UK free speech crackdown sees up to 30 arrested per day for petty offenses like retweets...

AOL Lawyer wrote:

show me. wrote:

She didnt abvicate for it.

If someone said they're fine if I die,so be it,show where she listed the hotels address?

So you cannot answer my question - I will repeat it, if someone online advocated for harm to come to you and your family and published your address - would you consider this valid free speech? I am sure you will continue to split hairs - thus demonstrating that you know that what you are saying is simply defending the indefensible for who knows what reason.

The other thing that people repeatedly miss is that freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences - one example: you cannot stipulate when threatening people that they cannot take steps to proactively defend themselves. Another example if someone libels you by accusing you of a terrible crime, you cannot stipulate that they cannot accuse you of worse.

AOL Lawyer wrote:

show me. wrote:

She didnt abvicate for it.

If someone said they're fine if I die,so be it,show where she listed the hotels address?

So you cannot answer my question - I will repeat it, if someone online advocated for harm to come to you and your family and published your address - would you consider this valid free speech? I am sure you will continue to split hairs - thus demonstrating that you know that what you are saying is simply defending the indefensible for who knows what reason.

The other thing that people repeatedly miss is that freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences - one example: you cannot stipulate when threatening people that they cannot take steps to proactively defend themselves. Another example if someone libels you by accusing you of a terrible crime, you cannot stipulate that they cannot accuse you of worse.

Racism Problem in the UK wrote:

The current small boat crisis stems from changes implemented after Brexit. Before Brexit, asylum seekers were required to claim asylum in the first E.U. country they arrived in. This regulation meant that individuals crossing the English Channel could be sent to countries like Italy or Greece, or to another E.U. state if the U.K. could not fulfill its obligation to process their asylum claims. There was a level of cooperation between Britain and other European countries regarding this process.

However, since Brexit, the U.K. is now legally responsible for processing asylum seekers on its own. That was part of the "take back control" that Brexiters asked for. However, the U.K. was woefully unprepared for Brexit and asylum seekers are currently being accommodated in hotels as the immigration service simply does not have the capacity right now with all the extra post-Brexit checks that are required.

The individuals who campaigned for Brexit are now voicing their opposition to its effects. What a surprise.

However, the specifics of these details are irrelevant to the protesters. The U.K. has the capacity to accommodate these asylum seekers and process their claims in a timely manner. What it lacks is the political will to do so. The protesters are primarily focused on the fact that the arrivals are foreign and often Muslim. Rather than calling for the government to hire more staff to address the processing backlog or for a closer relationship with the E.U., they demand that these individuals be "sent back."

That should tell you everything you need to know, the protestors are not interested in actual solutions, they just want to express their opposition to the presence of asylum seekers in the country. It's less about politics, and more about blatant racism.

Unburdened by the Wokeism of the west wrote:

Racism Problem in the UK wrote:

The current small boat crisis stems from changes implemented after Brexit. Before Brexit, asylum seekers were required to claim asylum in the first E.U. country they arrived in. This regulation meant that individuals crossing the English Channel could be sent to countries like Italy or Greece, or to another E.U. state if the U.K. could not fulfill its obligation to process their asylum claims. There was a level of cooperation between Britain and other European countries regarding this process.

However, since Brexit, the U.K. is now legally responsible for processing asylum seekers on its own. That was part of the "take back control" that Brexiters asked for. However, the U.K. was woefully unprepared for Brexit and asylum seekers are currently being accommodated in hotels as the immigration service simply does not have the capacity right now with all the extra post-Brexit checks that are required.

The individuals who campaigned for Brexit are now voicing their opposition to its effects. What a surprise.

However, the specifics of these details are irrelevant to the protesters. The U.K. has the capacity to accommodate these asylum seekers and process their claims in a timely manner. What it lacks is the political will to do so. The protesters are primarily focused on the fact that the arrivals are foreign and often Muslim. Rather than calling for the government to hire more staff to address the processing backlog or for a closer relationship with the E.U., they demand that these individuals be "sent back."

That should tell you everything you need to know, the protestors are not interested in actual solutions, they just want to express their opposition to the presence of asylum seekers in the country. It's less about politics, and more about blatant racism.

Saudi Arabia shoots migrants who try to cross on sight.