Anyone yet watched the ITV Reform “expose”

Perhaps the Reform GNs are busy chatting elsewhere, on a different Thread?
Wonder which one it could be? 🤔

Is it as many as the Rotherham rapists?

You’ve lost the argument when you bring whataboutary into a debate

No, you’ve lost the argument when you can’t ( or won’t ) answer the question.

Anyway, I’m done with these threads, they’re just boring left wing echo chambers.

Not really sure what was your point Kandinsky.
Do you think those particular men should remain in their positions?
Do you think they have brought disgrace to the Reform Party?

No I don’t & yes they have.
But 1000 x more fuss is made about these men than the Rotherham rapists for example, or indeed any murder / rape committed by an asylum seeker.

Thank you for your response Kandinsky.
I disagree about your point that the Rotherham rapists have been ignored.
I remember frequent Threads discussing those evil men.
You may check the Archives, if you have time.
As far as I am aware this is the first Thread about those three disgusting politicians.
It is current and it is relevant.

Maremia
Maybe my problem is I flit in & out of GN and can spend a good few days when I don’t look at it, so I obviously miss a lot.
Anyway, have a good day and thank you for your polite reply.

And thank you for yours.

Thanks Kandinsky. You’re certainly not alone in being disgusted and horrified by organised groups of men who abuse, exploit and cause dreadful psychological and emotional damage to children
I was more shocked than I’d expected to be by the itv programme. Not surprised that Reform could attract people who feel anxious about the impact of so many people seeking refuge, or attempting to set up in Europe whilst exploiting the asylum system. I was disgusted by the racism and misogyny expressed when filmed without their knowledge. While using hate speech, these men laughed, one saying well all end up in the papers. The majority all commenting about the need to present a more acceptable face in order to win an election, after which they believed they could do anything.

Kandinsky

No I don’t & yes they have.
But 1000 x more fuss is made about these men than the Rotherham rapists for example, or indeed any murder / rape committed by an asylum seeker.

We were posting on these horrors back in 2014.
And have been ever since. You denigrate many of us here by assuming we don’t care. 😡

Wyllow3

Barbadosbelle

.

JD Vance said .....

‘Western liberals imported the Third World into France and other countries in the name of diversity and compassion. They ignored fundamental questions of assimilation and compatibility.’
.

This is factually incorrect

Lets deal with the UK and the USA.

In the UK, apart from the small number of refugees and genuine asylum seekers, who have been accepted on compassionate grounds there were two but related reasons for our multicultural society.

1. Former commonwealth citizens were granted rights to entry to the UK following the end of Empire:

2. We actually invited and still invite immigrants in because they were and still are needed in the work force.

Apart from those who enter as qualified professionals (whose training was paid for in their countries of origin, a cheap deal for us, and depriving the country of origin of their skills

we needed them because they filled the lowest paid jobs that either UK citizens are unwilling to do, or because of the effect of the continuing rise in the UK population of those needing care, ie elderly or disabled, cannot be met due to our dropping birth rate

I hope that covers why we have a multicultural society and indeed any we still need one.

We ar not being compassionate, but practical, and often, we demand of them that they be compassionate in caring work, and we should have a great deal of gratitude for this. It's more clear in some areas of the country than others. of course. And a greater % of them than our white population gave their lives during, for example, Covid.

Yet, consistently, its on record that many second or third generation immigrants do better at school than their white counterparts, because of family ambition.

The USA is somewhat different and Vance's words even more ignorant. the USA is a nation of immigrants, who gained the land and wealth by killing or marginalising the American Indians or enslaving people from Africa.

Prominent politicians are themselves only second or third generation (white or ethnically diverse politicians)

Newer immigration was welcomed for the same reasons as the UK: cheap labour - lower prices in the shops. Notably in the farming and caring sectors. Large numbers were allowed in to work without citizenship.

As soon as it was perceived "too many" came over borders - in the UK and the USA - accurately or not - the marginalised were then persecuted and are persecuted as being "not us" "blame them".

And *this is what we are seeing at work in Reform and its supporters". Clacton voters, for example, need their carers and their hospital workers, and they do jobs that those same voters will not do at times.

Of course newcomers commit crime, but if you focus on them rather that home grown white criminals you are ignoring a culture of criminality that is actually growing.

You turn a blind eye to exactly what this thread is all about - Reform leaders themselves holding and speaking out appalling misogynist or racist words, ie, perpetrating that very misogyny and hatred of multiculturalism that are turning us in a divisive, blaming, society.

A society that has lost its sense of thankfulness for what we are being given and turns to blame, ^and a group of politicians actually contributing to that racism and horrible attitudes to women and children, in very ordinary homes up and down the country just at the point when women -since the 1970's especially were beginning to gain on matters of respect and appreciation of what we bring.

Its a philosophy that is damaging us as human beings: based, as I have pointed out above, on entirely false premises.

Well said and thank you, saved me having to write it.

Kandinsky

No I don’t & yes they have.
But 1000 x more fuss is made about these men than the Rotherham rapists for example, or indeed any murder / rape committed by an asylum seeker.

That’s simply not true and I really don’t know why you persist in these untrue statements.

There’s not a person on here who doesn’t utterly condemn any rapist or any child sex abuse rings or the Henry Novak killer.

The question you asked cannot be answered, as the information simply isn’t available.

What I can confirm, with clarity and evidence, is that both the Patriot Platform Leader and the Raise the Flags Leader have criminal convictions and a percentage of their male followers/supporters have cautions and/or convictions for domestic abuse and that the founders of The Pink Ladies both have convictions for child abuse. All of the fore-mentioned are in some way affiliated with or are supporters of Reform and Restore.

I don’t wish to see any women or child sexually abused or beaten by any man, irrespective of their colour, nationality or country or birth.

I completely understand your concern about the small percentage of AS who’ve committed appalling crimes, as if they hadn’t come here on small boats these particular crimes might not have been committed.

I also understand that one of the reason police didn’t pursue the Rotherham child abuse ring is because they very foolishly and wrongly decided not to risk being called “racist”. It’s not racist to arrest a non-white for breaking our laws.

In terms of the Reform officials and MPs, I cannot speak for anyone else but my concerns are around 1) how widespread their “attitude” was towards both non-whites and women, 2) all of these people were/are in positions of power.

I hope that partially answers your questions?

Oh, just out

yet more money for Farage Reform
^you couldnt make it up.

From Open Britain network (I get the emails, its to sign for limiting what any party can have and hold for elections and build up work - if you want to sign, go to)

"
Billionaire Sasan Ghandehari says he is moving his tax residency from Switzerland to the UK to make “regular payments” of more than “one or two million” to Reform.

Changing your tax residency to bankroll a political party is quite a commitment. What does he want a Reform government to do that makes it worth the trouble - and the millions?

Farage has offered a clue about the attention Ghandehari already commands: “when we spend time together, I listen very carefully”.

Now Ghandehari is back in the news under a Guardian headline.....Billionaire Reform donor was in business with foundation linked to Iranian regime

Yes, the actual Iranian regime - get that* ???

Legal documents uncovered by the newspaper shed light on Ghandehari’s dealings with Iranian state-linked entities between 2013 and 2016.

How he made his billions is still largely a mystery.

Yet the Farage connection is already being put to work. Asked by a court to show he could cover £1.5m in legal costs, his lawyers pointed to a brochure from his Davos trip with Farage, saying he controlled a trust worth more than $10bn. A useful souvenir from a trip he’d paid for Farage to attend.

The questions about his fortune deserve answers. Even a billionaire whose finances are entirely transparent should face a limit on how much they can give.

No party should become dependent on keeping a handful of extraordinarily wealthy people happy. That principle should apply whether the cheque is made out to Reform, Labour, the Conservatives or anyone else.

There is currently no universal cap on political donations. An eligible donor can give millions, then millions more.

Stronger checks can help establish where the money comes from. A universal cap would limit how much any donor can give. We need both.

As the Representation of the People Bill goes through Parliament, we are working to secure stronger protections against big money and making the case for an overdue universal cap.

Disgusting, and largely hidden from people

****************

Are you sitting down? Now we'll begin

I saw a very unpolitical friend this morning. she never knows what to vote but said, "We should Send Them Back" they are taking x and y from our resources.

"How" I said.

"Well, send them back to the country they came from, unless they are asylum seekers."

"But we cant" I said "unless the country or origin agrees to their returning. they will not let people true unless we negotiate at some length and often expense"

"I didn't know that"

"well, what do you think France would do with boats entering their sea and then landing?"

it wouldn't work. Nobody tells us that

It has to become law soon that foreign interests may not buy our Politicians.