme views in any part of history, that you would be happy to dehumanise people and be influenced by a cult of personality. As far an individuals go, read the above and take your pick, there’s plenty and they always seem to get support, my guess would be from people like you.

You also mentioned everyone is entitled to an opinion, this is an opinion formed by your posts, it’s nothing personal. If you don’t want people forming opinions on your posts then it’s up to you to think about what impression your posts give.
 
TheRealKingKenny said:
Ok, I couldn’t be bothered as the game was about to start but I’m happy to speak frankly.

In this thread alone you are talk about liking politicians with charisma, you like Suella Braverman’s personality and straight talking despite her policies, you have defended deporting immigrants to Rwanda (a country with a very questionable human rights record) and describe immigrants as Albanian criminals.

That’s just this thread, there’s been other things that have helped me form the opinion that you’d probably have extreme views in any part of history, that you would be happy to dehumanise people and be influenced by a cult of personality. As far an individuals go, read the above and take your pick, there’s plenty and they always seem to get support, my guess would be from people like you.

You also mentioned everyone is entitled to an opinion, this is an opinion formed by your posts, it’s nothing personal. If you don’t want people forming opinions on your posts then it’s up to you to think about what impression your posts give.
Click to expand...
Firstly, I'm absolutely fine with debating opinions. I don't try to force my opinions on anyone but I speak openly and honestly. I don't expect or want anyone else to agree with my views, but through experience on here, I have found some agree and some don't. It's a mixed bag, as one would expect when talking about mainly political matters. I welcome your comments because at least it's something tangible, in parts at least, which I can respond to, rather than what could appear to be brief snide comments.

You've still not been transparent around these mysterious 'from history' individuals I'm supposed to have some affinity with. Why can't you stand behind your comments and be explicit? We're all adults here. I've no idea who you're referring to. So please be open and forthcoming and say what you mean rather than talk in riddles. Is that too much to ask?

So what's the awful things I've said according to you?
Well you say 'I like politicians with charisma'. Ok err is that a bad thing? Don't most prefer politicians with charisma? Tony Blair has charisma which helped him sweep into power with a huge majority. So did Boris Johnson. Like it or not, politicians that have have charisma are usually more successful at the ballot box.
I don't agree with Suella Braverman on everything nor do I even know too much about her. What I've noticed is someone that's burst onto the scene and I've stated that I like how she communicates - straight talking and blunt. I wrote earlier that she appears to connect with the public. Surely that's a good asset for a politician to have. How many politicians talk in riddles and don't actually say anything meaningful? It's refreshing to see politicians that are straight-talking yet you seem to condemn me for liking that, and compare me to some unidentified historical person.

With regards to the Government's policy on immigration, I've said I think the Rwanda strategy needs to be given a chance to see if it can prove to be a disincentive to illegal immigration. It's a policy of the Government though a controversial one. Does being supportive of a Government policy make me some extremist/fascist and someone who idolises this unidentified historical despot? If that's what you surmise then I'd suggest it's your judgement which is extreme and completely wide of the mark. Perhaps that's because its actually based on very little other than a few posts on avftt and your unconscious bias.

With regards to my comment on immigrants being Albanian criminals, I didn't say that at all. You are fast and loose with how you misrepresent my comments. I said Albanian immigrants were going straight into Albanian criminal gangs. That's actually what's happening. When I said 'most' I'll admit I've not checked the stats. On reflection I should have said 'many. But I absolutely stand behind that comment. This is widely reported, disproportionate and huge problem. Albania is a safe and prosperous country. Yet there are organised criminal networks selling young folk a lie. They charge them thousands of euros/pounds to take the risky boat crossings only to be exploited in the UK and forced into criminality to pay off their smuggling costs etc. I don't see why wanting this to be stopped is so frowned upon or so extreme.

So in summary you've formed a view that I would be a supporter of some as yet unnamed historical straight-talker because I like Suella Braverman's communication style, I'm prepared to give the Rwanda immigration strategy a go, and I've highlighted a real and current issue with Albanian immigrants which by the way the press and the Home Office etc have highlighted themselves. Gosh you've got me bang to rights. I really am the incarnate of the unnamed unidentified mysterious historical figure.
 
Malced said:
Firstly, I'm absolutely fine with debating opinions. I don't try to force my opinions on anyone but I speak openly and honestly. I don't expect or want anyone else to agree with my views, but through experience on here, I have found some agree and some don't. It's a mixed bag, as one would expect when talking about mainly political matters. I welcome your comments because at least it's something tangible, in parts at least, which I can respond to, rather than what could appear to be brief snide comments.

You've still not been transparent around these mysterious 'from history' individuals I'm supposed to have some affinity with. Why can't you stand behind your comments and be explicit? We're all adults here. I've no idea who you're referring to. So please be open and forthcoming and say what you mean rather than talk in riddles. Is that too much to ask?

So what's the awful things I've said according to you?
Well you say 'I like politicians with charisma'. Ok err is that a bad thing? Don't most prefer politicians with charisma? Tony Blair has charisma which helped him sweep into power with a huge majority. So did Boris Johnson. Like it or not, politicians that have have charisma are usually more successful at the ballot box.
I don't agree with Suella Braverman on everything nor do I even know too much about her. What I've noticed is someone that's burst onto the scene and I've stated that I like how she communicates - straight talking and blunt. I wrote earlier that she appears to connect with the public. Surely that's a good asset for a politician to have. How many politicians talk in riddles and don't actually say anything meaningful? It's refreshing to see politicians that are straight-talking yet you seem to condemn me for liking that, and compare me to some unidentified historical person.

With regards to the Government's policy on immigration, I've said I think the Rwanda strategy needs to be given a chance to see if it can prove to be a disincentive to illegal immigration. It's a policy of the Government though a controversial one. Does being supportive of a Government policy make me some extremist/fascist and someone who idolises this unidentified historical despot? If that's what you surmise then I'd suggest it's your judgement which is extreme and completely wide of the mark. Perhaps that's because its actually based on very little other than a few posts on avftt and your unconscious bias.

With regards to my comment on immigrants being Albanian criminals, I didn't say that at all. You are fast and loose with how you misrepresent my comments. I said Albanian immigrants were going straight into Albanian criminal gangs. That's actually what's happening. When I said 'most' I'll admit I've not checked the stats. On reflection I should have said 'many. But I absolutely stand behind that comment. This is widely reported, disproportionate and huge problem. Albania is a safe and prosperous country. Yet there are organised criminal networks selling young folk a lie. They charge them thousands of euros/pounds to take the risky boat crossings only to be exploited in the UK and forced into criminality to pay off their smuggling costs etc. I don't see why wanting this to be stopped is so frowned upon or so extreme.

So in summary you've formed a view that I would be a supporter of some as yet unnamed historical straight-talker because I like Suella Braverman's communication style, I'm prepared to give the Rwanda immigration strategy a go, and I've highlighted a real and current issue with Albanian immigrants which by the way the press and the Home Office etc have highlighted themselves. Gosh you've got me bang to rights. I really am the incarnate of the unnamed unidentified mysterious historical figure.
Click to expand...
If Braverman connects with the public it says a lot about this country. She is a loud mouthed, uninformed (terrible Attorney General and totally unsuited) and seems to want to woo the typical sun reader by saying bizarre outlandish things to play to the lowest common demoninater. I'd like a tad better from people in such influential positions not a cheerleader for the Wetherspoon mob.
 
Malced said:
Firstly, I'm absolutely fine with debating opinions. I don't try to force my opinions on anyone but I speak openly and honestly. I don't expect or want anyone else to agree with my views, but through experience on here, I have found some agree and some don't. It's a mixed bag, as one would expect when talking about mainly political matters. I welcome your comments because at least it's something tangible, in parts at least, which I can respond to, rather than what could appear to be brief snide comments.

You've still not been transparent around these mysterious 'from history' individuals I'm supposed to have some affinity with. Why can't you stand behind your comments and be explicit? We're all adults here. I've no idea who you're referring to. So please be open and forthcoming and say what you mean rather than talk in riddles. Is that too much to ask?

So what's the awful things I've said according to you?
Well you say 'I like politicians with charisma'. Ok err is that a bad thing? Don't most prefer politicians with charisma? Tony Blair has charisma which helped him sweep into power with a huge majority. So did Boris Johnson. Like it or not, politicians that have have charisma are usually more successful at the ballot box.
I don't agree with Suella Braverman on everything nor do I even know too much about her. What I've noticed is someone that's burst onto the scene and I've stated that I like how she communicates - straight talking and blunt. I wrote earlier that she appears to connect with the public. Surely that's a good asset for a politician to have. How many politicians talk in riddles and don't actually say anything meaningful? It's refreshing to see politicians that are straight-talking yet you seem to condemn me for liking that, and compare me to some unidentified historical person.

With regards to the Government's policy on immigration, I've said I think the Rwanda strategy needs to be given a chance to see if it can prove to be a disincentive to illegal immigration. It's a policy of the Government though a controversial one. Does being supportive of a Government policy make me some extremist/fascist and someone who idolises this unidentified historical despot? If that's what you surmise then I'd suggest it's your judgement which is extreme and completely wide of the mark. Perhaps that's because its actually based on very little other than a few posts on avftt and your unconscious bias.

With regards to my comment on immigrants being Albanian criminals, I didn't say that at all. You are fast and loose with how you misrepresent my comments. I said Albanian immigrants were going straight into Albanian criminal gangs. That's actually what's happening. When I said 'most' I'll admit I've not checked the stats. On reflection I should have said 'many. But I absolutely stand behind that comment. This is widely reported, disproportionate and huge problem. Albania is a safe and prosperous country. Yet there are organised criminal networks selling young folk a lie. They charge them thousands of euros/pounds to take the risky boat crossings only to be exploited in the UK and forced into criminality to pay off their smuggling costs etc. I don't see why wanting this to be stopped is so frowned upon or so extreme.

So in summary you've formed a view that I would be a supporter of some as yet unnamed historical straight-talker because I like Suella Braverman's communication style, I'm prepared to give the Rwanda immigration strategy a go, and I've highlighted a real and current issue with Albanian immigrants which by the way the press and the Home Office etc have highlighted themselves. Gosh you've got me bang to rights. I really am the incarnate of the unnamed unidentified mysterious historical figure.
Click to expand...
Refer to my last post for answers to this post, it’s all there. I never spoke about an individual, I used plurality. My opinion remains the same and it’s an opinion formed by your words and your words alone.
 
TheRealKingKenny said:
Refer to my last post for answers to this post, it’s all there. I never spoke about an individual, I used plurality. My opinion remains the same and it’s an opinion formed by your words and your words alone.
Click to expand...
What's evident is that my request for you to be open and show clarity was indeed too much to ask. You prefer to stick with the vagueness and merely refer me to your previous non-answer.
I wasn't expecting you to come up with the historical figures you've got in your head, because I'm sure my liking of the communication style, and some policies, of a democratically elected MP, is in no way a read across to whatever weird, unfair, unfounded, extreme parallel you were trying to level against me.
 
TheRealKingKenny said:
I’m happy with my contribution and stand by it 👍🏻
Click to expand...

You’re happy with posting something publicly which only you know the real meaning of. Sort of negates the point of posting if you post and don’t actually state your point. 🤣

I strongly suspect the reason for the persistent vagueness is because you know your veiled inference was unfounded and couldn’t be justified. But hey, at least you know what’s what in your mind. You can convince yourself you’re right and not have to risk being challenged on that. Oh no - you wouldn’t want that. Could be uncomfortable and force you to have to justify your beliefs. Much safer to stay as vague as possible.

Like I’ve said, you’re entitled to your opinion and you’re entitled to keep that opinion as secret as you like. Unfortunately dialogue with you is like watching The Masked Singer. Will the mysterious historical figure be unmasked in the final episode? Probably not.
 
Malced said:
Unfortunately no such professional exists. 🤣

You’re getting a bit hung up on one word. I think the Rwanda policy needs to be given a chance to bed in to see if it can become a disincentive.
No one has an answer to the immigration problem. Most of them are coming from Albania and getting straight into organised crime in the UK. I’m all for stopping this - and if that needs a drastic measure then so be it.
Click to expand...
Youd be better advised to read up on this and look at the stats , the legal framework allowing people to travel to seek asylum and the stories of how asylum seekers have got here before you comment. Or you can just repeat stuff you have heard about v, not necessarily true.
 
Always tangerine said:
Youd be better advised to read up on this and look at the stats , the legal framework allowing people to travel to seek asylum and the stories of how asylum seekers have got here before you comment. Or you can just repeat stuff you have heard about v, not necessarily true.
Click to expand...

I’m quite well read on the topic. That’s how I know about the problem I’ve specifically highlighted with Albanian immigrants.
Thanks for the advice but what’s your opinion regarding Albanian immigrants? Are you denying it’s an issue and if not what would you do about it? Saying it’s not necessarily true is neither hear nor there and quite conveniently means you can advise me without revealing anything of your own knowledge or opinion on the subject matter. Another lazy non-post imo.
 
I’ve already said there is no mysterious figure and already pointed out I used plurality in all of my other posts. I have never referred to an individual.

Maybe you can hone your research skills and use google based on the criteria I set out, see who pops up. You could do with a bit of practice as you clearly didn’t do enough research before throwing your support behind Suella.

I’m not going to keep repeating myself, I have made myself clear enough. Keep searching for hidden meanings if you like, I’ll just keep chuckling as I’ve clearly touched a nerve.

If you have anything further to say, I refer you to my previous posts on this matter.
 
TheRealKingKenny said:
I’ve already said there is no mysterious figure and already pointed out I used plurality in all of my other posts. I have never referred to an individual.

Maybe you can hone your research skills and use google based on the criteria I set out, see who pops up. You could do with a bit of practice as you clearly didn’t do enough research before throwing your support behind Suella.

I’m not going to keep repeating myself, I have made myself clear enough. Keep searching for hidden meanings if you like, I’ll just keep chuckling as I’ve clearly touched a nerve.

If you have anything further to say, I refer you to my previous posts on this matter.
Click to expand...
I said I like Braverman cos she was straight-talking and connected with the public like some politicians can't. Why would I have to have researched her to make that observation? You say I threw my support behind her - but that's another completely unfounded position you've imagineered. I've no idea what your problem is with me making such an observation but clearly it triggered you because it caused you to write your cryptic comment. You've since exchanged many messages with me but have refused time and time again to explain your cryptic comment, choosing instead to duck and dive, and deflect.

You say you've made yourself clear enough but you're only kidding yourself.
There's no hiding from the fact you won't stand behind your own words and say what you explicitly mean.

I'll remind you of your cryptic comment to me ..........

'I can think of other straight talking, charismatic leaders from history. Your posts do make wonder if you’d be a fan of theirs too…'

You can deflect by saying there is no individual and you were speaking in plurality, but surely that should make it even easier for you to tell me who these historical leaders are in your head. Clearly there's more than one, but I'll happily settle for just one if that makes it easier for you. See how helpful I am?

Fact is, it was a below the belt cheap snipe at my character, and one which you clearly can't substantiate - so it was absolutely reasonable of me to call you out on that and ask you to clarify what you meant; as opposed to you hiding behind the vagueness of the comment.

You clearly prefer to make veiled snipes rather than speaking directly. Only you know why that is but I strongly suggest and suspect it's because your snipe was completely unjustifiable and uncalled for and now you're embarrassed. Well I'm embarrassed for you. I'll accept an apology or I'll be happy for you to explain the comment. You wrote it - and now you run away from it. Not a good look for you is it?
 
All my thoughts on this matter are in my previous posts. I said something and I’m perfectly content with what I said. Take it how you want, I couldn’t care less.

I’m busy for the evening now, I hope yours is pleasant.
 
TheRealKingKenny said:
All my thoughts on this matter are in my previous posts. I said something and I’m perfectly content with what I said. Take it how you want, I couldn’t care less.

I’m busy for the evening now, I hope yours is pleasant.
Click to expand...

Mine was incredibly unpleasant. Inspired by this thread, I decided to try a ‘tofu’ recipe rather than a traditional chippy tea. Big mistake. 🤢
 
I have a new recipe called the Braverman recipe.

Take one far right Tory bastard.
Simmer for 24 hours and then turn out as a Tory Party leadership contender.
Ignore for the duration of the election then sack off as a failure when she loses her seat at a GE.
 
Malced said:
I said I like Braverman cos she was straight-talking and connected with the public like some politicians can't. Why would I have to have researched her to make that observation? You say I threw my support behind her - but that's another completely unfounded position you've imagineered. I've no idea what your problem is with me making such an observation but clearly it triggered you because it caused you to write your cryptic comment. You've since exchanged many messages with me but have refused time and time again to explain your cryptic comment, choosing instead to duck and dive, and deflect.

You say you've made yourself clear enough but you're only kidding yourself.
There's no hiding from the fact you won't stand behind your own words and say what you explicitly mean.

I'll remind you of your cryptic comment to me ..........

'I can think of other straight talking, charismatic leaders from history. Your posts do make wonder if you’d be a fan of theirs too…'

You can deflect by saying there is no individual and you were speaking in plurality, but surely that should make it even easier for you to tell me who these historical leaders are in your head. Clearly there's more than one, but I'll happily settle for just one if that makes it easier for you. See how helpful I am?

Fact is, it was a below the belt cheap snipe at my character, and one which you clearly can't substantiate - so it was absolutely reasonable of me to call you out on that and ask you to clarify what you meant; as opposed to you hiding behind the vagueness of the comment.

You clearly prefer to make veiled snipes rather than speaking directly. Only you know why that is but I strongly suggest and suspect it's because your snipe was completely unjustifiable and uncalled for and now you're embarrassed. Well I'm embarrassed for you. I'll accept an apology or I'll be happy for you to explain the comment. You wrote it - and now you run away from it. Not a good look for you is it?
Click to expand...
You like Braverman? She's not a serious politician her entire act is pretending to act tough on immigration, trying to create a culture war on stuff that only exists in dimwits imagination and attacking the judiciary system. Fake women who had zero discernable talent.
 
Shandypants said:
You like Braverman? She's not a serious politician her entire act is pretending to act tough on immigration, trying to create a culture war on stuff that only exists in dimwits imagination and attacking the judiciary system. Fake women who had zero discernable talent.
Click to expand...

She was the Home Secretary with an incredibly serious and challenging job to keep our country and its people safe. Her constituents who know her a lot better than you, clearly like her cos they voted her in after seeing what she stood for.
Immigration is a mess and sadly it needs tough action. All we get from those who don’t bear any responsibility is criticism and objections. Unfortunately someone has to bear responsibility and make the tough decisions. It’s so easy to say you can’t do that, without any alternative proposal of what can be done instead.
Not sure what you mean by culture war. But if you mean standing up for hard working people who don’t want their day’s commute ruined by those hell bent on senseless disruption, then I’m all for that, and so are most normal people.
There’s a way to protest. Closing down key bridges and blocking ambulances and ruining a taxi drivers livelihood is not the way.
By the way, what’s gender got to do with anything? Would you describe a male politician as a fake man? I doubt it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Malced said:
She was the Home Secretary with an incredibly serious and challenging job to keep our country and its people safe. Her constituents who know her a lot better than you, clearly like her cos they voted her in after seeing what she stood for.
Immigration is a mess and sadly it needs tough action. All we get from those who don’t bear any responsibility is criticism and objections. Unfortunately someone has to bear responsibility and make the tough decisions. It’s so easy to say you can’t do that, without any alternative proposal of what can be done instead.
Not sure what you mean by culture war. But if you mean standing up for hard working people who don’t want their day’s commute ruined by those hell bent on senseless disruption, then I’m all for that, and so are most normal people.
There’s a way to protest. Closing down key bridges and blocking ambulances and ruining a taxi drivers livelihood is not the way.
By the way, what’s gender got to do with anything? Would you describe a male politician as a fake man? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
You don't know what I mean by culture war, give over. For avoidance of doubt it goes something like this. Whip up frenzies about immigrants, wokeness, the BBC and unions to deflect the countries shortcomings. She was the worst of the worst at it. I saw an interview where she answered questions about rising inflation by ranting about wokeness. Is that really a serious politician?
 
Malced said:
I support and cherish the right to peaceful protest.
But I don’t support people causing chaos.
There’s ways and means of effecting change. These people keep comparing themselves to the suffragettes. Well the suffragettes didn’t have the vote. These folk do. But instead they want to circumvent any form of democracy and impose their beliefs on others.
Most of them do indeed appear to be a breed of over privileged toffs - or at least their spokespersons do.
Quite frankly I do understand their causes but I don’t agree with how they’re going about it. Nor do I agree with their rank hypocrisy in that they want to stop pollution yet they want to hold onto their modern day polluting items such as their iPhones.
I like straight talking politicians and I like suella braverman or whatever her name is. She connects with the public more so than many others will ever be able to do eg Starmer and Truss - who both appear as dull as dishwater and merely espouse the usual expected political platitudes with all the charisma of a punch drunk slug.
Click to expand...
Straight talking politicians? she is just an abusive person. There is nothing up with Tofu. Especially in a stir fry. That’s me not voting Tory.
 
Matesrates said:
This is how Suella Braverman described protesters blocking roads as she defended the public order bill. She certainly has a turn of phrase.
Click to expand...
Always have to have an enemy. Straight out of the Third Reich's playbook.

Take your pick

It's the EU, it's immigrants, it's wokerati, it's the anti growth coalition.

Anyone to blame but themselves. The last 6 weeks surely nail that lie.
 
Malced said:
She was the Home Secretary with an incredibly serious and challenging job to keep our country and its people safe. Her constituents who know her a lot better than you, clearly like her cos they voted her in after seeing what she stood for.
Immigration is a mess and sadly it needs tough action. All we get from those who don’t bear any responsibility is criticism and objections. Unfortunately someone has to bear responsibility and make the tough decisions. It’s so easy to say you can’t do that, without any alternative proposal of what can be done instead.
Not sure what you mean by culture war. But if you mean standing up for hard working people who don’t want their day’s commute ruined by those hell bent on senseless disruption, then I’m all for that, and so are most normal people.
There’s a way to protest. Closing down key bridges and blocking ambulances and ruining a taxi drivers livelihood is not the way.
By the way, what’s gender got to do with anything? Would you describe a male politician as a fake man? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
How long was she a Home Secretary? A week?

She achieved precisely nothing.
 
Wizaard said:
Always have to have an enemy. Straight out of the Third Reich's playbook.

Take your pick

It's the EU, it's immigrants, it's wokerati, it's the anti growth coalition.

Anyone to blame but themselves. The last 6 weeks surely nail that lie.
Click to expand...

Third Reich? That’s very fair and balanced I’m sure 🤣

You’ve merely referenced some of the challenges that come with leading the Home Office.

I’m looking forward to seeing how she gets on now she’s back in post. I’m not expecting her to invade Poland so fingers crossed she might do very well.
 
Malced said:
Third Reich? That’s very fair and balanced I’m sure 🤣

You’ve merely referenced some of the challenges that come with leading the Home Office.

I’m looking forward to seeing how she gets on now she’s back in post. I’m not expecting her to invade Poland so fingers crossed she might do very well.
Click to expand...
It's exactly the same tactics. I'm not saying she's invading anywhere, but making bogeymen out of groups was and is a tactic to deflect from the real cause of problems. In this case, 12 years of real cuts to public services who have to deal with the fall out, plus Brexit.
 
Wizaard said:
It's exactly the same tactics. I'm not saying she's invading anywhere, but making bogeymen out of groups was and is a tactic to deflect from the real cause of problems. In this case, 12 years of real cuts to public services who have to deal with the fall out, plus Brexit.
Click to expand...

The issue with illegal immigration i.e. the exponentially increasing numbers of channel crossings over the last few years, are not to do with public cuts.

She has to try and sort that mess out. It’s a very difficult and contentious job. But it does need sorting out. The criminal smuggling gangs are having it easy. They’re exploiting immigrants and they’re causing immense problems for our public services - the public services you and I both care about. We have tens of thousands of immigrants in hotels. On some days more than 1,000 arrive. It’s unsustainable. Someone has to sort that out. It’s easy to tut tut at the person that has to do that merely when they mention the words ‘illegal immigrants’. I think she’s up to the job purely because she indeed has to be thick skinned enough to handle all the wokerati who have no solutions, and who would be happy with the status quo or the worsening status quo. We get the usual platitudes from these folk about the helpless immigrants fleeing for their lives.
Anyone honest enough about it knows that’s not the case. They’re coming from the EU where they are perfectly safe and can claim asylum. The recent rise in Albanians is in-part to further their take over of the drug networks and other illegal gang activity in the south of England. It’s a mess. It’s needs sorting. It’s needs tough radical action. It’s going to be an unpopular job because of those who are quick to condemn as you’ve done.

The home office and home sectary have always talked tough. Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime. They need to. We expect them to keep up safe and secure.
The protestors who are blocking ambulances and causing chaos for commuters are having it too easy. I’m all for the right to protest but there’s a way that can be done without afflicting lives and livelihoods of law abiding hard working citizens.

Fighting the PR battle against these extremist protestors is indeed part of her job. If that means she makes them bogey men, then all well and good. People breaking the law are bogeymen. Everything is about balance.
We need safe passage for legal immigrants and we need to do our bit as a country. But having floods of illegal economic migrants is wrong and it needs tackling.
We need to allow protestors to make their points and be heard. We have free speech and always should. But sitting in a high street blocking ambulances etc is bang out of order. So yeah tough talking follows by tough actions is what’s needed. I don’t know why you would want a Home Secretary who would pander to these criminals and describe them in lovely flowery terms. We need real solutions to real problems not folk who are over sensitive to a little tough talking.
 
Malced said:
The issue with illegal immigration i.e. the exponentially increasing numbers of channel crossings over the last few years, are not to do with public cuts.

She has to try and sort that mess out. It’s a very difficult and contentious job. But it does need sorting out. The criminal smuggling gangs are having it easy. They’re exploiting immigrants and they’re causing immense problems for our public services - the public services you and I both care about. We have tens of thousands of immigrants in hotels. On some days more than 1,000 arrive. It’s unsustainable. Someone has to sort that out. It’s easy to tut tut at the person that has to do that merely when they mention the words ‘illegal immigrants’. I think she’s up to the job purely because she indeed has to be thick skinned enough to handle all the wokerati who have no solutions, and who would be happy with the status quo or the worsening status quo. We get the usual platitudes from these folk about the helpless immigrants fleeing for their lives.
Anyone honest enough about it knows that’s not the case. They’re coming from the EU where they are perfectly safe and can claim asylum. The recent rise in Albanians is in-part to further their take over of the drug networks and other illegal gang activity in the south of England. It’s a mess. It’s needs sorting. It’s needs tough radical action. It’s going to be an unpopular job because of those who are quick to condemn as you’ve done.

The home office and home sectary have always talked tough. Tough on crime. Tough on the causes of crime. They need to. We expect them to keep up safe and secure.
The protestors who are blocking ambulances and causing chaos for commuters are having it too easy. I’m all for the right to protest but there’s a way that can be done without afflicting lives and livelihoods of law abiding hard working citizens.

Fighting the PR battle against these extremist protestors is indeed part of her job. If that means she makes them bogey men, then all well and good. People breaking the law are bogeymen. Everything is about balance.
We need safe passage for legal immigrants and we need to do our bit as a country. But having floods of illegal economic migrants is wrong and it needs tackling.
We need to allow protestors to make their points and be heard. We have free speech and always should. But sitting in a high street blocking ambulances etc is bang out of order. So yeah tough talking follows by tough actions is what’s needed. I don’t know why you would want a Home Secretary who would pander to these criminals and describe them in lovely flowery terms. We need real solutions to real problems not folk who are over sensitive to a little tough talking.
Click to expand...
Mocking basically half the country and using stupid language like she uses does not help her case at all. It just makes everyone think she is an ideologue peddling culture war bollocks to help her politically. Talking sensibly, solemnly even, since deporting people shouldn't be "fun" or an "obsession", would win people over. I was supportive of refugees coming over from war torn countries and thought it was shameful that they we as a country went around the world bombing people, sometimes justified, sometimes not, and then turned our backs at the people fleeing devastation. So I was one of the 'wokerati' I suppose. That was just how I viewed this issue ever since but recently either you or another poster pointed out pretty matter of factly that most channel crossings now are done Albanians who criminal gangs are sending over to replace criminals who have been locked up or booted out and I thought, you know what fair enough that's clearly different and clearly my view on the policy should change, from it being a refugee or a criminal. But when you make it your point to make a name and career for yourself by saying childish, unhelpful things that Braverman does, you lose half the country, and you lack credibility. Frankly, now I dont even know if this Albanian stuff is true, I believe it comes from the Home Office but I dont' trust them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top