UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679 (https://archive.ph/5Ba6o)

A heated row has broken out over a move by Britain's largest bakery chain to launch a vegan sausage roll.

The pastry, which is filled with a meat substitute and encased in 96 pastry layers, is available in 950 Greggs stores across the country.

It was promised after 20,000 people signed a petition calling for the snack to be launched to accommodate plant-based diet eaters.


But the vegan sausage roll's launch has been greeted by a mixed reaction: Some consumers welcomed it, while others voiced their objections.

View image on Twitter


spread happiness@p4leandp1nk
https://twitter.com/p4leandp1nk/status/1080767496569974785

#VEGANsausageroll thanks Greggs
2764.png


7
10:07 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See spread happiness's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".

While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".

One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".

Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."

View image on Twitter


pg often@pgofton
https://twitter.com/pgofton/status/1080772793774624768

The hype got me like #Greggs #Veganuary

42
10:28 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See pg often's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.

"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."

Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."

"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.

Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".

The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".

It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.

The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Kier Starmer said:
Ban Islam entirely, knock down every single mosque, even if it was a converted church, to send a message.
Click to expand...
Convert them to pig farms and pork butchers.
Otis Mallebrok said:
Twenty chained up pakis per container, a midsized containership holds 8000 containers, so you would only need 6-7 ships to deport a million pedos to pedostan or the middle of the Atlantic.
Click to expand...
Middle of the Atlantic would save on food, and if you pick the right spot could make a nice coral reef.
If you scuttle the whole ship you could revitalise the steel and shipyard industries, allowing grim northerners to spend their new wages on the tons of cheap bacon you've just made available.
 
Absolutely insane how hard the illusion is cracking. The council elections really made them shiver.

It's downright hilarious seeing both Labour and Tories pretend that they are gonna change. No one believes them, no one has the slightest bit of faith that they will do anything. Hell, Labour has a majority government already and could start doing it RIGHT NOW and guarantee a even bigger win next time they run than what Boris did in 2019 against Corbyn. But they won't.

It's all just words, virtue signaling of a different political angle than usual but signaling all the same. No action.
 
I just found out about this lot.
Immigration reporting is the requirement to regularly “check in” or sign in at a Home Office Reporting Centre. Anyone subject to immigration control, including those who are waiting for a final decision on their application to live in the UK (such as people seeking asylum), can be asked to report.

Immigration reporting is part of the Home Office’s Immigration Bail system, introduced under the Immigration Act 2016. Under the Act, at least one bail condition needs to be imposed. Immigration reporting is one of the most imposed conditions. As of September 2019, 76.4% of individuals who are put on bail are given a reporting condition (equivalent to more than 83,000 individuals).


Reporting Is Unnecessary, Unfair Harassment​

Migrants Organise produced a research report in January 2020, funded by the Strategic Legal Fund, which outlines how reporting conditions often place an unreasonable physical, psychological and/or financial burden on migrants. While the Home Office maintains that reporting conditions are not meant to be punitive, the practice proves otherwise: many people face degrading and discriminatory treatment at reporting centres – they are also often forcibly asked to attend redocumentation interviews, or even detained and removed. It is the constant threat of detention that can make reporting especially stressful.
Click to expand...
"Illegal migration bill: Not in our name."
City of Sanctuary are co-sigantories on JCWI’s latest campaign – Not in Our Name. This is about showing opposition to the Illegal Migration Bill.
We all deserve to live safe from harm. But the Government’s newly passed Illegal Migration Act will have a devastating impact on people’s lives, causing immeasurable harm to people seeking sanctuary. It allows the Government to detain people – including children – indefinitely, and deport them to countries where their lives may be at risk. Read more about the new law here.
Your solidarity is needed more than ever. Please sign and share the open letter to the Prime Minister to condemn this Act, and join our movement to support people who want to make the UK their home.
In addition to the letter, we are holding a joint digital action on Monday 4th September at noon – to get involved is simple:
STEP 1
Take a picture of yourself holding a sign rejecting the government’s cruelty against migrants and refugees. Examples:
“THE GOVERNMENT IS BREAKING INTERNATIONAL LAW”
“NO TO THE ILLEGAL ACT”
STEP 2
Post your picture with the caption:
“The Inhumane Migration Act is #NotInOurName”
and share the link to our open letter to the Prime Minister: https://www.jcwi.org.uk/not-in-our-name-sign-our-open-letter-to-the-pm
Or feel free to pick your own message that aligns with your organisation so we can raise as much digital noise as possible!
STEP 3
Share this action with your friends so we can be as loud as possible.
Thank you for taking action to stand up for justice.
Click to expand...

Small and irrelevant maybe, but they're all over the place.
1747434855183.webp
It also feels like "asylum seeker" is just code for "illegal immigrant".

Illegal Migration Bill (2023)​

Enver Solomon, Refugee Council CEO and #Together With Refugees spokesperson,
“We know from our work that refugee children are often scared and deeply traumatised. They need our protection, not punishment. A Conservative-led government rightly ended the appalling practice of locking up refugee children in 2014 by introducing strict time limits. This government must not go back on this.”

Hot on the heels of the passing of the Nationality and Borders Act, the ‘Illegal Migration Bill’ was introduced to Parliament in March ’23. It’s stated aim is to stop people from crossing the Channel in small boats. Dubbed the #RefugeesBanBill, the Bill sets out a plan that will mean that anyone, including children, who arrives irregularly into the UK will have their asylum claim deemed “inadmissible”. The Home Office will not even consider someone’s claim. They could be detained indefinitely or deported to Rwanda or a ‘third country’.
There has been huge opposition to the Bill. In an open letter (11th July ’23) to the prime minster, City of Sanctuary joined refugee agencies, faith leaders, leading children’s charities, medical and civil society groups to call on the government to scrap it’s plans to detain children and toddlers and retain existing time-limits. The negative impact of detention on people’s mental and physical health is widely understood . The full letter coordinated by #TogetherWithRefugees, can be viewed here:
UNHCR expressed profound concern in an initial public statement on 7 March 2023, noting that the Bill, if passed, would breach the UK’s obligations under international law. (Click Here)
In May ’23 Exeter City of sanctuary also joined with 181 civil society groups to issue a joint solidarity statement on the Bill and urge the Government to immediately withdraw the ‘Illegal Migration Bill’.

Refugee Council: Impact assessment of the consequences of the new bill over the first 3 years :​

  • Over 190,000 people could be locked up or forced into destitution under the Government’s new crackdown on desperate people seeking safety and sanctuary.
  • As many as 45,000 children could be locked up in the UK, after having their asylum claims deemed “inadmissible. This includes 15,000 lone children.
  • Around £9 billion will be spent over three years on locking up refugees in detention centres and accommodating people who can’t be removed to other countries.
Click to expand...

The "Refugee Council" is a 'charity' for refugees. Interesting, the link to the assessment of the bill and PDF covering it are now mysteriously gone from their website. I was able to find a copy on the wayback machine however. The crux if their argument is that it already costs so much to detain illegals/process asylum claims, so you may as well not bother trying to detain illegals or spend time determining if a claim is valid? It is funny though they called out the potential cost of housing them in hotels before it become a big concern.
Refugee Council’s analysis shows:
• Inadmissibility: In the first three years of the legislation coming into effect, between 225,347 and
257,101 people will have their asylum claims deemed inadmissible. This includes between 39,500 and
45,066 children, consisting of between 13,065 and 14,906 unaccompanied children and between 26,435
and 30,160 children with family members.
• Removals: Between 66,996 and 67,227 people will be removed, either to their own country or a third
country.
• Left in limbo: At the end of the third year, between 161,147 and 192,670 people will have had their
asylum claims deemed inadmissible but not have been removed. They will be unable to have their
asylum claims processed, unable to work and will be reliant on Home Office support and accommodation
indefinitely.
• Costs: Between £3.8bn and £4bn will have been spent on detaining up to 257,101 people.
• Between £4.9bn and £5.7bn will have been spent on accommodating people who can’t be removed. In
total, between £8.7bn and £9.6bn will have been spent on detaining and accommodating people
impacted by the bill.
The above figures assume an increase of the capacity of the detention estate of 10,728 bed spaces and between
50% and 100% of people being detained for an average of 28 days. If the Home Office wished to detain people for
longer than that, the the cost of expanding the estate and the ongoing detention costs would increase.
The figures also assume that all those whose asylum claims are deemed inadmissible successfully apply for
support under section 4 of the Immigration Act 1999, and are accommodated in places that cost the same as the
current dispersal accommodation. If people were required to be accommodated in hotels, the cost would be
significantly more. For example, there are currently 51,000 people in the asylum system accommodated in 395
hotels.15 To accommodate the 192,670 people whose claims would be deemed inadmissible but who wouldn’t
be removed at the end of the third year would, on that basis, require 1,493 hotels to be used.
Click to expand...

Also found out about the Joint council for the welfare of immigrants. These guys especially got me peeved.
They were responsible for allowing the 2k+ people who were gonna get processed in Rwanda into just being granted or having their asylum processed here — or they were just fluffing themselves up.
Although the Rwanda removals policy was scrapped last year, over 2,000 asylum seekers were left in limbo – receiving letters suggesting they could still be removed to other countries if “circumstances change.”
JCWI launched a legal challenge, warning that this uncertainty risked retraumatising people who had already fled conflict and persecution. Hours before the scheduled court hearing, the Home Office published guidance confirming it had “discontinued inadmissibility action and is committed to substantively considering the merits of the asylum claims.”
Click to expand...
The prime minister said on his first day in office that the Conservative party’s Rwanda plan was a gimmick and that it was dead and buried. He then promised those migrants that their claims for asylum would finally be processed in the UK. Shortly after that he went back on his word and told those people that he reserved the right to consider removing them to another third country after all. We challenged that practice. We are pleased that more than an estimated 2,000 of those migrants left in limbo and uncertainty can finally rest that their asylum claims will only be processed in the UK.
Click to expand...
JCWI solicitor Taher Gulamhussein
Click to expand...

They won a case at the end of February and I didn't hear from anywhere, and it's insane how much harm they've probably done in the background when it comes to deportations and whatnot due to precedents they help to set. Implications from our supreme court aren't as relevant as they are in the USA, but it's still worrying considering the JCWI is apparently rather good at it.
Success! JCWI’s Legal team win far-reaching case on child citizenship.
JCWI’s legal team are today celebrating at the Supreme Court, with a judgment that could have far-reaching implications for children forced into statelessness.

In the case, a child was born during the time their father was subject to a citizenship deprivation order. The father appealed the decision, arguing it had made him stateless and so the decision was in breach of international law. The government was eventually forced to accept the father’s arguments that he continued to hold British citizenship but would not accept that the child was also a British citizen.
Click to expand...
In this bizarre and Kafkaesque case, the government obstinately refused to accept that the child was also a British citizen. It’s hard not to see this refusal to follow both international law and common sense as yet another example of the government putting the need to appear ‘tough’ on immigration above basic humanity. While we’re grateful that justice has been done today, it should not have taken these lengths for the government to accept that no child should ever be put in this position.
Click to expand...
Laura Smith, JCWI Co-Director Legal
Click to expand...
So, two points of contention here:
1. Man has citizenship removed by the country (Citizenship deprivation, also known as the removal of citizenship, is a legal process where a state revokes an individual's citizenship, typically for reasons related to national security, fraud, or other public interest concerns) but because he wasn't a citizen anywhere else, he'd be stateless and in breach of international law (which he was no doubt advised on by the JCWI). The gloss over that fact in the article. Why was his citizenship removed? Why was he in the country long enough to have a child anyway? Is the mother not a citizen either? Can you renounce your old citizenship to avoid deportation in that case?

2. Your parents do not need to be British citizens for your child to classify, and the supreme court apparently has the authority to grand citizenship to children irrespective of other criteria (if you're born in the UK under non-UK citizens, you still need to wait until your 10 years old before being given it, even if the parents are granted citizenship in the interim).

Issue: "If the Secretary of State withdraws an order depriving a person of citizenship because they accept that the order has made the person stateless, does this mean that the original order is of no effect and the person affected has always retained their British citizenship?"

​

Case ID​

UKSC/2023/0133

Parties​

Appellant(s)​

N3

Respondent(s)​

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Issue​

If the Secretary of State withdraws an order depriving a person of citizenship because they accept that the order has made the person stateless, does this mean that the original order is of no effect and the person affected has always retained their British citizenship?

Facts​

N3 is a British Citizen who was born in Bangladesh. In November 2017, the Secretary of State made an order depriving him of citizenship on grounds that he had travelled to Syria and aligned himself with Al-Qaeda, and that he posed a threat to national security. She considered N3 to be a dual British-Bangladeshi national and that depriving him of British citizenship would not make him stateless. N3 appealed the deprivation decision in the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which allowed his appeal. The Secretary of State appealed to the Court of Appeal, which allowed her appeal and remitted the matter to SIAC. N3 sought permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.However, following an SIAC decision in a separate set of appeals in British-Bangladeshi cases where it was held that the individuals had lost Bangladeshi citizenship at the age of 21, the Secretary of State wrote to N3 in April 2021 to say that she was now satisfied that the deprivation order would make N3 stateless, and withdrew the deprivation order.ZA is the child of a man in similar circumstances to N3. She was born after the deprivation order was made against her father, but before it was subsequently withdrawn. If her father had British citizenship when she was born, she would have automatic British citizenship.Both ZA and N3 sought judicial review of the refusal of Secretary of State to accept that ZA's father and N3 were British citizens in the period between the deprivation orders being made and withdrawn. Their claims were linked. Their claims were dismissed by the High Court, and their appeals were dismissed by the Court of Appeal. They now appeal to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
I archived the supreme court case link but there's accompanying PDFs and judgements I can't be arsed to. But what this does is open up the avenue for foreign powers to strip their people of citizenship so even if you're an illegal here, you'll be classed as a stateless citizen. When classed as such, you cannot be removed from the country, ever.

Abolish the supreme court and abolish SIAC.

Goodnight.

Softer Brexit migration deal hinges on £3,500 visa fee for under-30s
The EU wants the UK to lower demands to charge thousands of pounds in visa fees for under-30s in return for help tackling the Channel crisis, The i Paper has learnt.
As negotiations on Sir Keir Starmer’s Brexit reset go to the “razor’s edge” ahead of Monday’s UK-EU summit, Brussels is pushing for fresh concessions from London on its key demand for a youth mobility scheme to allow under-30s to move, work and study between Britain and Europe.
The EU has accepted UK demands for youth mobility to be time-limited and capped, but sources said the British offer was still “unattractive” and “stringent” and wants London to reduce expected demands for more than £1,000 of fees and requirement for £2,500 of savings to access the scheme.
If the UK makes concessions, an EU source suggested Brussels could give way on Home Secretary Yvette Cooper’s demand for more migrant and criminal data-sharing, which the Home Office believes is key to tackling the Channel crisis.
The EU source said: “I wouldn’t be surprised if on migration data-sharing we can see progress – but it has to be exchanged for something.”
Brussels has also floated a new proposal for any youth mobility scheme to be subject to a review mechanism in a few years time, to see if it could be expanded.
A Whitehall source suggested the UK could agree to this second demand and it could provide a “landing” zone for talks on youth mobility, which have been strained due to Cooper’s overall goal of reducing net migration and political pressure from Reform.

‘Impossible’ for young people to come to UK​

A European diplomatic source said: “You could have a quota that is set for the first two years and then you look how it’s going.
“The UK has youth mobility quotes with Australia that are never reached.
“I’m not sure how many Europeans will rush here despite Nigel Farage thinking millions want to come.
“This is something that doesn’t need to be set in stone for 100 years.”
EU sources also criticised Govt’s general approach to migration, saying it’s “practically impossible for a young person now to come to the UK”, adding that UK demands for caps and time limits are “stringent” and “extremely limiting”.
The EU source said: “You have to have a system that is workable, that is attractive to both sides, that delivers a message of reciprocal trust.”
Despite the EU’s criticism, the UK Government is trying to win the domestic argument on youth mobility, circulating research around Labour MPs showing public support for a scheme.
Monday’s summit is not expected to produce an agreed youth mobility deal, but a political declaration is likely to commit both sides to negotiating one in future.

Brexit win on food​

Britain is meanwhile expected to bank a Brexit win in the talks on a deal on cross-border agri-food trade – known as a veterinary or SPS agreement.
Sources told The i Paper the UK will get a carve-out that ensures animal welfare protections like the live animals export ban can be maintained despite alignment with EU rules on agri-food, which will ease the fears of campaigners that the post-Brexit law may have to be reversed.
The UK and EU are expected to agree a security and defence deal on Monday, that paves the way for British defence companies to access European rearmament loans for joint projects with member states.
But the biggest sticking point remaining in talks, which are set to go to the wire with EU ambassadors meeting on Sunday, is an argument over whether fishing rights and agri-food deals should be linked and time limited.
The UK wants a permanent agri-food deal to provide “certainty” for businesses, but wants to only grant the EU an extension of fishing rights for four years, arguing that an approach of regular negotiations was agreed between the two sides in the Boris Johnson’s Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).
However, the EU is arguing that the agri-food deal should be subject to the same time limit if the UK does not grant permanent fishing rights.

​

An EU source said the UK is “using the same argument as the EU is using for fish”, as the diplomatic source warned that a four-year deal was “asking for trouble” as it would expire around the time of the next British general election campaign.
“The four years will end in the middle of the next British election campaign, I think that is not a good idea,” the diplomatic source said.
“From the British side it’s not very clever, Labour doesn’t want to have this in the middle of an election campaign.”
Starmer was on Friday holding crunch talks with key EU figures including Commission President Ursula von der Leyen at Friday’s European Political Community (EPC) summit in Albania that could plot a way through some of the remaining obstacles in reset talks.
Click to expand...
The EU basically admitted they've done the bare minimum up to this point about the boat migrants despite being given half a billion a year.
36% fewer people were detected arriving by small boats in 2023 than in 2022. The Home Office says this is largely explained by a 93% reduction in Albanian nationals arriving by small boats 2023, which it attributes to recent partnership work between the UK and Albania. Arrivals of other nationalities reduced by 14% overall.
46% fewer boats were detected arriving in the UK without permission in 2023 than in 2022, although the average number of people in each boat increased from 41 to 49.
France prevented fewer crossing attempts in 2023 than in 2022. The Home Office says this reflects the decline in the overall number of crossing attempts in 2023.
Click to expand...
To sum:
1. EU nations don't have to pay visa fee for entry for actually doing something about the boats.
2. Unlimited access to fishing waters to allow UK food exports into the EU
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A happening is coming, now he has fucked off the fisherman.

So in the same fucking day;

Starmer destroys our fishing industry.
Rachel Reeves attacks the banks and the 275bn reserve they have in ISAs and use as equity for business loans etc. The banks are allegedly fucking furious as it will deplete their reserves causing an en mass Northern Rock.

FUCKING INSANE

Also, Starmer has said he wants to debate Nigel Farage. DO IT WITHOUT CUE CARDS AND SWEENEY'S DICK IN YOUR MOUTH, NIGGA I DARE YOU!
 
The powers that be are starting to (claim to) recognise the problems of a loss of social cohesion caused by mass immigration. But the truth is that almost none of them have even begun to grasp the scale of the problem and how existential it is. The observations are twofold:

A. A free, significantly multiethnic society has essentially never been observed to work long-term in human history:

The closest case is the USA, which has existed as significantly multiethnic since the late 1960s. Note that by "multiethnic", I mean in terms of demographic power, similar to a "multipolar" world order, so disenfranchised or enslaved populations don't count. A multiethnic USA has existed for just over half a century, and has seen: The KKK, several wide-scale race riots, the white populations covertly fleeing half the cities in the country for the unstated refugee camps known as "suburbs" due to mass black violence, mass political upheaval from 2015 due to white racial angst, a black teen being crowdfunded half a million dollars for stabbing a white kid to death. I could go on. And yet, compared to almost any other example, the US stands out amongst the "significantly multi-ethnic" category as a paradise of peace and freedom. The only other noteworthy example may be Singapore, which maintains order in its multi-ethnic situation through the use of a hyper-authoritarian police state. The US also exists in the minds of the population as a "nation of immigrants", in which ethnic identities are deferred to the respective "motherlands" back home. No European state will ever be able to hoodwink their native populations into this.

B. Even with gross immigration dropped to zero, the UK is locked into this future:

The fraction of White British live births is down to the low 50s% and dropping year on year. The foreign ethnicities are already here, and here in significant, large cohorts (Pakistani, Indian, African).

(B) is a simple statistical fact, and (A) I believe is empirically and logically true, and is coming closer to being accepted by the righter edge of politicians. What are the possible solutions?

1. Wait for outright civil war between 2 or more minority contingents (may or may not include White British) and/or Balkanisation (which would obviously lead to warfare between nation-states very quickly).
2. Force integrate the entire immigrant population. Force use of English, ban Halal slaughter, ban burqas, perhaps ban Islam outright.
3. Retroactively disenfranchise people based on ethnicity. Only White British may vote, hold positions of power, and so on.
4. Embark on one of the largest endeavours of mass deportation ever undertaken in history to restore the White British population to unipolar, supermajority levels, say, 90+%.

(2) I believe would not work. The foreign population is too large and self-contained to force-integrate. Any attempt to would only breed extreme resentment. Even in principle, it's doubtful that such "integration" even works without many generations of inter-breeding and ethnic homogenisation. Which would have to be forced because hardly anyone actually wants to breed outside their own ethnic group, especially in the increasingly sectarian society we're coming up on.

(3) Similar to (2), would certainly mean having huge, radicalised, aggrieved populations hanging around for basically ever into the future.

(4) Would not be at all easy. It would mean officially declaring Britain to be a white (or even specifically White British) ethnostate. Any metrics for deportation would have to be either overtly based on ethnicity, or slightly more covertly based on proxies. All of the most problematic immigrant populations come from, frankly, shitholes, and will not go just by being asked politely. People would lie about heritage and background on documents, and run cover for each other. Deportation would have to fall back on an "I know it when I see it" criterion. Cutting off all benefits for foreign populations would be a good start, but many would still be worse off returning to their homeland. Worse, the only age demographic that actually matters when altering future demographics is people under child-bearing age. These are also the most likely to only have British citizenship by being "native" to some ethnic enclave in Britain. They may have no official home country to return to. Deportations could be refused by foreign countries. The only way to make them leave would be to make staying uncomfortable or unviable enough that life finds a way. Very quickly when gaming this out, it starts to look very grim and reminiscent of things that tarnished the reputation of nationalism for 80 years.

So that's the situation we find ourselves in. Not sure why I even typed all this out, just to blackpill myself I guess. I don't see a future that doesn't involve either doing unsavoury things, or having unsavoury things done to us, or both. That said I don't think there's anywhere else to run either. The most stable options are probably bunkering in Eastern Europe or a red northern US state and hoping things don't worsen, or living the cosmopolitan, rootless cuck life in Dubai or South-East Asia. Anywhere else, the same thing is happening.
 
There are no legitimate asylum seekers in this country. It is legally and physically impossible. All of them will have passed through multiple safe countries first and asylum seekers must, by legal definition, seek asylum in the first safe country they arrive in.

There are no asylum seekers in the UK. They are all,every single last one of them, illegal immigrants.
 
A tale in two halves
Doctor Who actor Ncuti Gatwa has been confirmed as the UK’s spokesperson for the Eurovision song contest 2025.
Gatwa will announce the British jury’s points for each participating country’s song. Previous spokespeople include Joanna Lumley, Fearne Cotton, Nigella Lawson and fellow Whoniverse star Catherine Tate.

The confirmation cements a Doctor Who and Eurovision “fabulous collision” this year, with a Eurovision themed episode of the hit sci-fi series airing the same day as the competition.
In the special episode, titled Interstellar Song Contest, Gatwa’s Doctor and his companion Belinda Chandra (Varada Sethu) will visit the 803rd edition of a galaxy-wide singing competition. It will also feature cameos from Eurovision presenters Graham Norton and Rylan Clark.

“There’s no song contest without the great man himself,” showrunner Russell T Davies previously said in a statement. “It was an honour to welcome Graham Norton to our studios in Cardiff. This is the wildest episode of all, and we’re lucky to have Graham adding to the mayhem.”
Gatwa rose to fame playing Eric Effiong in the Netflix comedy-drama Sex Education. Cast as the Doctor in 2022, Gatwa is the first black actor to play the famous role.
The UK’s entry at Eurovision 2025 will be Remember Monday, singing the powerpop ballad What the Hell Just Happened?.

“We’re going to be the first girl band to represent for the UK since 1999, which feels like such a crazy honour,” said the pop group in a statement. “We’re going to bring loads of fun, energy and hopefully do something that you won’t have seen before on the Eurovision stage … This is really the music World Cup and we’ll do our best to bring it home!”
Semi-finals start next week, with the grand final taking place in Basel, Switzerland, on Saturday 17 May.
Click to expand...
Doctor Who star Ncuti Gatwa has been replaced as the Eurovision 2025 spokesperson due to "unforeseen circumstances".

The 32-year-old actor was due to read out the UK jury votes at the grand final on Saturday but has now been replaced by singer Sophie Ellis-Bextor.

A BBC statement from Thursday evening, external said: "Due to unforeseen circumstances, unfortunately Ncuti Gatwa is no longer able to participate as Spokesperson during the Grand Final this weekend."

It continued: "However, we are delighted to confirm that BBC Radio 2's very own Friday night Kitchen Disco Diva Sophie Ellis-Bextor will be presenting the jury result live from the UK."

The BBC has not given any more information on the reason for Gatwa's withdrawal.

In previous years the UK spokesperson role has been taken on by Catherine Tate, Amanda Holden and AJ Odudu.

Sophie Ellis-Bextor said: "I love Eurovision and it's a privilege to be part of 2025's grand final.

"What an honour it is to announce the UK's jury score on such a special show which always puts music front and centre. I am very much looking forward to delivering the iconic douze points from the United Kingdom!"

The announcement from the BBC about Gatwa came during the second Eurovision semi-final, in which UK entry Remember Monday performed.

Lauren Byrne, Charlotte Steele and Holly-Anne Hull performed What The Hell Just Happened, but were safe from elimination due to the UK's automatic qualification in the competition.

The countries that qualified on Thursday for Saturday's final include Israel, Luxembourg, Finland, Latvia, Malta, Lithuania, Armenia, Austria, Denmark and Greece.

They join the UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy and Switzerland alongside the countries that qualified at Tuesday's semi final - Norway, Albania, Sweden, Iceland, Netherlands, Poland, San Marino, Estonia, Portugal, and Ukraine.

Ireland, which is currently the joint-record holder with Sweden for the most Eurovision wins, after taking the trophy seven times, failed to qualify on Thursday evening.

Norwegian singer Emmy, who represented the country, did not get enough votes with Laika Party, about a Russian space dog.

She hoped to replicate the success of last year's entrant, Bambie Thug, who became the first Irish competitor to reach the grand final since Ryan O'Shaughnessy in 2018.
Click to expand...
Bit more context since it's likely about Israel
Britain’s Eurovision act has refused to back Israel’s entry in the competition.
The country-pop girl group Remember Monday claimed that the Gaza conflict was “such a complex issue” when asked about Israel’s participation in the singing contest.
Speaking ahead of the semi-final on Thursday in Basel, Switzerland, Lauren Byrne, Holly-Anne Hull and Charlotte Steele said: “We just think it’s really difficult, it’s such a complex issue and that’s really difficult to comment on in a little soundbite.”
They added: “But we’re so excited, Eurovision was literally created to celebrate; the slogan is ‘United by Music’. We’re excited to be here and be meeting all the acts and participating in such an amazing competition.”

It comes amid another politically heated year for Eurovision, with Pro-Palestine protests expected and the Israeli entrant Yuval Raphael admitting she was “expecting” to be booed on stage.
The 24-year-old contestant is a survivor of Hamas’s assault on the Nova music festival on Oct 7 2023. She is one of 11 people out of 50 to survive in the bomb shelter she fled to after hiding under a pile of dead bodies for eight hours until rescued.

On Thursday, Raphael will sing her song, New Day Will Rise, at the semi-final with shrapnel still in her leg. Protests against Israel are expected at both the second semi-final and the final on Saturday.
Earlier this week, Raphael said that “everybody has opinions,” when asked about the controversy surrounding her country competing.
It followed more than 70 former Eurovision contestants signing an open letter last week calling on the organisers to ban Israel and its broadcaster KAN from the competition amid the ongoing war in Gaza, which has killed more than 50,000 people since Oct 7, according to the Hamas-run health ministry.

The letter said the ban should take place because of the country’s “genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza and the decades-long regime of apartheid and military occupation against the entire Palestinian people”.

RTÉ, Ireland’s public broadcaster, also asked the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), the competition organisers, for talks over Israel’s involvement.
The EBU insisted members should ensure the competition remained a “universal event that promotes connections, diversity and inclusion through music”.

​

Raphael told the BBC she was trying to “put everything aside” and focus on her upcoming semi-final as Israeli fans were warned they could be the target of anti-Semitic attacks if they travelled to the song contest this week.
The warning, issued by Israel’s National Security Council, follows rising anti-Semitism in Europe amid the ongoing war in Gaza, including an infamous “Jew hunt” in the Netherlands last November.
On Sunday, during the opening parade, KAN made a complaint to police and the EBU after accusing a demonstrator of making a throat-slitting gesture to the Israeli delegation.

Raphael said it “was scary at times, even uncomfortable,” but added that it reminds her of her “agenda” at the contest, which is “spreading as much love as I can and bringing pride to my country”.
The Israeli act in last year’s competition – hosted in Malmo, Sweden – also faced mass demonstrations, including one with climate activist Greta Thunberg.
The 2024 shows also featured consistent booing and jeering against the Israeli entrant Eden Golan’s performances of Hurricane, as well as unprecedented security measures taken by Shin Bet, Israel’s secret service, because of fears for her safety.
Golan’s emotional track Hurricane was reworked from a previous song called October Rain, which was renamed after it was thought to be too political in reference to the Oct 7 Hamas attacks.
Other entrants last year, such as Ireland’s Bambie Thug, revealed they had been banned from any political messaging, such as wearing keffiyehs or writing “ceasefire” on their bodies during performances.
Click to expand...
 
Im often very critical of Israel, but I just want the pro Palestine lot to shut up. It’s eurovision for fucks sake. It’s a daft competition and it’s the literal embodiment of us all holding hands and singing kumbaya just like the olympics. Things like art (which Eurovision isn’t by anyone’s standards but whatever) and music are supposed to transcend these boundaries and show us what we all share as fellow humans. The Palestine liberation lot also got Johnny greenwood’s gig shut down recently and they are po faced no-fun idiots who need to shut up.
Sweden are gonna win btw, get ready for ‘bara bada bastu’ to be ETCHED INTO YOUR BRAIN
 
Otterly said:
Im often very critical of Israel, but I just want the pro Palestine lot to shut up. It’s eurovision for fucks sake.
Click to expand...
Guess what BBC Radio 4 happened to be having a discussion about today, co-incidentally timed given Eurovision tonight?

Amusingly I got to hear one of their callers equating Israel to criminals from the last world war around the same time as one of the write ins called for a solution. Not even slightly subtle there BBC.
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
Not even slightly subtle there BBC.
Click to expand...
I don’t even like Eurovision. I’d need to be three sheets to the wind to enjoy it, I’m just sick of these protester spoiling people who are trying to at least act like we could be a nice friendly world. I know it’s naive. I know that I, as someone who has lots of nice colleagues from all over the world and seeing the absolute best and brightest each shithole has to offer and that’s why I think that, but I am irrationally annoyed at them trying to stop Eurovision. Let the Israeli lass sing.

The Olympics and people trying to reach out and build bridges like that are the sort of people who we shouldn’t shit on. Is it naive? Yeah it probably is but ffs let them enjoy the camp night of pretending we can all be friends.
Maybe in a few thousand years we can finally all set aside our differences star trek style and stop killing each other. Until then, we’ve got Eurovision and the Olympics and musical collaborations and scientific groups trying to work on stuff and could we please stop shouting at them?
 
I dunno, it is Eurovision. Israel is not in fuckin' Europe. It's just like the Israelis, trying to occupy territory they have no legitimate claim to.

While we're at it, Australia is not in fuckin' Europe either. They can fuck off too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom