just to be a sneaky bugger…
but didnt Jaffod Claim they get use of free mobile phones?
to which it was pointed out the phones were supplied by charities, not government money? so whilst i think thats relevant, the fact remains, they receive a free mobile phone
the end result is the same, no?
here he comes…
God we need to sign some players 
Looking like a War &:Peace effort
Firstly, he was specifically talking about tax payer funded benefits, so no the result isn’t the same.
Everyone is free to donate money or goods to any cause they want, and no-one has any right to tell me I can’t give an old mobile phone to an asylum seeker if I want to, anymore than I can tell an old lady she can’t leave all her money to a donkey sanctuary, despite that pissing me off no end.
Secondly, it might be everyone’s best interests to let this argument die now.
wasn’t worth the wait… 
You should have seen what I deleted.
I see somebody was under the delusion I was engaging with them.
Until next time
Mascot, I was providing an observation and some feedback to your posting style. Something you have done numerous times to me.
Why have you wasted your energy trying to justify yourself, why can’t you just take a step back from the ‘I am right, everyone else is wrong’, and listen to other people. There is a common pattern when opposing your point of view and that’s across all topics.
Regarding your quote above, you are right to have your opinions. But just like the people who you are calling out, your whole stance is on it all being about immigration. So, you are no different.
Maybe, your focus on it all being about immigration is you trying to avoid accepting that the current Government, under Starmer have made a dogs dinner of their Term to date.
Apologies, I shouldn’t have selectively used the term “Illegal” especially when I was recollecting.
I have attached a BBC link to the story I was referring to.
I completely agree, I think the concern is that we don’t have a system that works smoothly. That is not a fault of the current Government or to be aimed at a particular party. People would be correct in saying the current Government are processing claims quicker, but there is then a really high backlog in appeals.
I personally believe that a large percentage of people who have concerns about immigration are not Racist. Unfortunately, we have ended up in a society where to openly express their concerns see them labelled.
As I touched upon in my previous post to you, it is a complex subject and shouldn’t be defined on such narrow parameters. It shouldn’t be a case of open the borders we owe them for decisions made in the past and nor should it be a case of labelling all asylum seekers under the stereotype of a few.
So, hypothetically speaking you’re okay with me donating money to Reform?
Further more, no-one has the right to tell you what you can or can’t do, anymore than you telling someone else what they can or can’t do….
Hmmmm….copy, paste to notes, indexed under may use later 
The problem is that the loudest voices expressed are usually racist. Where I lived in Scotland, there was a lot of concern about migration: lack of schools and medical infrastructure. Overcrowding on roads and public transport. Even a lack of local shops and amenities. All genuine concerns.
The difference was that this was people mainly moving from Glasgow and Edinburgh. You were lucky to find this mentioned in the middle pages of the local newspapers. A few years later, some people started being noisy outside a run down hotel housing a couple of dozen asylum seekers and it made the national news.
Most immigration is internal. You only seem to hear about it when it involves people with a different skin colour.
I am not disagreeing with your post, however, I do contest some points.
I think that at times the loudest voices are of those scrutinising the Racists. This is a good and bad thing, it is right to shut down those with extremes views but there are a lot of examples where just expressing concerns sees you cancelled, labelled so I would question who has the loudest voice.
I think in the 70s it was about colour and it then went through a period in the 2000’s where it was not colour defined but aimed at the Eastern Europeans. In the present, is it colour defined or is it because a high percentage are of people of colour?
A frustration with the system from my own personal experience is that my Partner was born and raised in Zimbabwe, an ex-colony. She is educated and works in the Social Service sector and yet we have to pay roughly £1.5k every two years for her Right to Work Visa.
So, as a Country, in some cases we are charging a skilled worker to allow them the right to work - predominantly for allowing them access to the NHS - despite them paying taxes. Then, on the other hand are happy to fund people from ex-colonies, who have opted to apply for asylum. Providing accommodation, food, medical care, etc.
Well that is because asylum and work visas are not the same thing. In terms of the visas, my wife would be subject to the same conditions if we wanted to move back to the UK, despite having previously lived and worked in the country for 30 years, paid into the system, being married to a British national, and having a skillset (nurse) that is supposedly in short supply.
These are political choices, and they have largely been made to appeal to a section of society that has convinced themselves that their problems are due to the “other”.
Sorry, do you mind clarifying what you mean - in other words put it in simpleton terms 
Of course I’m not ‘OK’ with it. I think it would be a phenomenally stupid thing to do with your money. But it is your money. I can’t stop you.
I don’t really see why you think this is a gotcha.
It’s not a gotcha, maybe try adopting a sense of humour at some point.
The point is you would not be okay with it, on a preconceived basis. I could explain my reasoning for donating and you would have none of it.
So, whilst everyone maybe free to do what they want, it comes at a cost. A judgement, a labelling an assumption on one’s character, etc. Is this okay, are these values we should pass down to future generations?
I was referring to “othering”. Essentially, treating a minority group as inferior or to be feared by the majority in group. So white vs black, Protestant vs Catholic, straight vs gay etc.
It’s a tactic employed when those in power don’t want a real issue to be addressed.
Thanks for explaining. I completely get what you are saying and I whole heartedly agree it has been and is still largely used as a weapon.
Speaking from my own observations and in reference to the UK, I feel that power has shifted, partially because of progress in society and people accepting each other but also because the Government are scared of upsetting different demographics.
I think the UK, although not perfect has become more tolerant and accepting of people’s views. In some instances maybe to accepting.
I was going to provide an example but it would be taken in the wrong way and this I feel is the problem, and a massive reason for people turning away from the main parties.