Clapham Alkaline Attack

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

Well just listened to sky News - Tice was on - 'Reform party' - that well known 'lefty' . No messing around with blaming ECHR or something else - simply  Home Office failure / incompetence. In fact with another 'panel member plus the interviewer not a mention of 'treaty' obligations. 

[Naturalcynic 817]

12 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Well just listened to sky News - Tice was on - 'Reform party' - that well known 'lefty' . No messing around with blaming ECHR or something else - simply  Home Office failure / incompetence. In fact with another 'panel member plus the interviewer not a mention of 'treaty' obligations. 

Although I doubt he’s right, Tice is still adamant that the law as it already stands permits us to simply dump them all back on a French beach.  

[littleyellowbirdie 3,103]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

Although I doubt he’s right, Tice is still adamant that the law as it already stands permits us to simply dump them all back on a French beach.  

Yup. Reform is mostly interested in gaining votes from the conservatives, hence they'll lay it at the government's door. Naturally, the usual suspects will prefer that to admitting there's a real problem regarding international commitments. Suddenly a guy they'd normally dismiss is a fount of wisdom because it suits them.

I think there should be a public inquiry over this.

Edited February 6 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 3,103]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Well just listened to sky News - Tice was on - 'Reform party' - that well known 'lefty' . No messing around with blaming ECHR or something else - simply  Home Office failure / incompetence. In fact with another 'panel member plus the interviewer not a mention of 'treaty' obligations. 

Two former 'home' secretaries have 'pointed' to 'international' law. 'Odd' that you 'focus' on a nobody from Reform and a 'panel' discussion on 'Sky' as the defining discussion here. Somewhat 'expedient', wouldn't you 'say'?

Edited February 6 by littleyellowbirdie

[Naturalcynic 817]

Notwithstanding the suggestion that Ezedi’s “conversion” to christianity was facilitated by the Baptist Church, I see the CofE has a “how to” guide for its gullible and/or activist clergy:

https://www.churchofengland.org/sites/default/files/2017-11/supporting-asylum-seekers-guidance-for-church-of-england-clergy-161201.pdf

[Yellow Fever 4,388]

10 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Two former 'home' secretaries have 'pointed' to 'international' law. 'Odd' that you 'focus' on a nobody from Reform and a 'panel' discussion on 'Sky' as the defining discussion here. Somewhat 'expedient', wouldn't you 'say'?

Let me guess. Patel and Braverman. Don't think they count!

[horsefly 5,281]

On 05/02/2024 at 12:16, littleyellowbirdie said:

Why don't you think it's likely that that the majority of male asylum seekers from Afghanistan will bring with them misogynistic attitudes and find violence to women they may have/had a relationship with sometimes justifiable given the prevailing nature of Afghan society?

Because many of those are fleeing the Taliban because they assisted our forces who were fighting to establish and defend equal rights for women. Why do you insist on making the obviously false generalisation that all Afghan men must be violently misogynist by virtue of being an Afghani? 

[horsefly 5,281]

For those of you who find it difficult to distinguish between the concept of a correlation and the concept of a cause, let's make the explanation easy for you by accepting that this particular individual should not have been in the country. Now we are left with the fact that he was nevertheless in the country, so we need to turn our attention to the question of what in fact caused him to behave in this despicable manner.

The options are:

A) He was an asylum seeker and in virtue of that fact was predisposed to throw acid at the woman and her children with whom he had been in a troubled relationship.

Or

B) He was a violent misogynist and in virtue of that fact was predisposed to throw acid at the woman and her children with whom he had been in a troubled relationship.

I'll leave you to work out which of those two represents a statement of correlation, and which a causal explanation.

 

[Naturalcynic 817]

3 hours ago, horsefly said:

For those of you who find it difficult to distinguish between the concept of a correlation and the concept of a cause, let's make the explanation easy for you by accepting that this particular individual should not have been in the country. Now we are left with the fact that he was nevertheless in the country, so we need to turn our attention to the question of what in fact caused him to behave in this despicable manner.

The options are:

A) He was an asylum seeker and in virtue of that fact was predisposed to throw acid at the woman and her children with whom he had been in a troubled relationship.

Or

B) He was a violent misogynist and in virtue of that fact was predisposed to throw acid at the woman and her children with whom he had been in a troubled relationship.

I'll leave you to work out which of those two represents a statement of correlation, and which a causal explanation.

 

He came from Afghanistan, a country with a long tradition of misogyny borne of its rigid interpretation and implementation of religious dogma.  It stands to reason that men brought up in that culture are more likely to have those misogynistic attitudes and behaviours than those raised in a liberal western democracy.  Those from Afghanistan who were more benign in outlook and who assisted Western forces have, if they wish to escape that country, the option of applying through the established safe and legal route.  But this particular individual took an unorthodox path, no doubt paying people smugglers in the process, to enter the country through illegal means.  In the process of his multiple asylum applications he committed two offences that we know of, namely sexual assault and indecent exposure.  Despite his apparent conversion to Christianity he continued to adhere to his Islamic faith and went on to commit the vile acts that we’re all too aware of.  Of course, had this violent misogynistic asylum scammer not been here in the first place he wouldn’t have been in a position to carry out these attacks, let alone the previous sexual assault and exposure.  So deflect all you like and pretend that the migration to this country of tens if not hundreds of thousands of men from similar misogynistic cultures has no bearing on the safety of our society, but I choose to differ.

[horsefly 5,281]

1 minute ago, Naturalcynic said:

He came from Afghanistan, a country with a long tradition of misogyny borne of its rigid interpretation and implementation of religious dogma.  It stands to reason that men brought up in that culture are more likely to have those misogynistic attitudes and behaviours than those raised in a liberal western democracy.  Those from Afghanistan who were more benign in outlook and who assisted Western forces have, if they wish to escape that country, the option of applying through the established safe and legal route.  But this particular individual took an unorthodox path, no doubt paying people smugglers in the process, to enter the country through illegal means.  In the process of his multiple asylum applications he committed two offences that we know of, namely sexual assault and indecent exposure.  Despite his apparent conversion to Christianity he continued to adhere to his Islamic faith and went on to commit the vile acts that we’re all too aware of.  Of course, had this violent misogynistic asylum scammer not been here in the first place he wouldn’t have been in a position to carry out these attacks, let alone the previous sexual assault and exposure.  So deflect all you like and pretend that the migration to this country of tens if not hundreds of thousands of men from similar misogynistic cultures has no bearing on the safety of our society, but I choose to differ.

Oh dear, I tried to make it as simple as possible for you but, as expected, it's still beyond your intellectual capacity to understand the difference between a cause and a correlation. It is the job of immigration officials to assess whether an asylum seeker is genuine or presents a threat to UK law and values. It is not the job of those officials to make false assumptions that everyone arriving from a particular country must be a violent misogynist. Particularly not when many of those arriving from a place like Afghanistan have claimed asylum because they fought alongside UK troops in order to establish democracy and equality in defiance of Islamic fundamentalism.

[hogesar 10,536]

On 04/02/2024 at 19:01, Herman said:

After hearing the culprit of this heinous crime was an asylum seeker I guess I am not the only one that thought "oh God, here we go again".

Anyway, how is it that a man with half a molten face is so hard to find?

To be fair the really horrible thing is before we heard of the culprit, it's really sad to think we could take an educated guess at who was responsible in general terms.

My god that sounds racist, but actually it's because it was an acid attack and they've been so prevalent in Pakistan, Afghanistan and similar countries that they've built a reputation. 

Disgusting, either way.

[TheGunnShow 7,254]

Rwanda was rejected as it is not a safe country due to the civil authorities there not being remotely up to snuff in handling asylum claims and the risk of refoulement is too high. The idea of another country being used is not necessarily objectionable per se, but it has to be one with suitably robust processes in place for safely and correctly handling such asylum requests.

Rwanda falls short to the extent that they even have their own refugees trying to come over. So, pick another country, just one with a far better record.

Interestingly, Denmark had plans for housing refugees on a deserted, remote island within its own territory called Lindholm but those plans never came to fruition. That would be a far better solution as then they still have access to UK processes instead of Rwandan ones, so possibly one of the uninhabited islands in the Hebrides, Orkneys or Shetlands. 

[Naturalcynic 817]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

Rwanda was rejected as it is not a safe country due to the civil authorities there not being remotely up to snuff in handling asylum claims and the risk of refoulement is too high. The idea of another country being used is not necessarily objectionable per se, but it has to be one with suitably robust processes in place for safely and correctly handling such asylum requests.

Rwanda falls short to the extent that they even have their own refugees trying to come over. So, pick another country, just one with a far better record.

Interestingly, Denmark had plans for housing refugees on a deserted, remote island within its own territory called Lindholm but those plans never came to fruition. That would be a far better solution as then they still have access to UK processes instead of Rwandan ones, so possibly one of the uninhabited islands in the Hebrides, Orkneys or Shetlands. 

I’ve previously suggested St Kilda, but of course the usual suspects ridiculed that.  I’m sure the bleeding hearts would say that it would be utterly unacceptable to put these poor unfortunates in what would effectively be an internment camp miles from the mainland, but if they enter the country illegally then that would seem reasonable to me while their asylum applications are processed.  OK, it’s a UNESCO heritage site, but as long as they don’t eat the seagulls then that shouldn’t be an issue.  Fair, achievable and a good solid deterrent.

Edited February 7 by Naturalcynic

[Naturalcynic 817]

2 hours ago, horsefly said:

Oh dear, I tried to make it as simple as possible for you but, as expected, it's still beyond your intellectual capacity to understand the difference between a cause and a correlation. It is the job of immigration officials to assess whether an asylum seeker is genuine or presents a threat to UK law and values. It is not the job of those officials to make false assumptions that everyone arriving from a particular country must be a violent misogynist. Particularly not when many of those arriving from a place like Afghanistan have claimed asylum because they fought alongside UK troops in order to establish democracy and equality in defiance of Islamic fundamentalism.

Oh dear, no-one has said that every male in Afghanistan is a violent misogynist.  But there is more likelihood of a man from a country that is known for its dreadful and antiquated attitudes towards females (women forced to cover themselves from head to toe, no education for girls, women having to walk behind men, a woman being seen as a man’s property etc) being a violent misogynist than it is for a man raised in a liberal democracy.  This asylum scammer was indeed a violent misogynist.  He shouldn’t have been here, and because he was, a woman and two children have been scarred, physically and mentally, for life.

[horsefly 5,281]

2 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Oh dear, no-one has said that every male in Afghanistan is a violent misogynist.  But there is more likelihood of a man from a country that is known for its dreadful and antiquated attitudes towards females (women forced to cover themselves from head to toe, no education for girls, women having to walk behind men, a woman being seen as a man’s property etc) being a violent misogynist than it is for a man raised in a liberal democracy.  This asylum scammer was indeed a violent misogynist.  He shouldn’t have been here, and because he was, a woman and two children have been scarred, physically and mentally, for life.

Your comment that "there is more likelihood of a man from a country that is known for its dreadful and antiquated attitudes towards females (women forced to cover themselves from head to toe, no education for girls, women having to walk behind men, a woman being seen as a man’s property etc) being a violent misogynist than it is for a man raised in a liberal democracy."  is flawed in many ways when it comes to considering claims for asylum. Firstly, it completely ignores the history of Afghanistan which was very much a liberal culture during the '70s, and which was liberalised again during the recent period before the return of the Taliban (women were doctors, politicians, judges etc). Secondly, it is typically because they are escaping a repressive regime that people claim asylum in the first place. I.e. They are escaping a regime that would punish them for their liberal attitudes. Thirdly, there is a massive amount of violence perpetrated against women by men who have been raised in the UK's liberal culture. It is not because they are from the UK that is the cause of their violence, it is because they are misogynists who believe they are entitled to use violence in their treatment of women.

As I said, it is for the immigration officials to determine in EACH case whether the individual concerned is a legitimate asylum seeker and not a threat to UK law and values. The fact that a claimant is Afghani does NOT determine the outcome of such a judgement. 

 

[Naturalcynic 817]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Your comment that "there is more likelihood of a man from a country that is known for its dreadful and antiquated attitudes towards females (women forced to cover themselves from head to toe, no education for girls, women having to walk behind men, a woman being seen as a man’s property etc) being a violent misogynist than it is for a man raised in a liberal democracy."  is flawed in many ways when it comes to considering claims for asylum. Firstly, it completely ignores the history of Afghanistan which was very much a liberal culture during the '70s, and which was liberalised again during the recent period before the return of the Taliban (women were doctors, politicians, judges etc). Secondly, it is typically because they are escaping a repressive regime that people claim asylum in the first place. I.e. They are escaping a regime that would punish them for their liberal attitudes. Thirdly, there is a massive amount of violence perpetrated against women by men who have been raised in the UK's liberal culture. It is not because they are from the UK that is the cause of their violence, it is because they are misogynists who believe they are entitled to use violence in their treatment of women.

As I said, it is for the immigration officials to determine in EACH case whether the individual concerned is a legitimate asylum seeker and not a threat to UK law and values. The fact that a claimant is Afghani does NOT determine the outcome of such a judgement. 

 

And no-one has said that it does, despite your insinuations that they have.

[horsefly 5,281]

4 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

And no-one has said that it does, despite your insinuations that they have.

I suggest you read back through this thread.

[Naturalcynic 817]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I suggest you read back through this thread.

Can’t be bothered.  Life’s too short.  You show me.

[horsefly 5,281]

17 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Can’t be bothered.  Life’s too short.  You show me.

Too lazy, why am I not surprised.

[Naturalcynic 817]

2 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Too lazy, why am I not surprised.

No, the fact is that I have no recollection of anyone making that generalisation so I have no need to trawl back through four pages of comments.  You, however, are insisting that they have, so show me.

[littleyellowbirdie 3,103]

8 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

Let me guess. Patel and Braverman. Don't think they count!

Says the guy quoting some random loser from Reform like it means something because he happens to have said something to suit your argument...

Edited February 7 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 3,103]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Rwanda was rejected as it is not a safe country due to the civil authorities there not being remotely up to snuff in handling asylum claims and the risk of refoulement is too high. The idea of another country being used is not necessarily objectionable per se, but it has to be one with suitably robust processes in place for safely and correctly handling such asylum requests.

Rwanda falls short to the extent that they even have their own refugees trying to come over. So, pick another country, just one with a far better record.

Interestingly, Denmark had plans for housing refugees on a deserted, remote island within its own territory called Lindholm but those plans never came to fruition. That would be a far better solution as then they still have access to UK processes instead of Rwandan ones, so possibly one of the uninhabited islands in the Hebrides, Orkneys or Shetlands. 

That thought had occurred to me as well. Not sure why it's not an option.

[TheGunnShow 7,254]

1 hour ago, Naturalcynic said:

I’ve previously suggested St Kilda, but of course the usual suspects ridiculed that.  I’m sure the bleeding hearts would say that it would be utterly unacceptable to put these poor unfortunates in what would effectively be an internment camp miles from the mainland, but if they enter the country illegally then that would seem reasonable to me while their asylum applications are processed.  OK, it’s a UNESCO heritage site, but as long as they don’t eat the seagulls then that shouldn’t be an issue.  Fair, achievable and a good solid deterrent.

The fact it's a UNESCO site ruins the idea (although I don't have any St. Kilda-related tourism stats to hand) and I'd be sceptical about building on islands that are nature reserves, but I'm not averse to proper facilities being built so they can be properly housed whilst their cases are checked properly. The real issue at my end is that cases are not being handled quickly and that the facilities used are frankly quite dreadful.

16 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

That thought had occurred to me as well. Not sure why it's not an option.

Makes more sense than a country whose structures are not safe, which is the sickening thing about the affair, really. They've been told several times that Rwanda will not do, twice rebuffed by the courts, yet still they don't seem to get it.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,304]

My main objection to using a UK island, or somewhere like Ascension island is that I can't see how it will be effective

There's tens of thousands waiting to be processed 

No way we can build and staff a facility to house them all, so it is unlikely to be a deterrent and it will still cost millions to house the rest in hotels, b&b etc

[Naturalcynic 817]

23 minutes ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

My main objection to using a UK island, or somewhere like Ascension island is that I can't see how it will be effective

There's tens of thousands waiting to be processed 

No way we can build and staff a facility to house them all, so it is unlikely to be a deterrent and it will still cost millions to house the rest in hotels, b&b etc

Do it on a large enough scale on three or four isolated islands, it could not only be an effective accommodation solution but would be a very strong deterrent.

[How I Wrote Elastic Man 1,304]

7 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Do it on a large enough scale on three or four isolated islands, it could not only be an effective accommodation solution but would be a very strong deterrent.

How many do you want to hold on isolated islands?

75000 asylum seekers applied year ending September 2023

If only half of them, that's 4 facilities of nearly 10000. That's a decades long project, but the UK ideally needs to sort this out in a few years.

I don't see it working 

[Aggy 941]

4 hours ago, hogesar said:

To be fair the really horrible thing is before we heard of the culprit, it's really sad to think we could take an educated guess at who was responsible in general terms.

My god that sounds racist, but actually it's because it was an acid attack and they've been so prevalent in Pakistan, Afghanistan and similar countries that they've built a reputation. 

Disgusting, either way.

From Wikipedia:

“According to data London's Metropolitan Police,^[169][170] a demographic breakdown of known suspects in London attacks for the period (2002–2016) showed White Europeans comprising 32% of suspects, Black Caribbeans 38% and Asian 6%.”

 

[Aggy 941]

While there are legitimate immigration questions to be dealt with, why am I not surprised this has a thread, but “Barry” hasn’t got himself one despite last week being charged with attempted murder of a policeman and assault of an emergency worker the day before.

If found guilty, can we send him to Rwanda or whichever remote island is being proposed today on this thread, and free up some space for immigrants who aren’t violent criminals? 

Edited February 7 by Aggy

[Fen Canary 1,450]

9 hours ago, horsefly said:

For those of you who find it difficult to distinguish between the concept of a correlation and the concept of a cause, let's make the explanation easy for you by accepting that this particular individual should not have been in the country. Now we are left with the fact that he was nevertheless in the country, so we need to turn our attention to the question of what in fact caused him to behave in this despicable manner.

The options are:

A) He was an asylum seeker and in virtue of that fact was predisposed to throw acid at the woman and her children with whom he had been in a troubled relationship.

Or

B) He was a violent misogynist and in virtue of that fact was predisposed to throw acid at the woman and her children with whom he had been in a troubled relationship.

I'll leave you to work out which of those two represents a statement of correlation, and which a causal explanation.

 

If he had been deported his views on women would have been utterly irrelevant. Stop trying to change the subject as this is directly a result of the shambles that is our asylum laws, nothing else. If the laws as they stand means we can’t deport scum such as this then they need changing, simple as that 

[littleyellowbirdie 3,103]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

 

Makes more sense than a country whose structures are not safe, which is the sickening thing about the affair, really. They've been told several times that Rwanda will not do, twice rebuffed by the courts, yet still they don't seem to get it.

The safe country argument over Rwanda doesn't really work; it would be a business arrangement for them to keep the people that we send there that we would be paying them for. So they have to maintain some standard in terms of the living standards for people we send there or we'll have a sh1t storm in the UK.

That's why the wider politics of Rwanda aren't relevant.