What is going on in the UK?

[Manfred Belheim]

Then where is the line between the sort of criminal everyone is and the sort that is a societal ill?

This isn't relevant to the discussion at all, this is a complete tangent.

 

[danjuno]

Are you of the opinion that criminals aren't a societal ill? Either way, you seem to be of the opinion that more of a bad thing isn't a bad thing so long as the rate of badness remains constant, which is certainly an interesting thing to say.

This isn't relevant to the discussion at all, this is a complete tangent.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You're not making a point.

 

[Samson]

You're not making a point.

If you want to know if criminals are a societal ill it is pretty relevant if you mean people who smoke a joint or oligarchs who ignore environmental standards, or whatever you actually meant.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you want to know if criminals are a societal ill it is pretty relevant if you mean people who smoke a joint or oligarchs who ignore environmental standards, or whatever you actually meant.

I honestly don't know where you have to go to learn to conduct arguments like this, it's utterly baffling to me.

A reminder that the initial point I was responding to, and the topic of the discussion (at least as long as I've been part of it), was (paraphrasing) "if the level of criminality of immigrants is at the same level as natives, then there's no argument against allowing them in" (and bear in mind this was a claim made in immediate response to a list of rapes and murders I believe). My retort was that one should expect much lower levels of criminality from immigrants, precisely because it's entirely in the interest of the host nation to select the best, or at least people who aren't committing crimes.

So yes, it's completely irrelevant to ask me to now define what "crime" even means, or at which arbitrary point I would place a dividing line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" crime, because none of that (apparently) needed to be clarified in the initial claim I was responding to.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

"The level of meteor impacts we suffer is already damaging enough, we shouldn't be trying to steer more interplanetary material towards us to have even more"

"Ah... but where precisely are you setting the line between harmless space dust and and actually dangerous impactors?"

"I don't see how that's relevant to what I said"

"Ah... no answer. How interesting. I guess I win then."


Now all that's needed is for someone to come back with some graphs that highlight the negligible dangers of meteor impacts, and we can go full meta on this.

 

[Samson]

I honestly don't know where you have to go to learn to conduct arguments like this, it's utterly baffling to me.

A reminder that the initial point I was responding to, and the topic of the discussion (at least as long as I've been part of it), was (paraphrasing) "if the level of criminality of immigrants is at the same level as natives, then there's no argument against allowing them in" (and bear in mind this was a claim made in immediate response to a list of rapes and murders I believe). My retort was that one should expect much lower levels of criminality from immigrants, precisely because it's entirely in the interest of the host nation to select the best, or at least people who aren't committing crimes.

So yes, it's completely irrelevant to ask me to now define what "crime" even means, or at which arbitrary point I would place a dividing line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" crime, because none of that (apparently) needed to be clarified in the initial claim I was responding to.

I do not see that that is the sole or even primary point of discussion in this sub thread. This is the chain of replies:

Spoiler Reply chain :

British people are from Britain and are necessarily therefore in Britain, unless someone else has allowed them to move to their country. It's a meaningless comparison, or rather a comparison that ignores the meaning of the original complaint.

If the crime rate amongst immigrants is not meaningfully higher than natives, than the argument against immigration on the basis of crime seems unconvincing.

If the carcinogen and toxin release rate of additional cigarettes is not meaningfully higher than cigarettes already smoked, then the the argument against ceasing smoking on the basis of health benefits seems unconvincing.

In addition to what Senethro and Samson have said, comparing people to something that causes cancer is certainly an interesting thing to say.

Are you of the opinion that criminals aren't a societal ill?

I cannot see you point there.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

"The level of meteor impacts we suffer is already damaging enough, we shouldn't be trying to steer more interplanetary material towards us to have even more"

"Ah... but where precisely are you setting the line between harmless space dust and and actually dangerous impactors?"

"I don't see how that's relevant to what I said"

"Ah... no answer. How interesting. I guess I win then."


Now all that's needed is for someone to come back with some graphs that highlight the negligible dangers of meteor impacts, and we can go full meta on this.

Are you alright? What on earth are you talking about

 

[Samson]

Some actual good news?

Apparently a 3% tax on profits will end the North Sea oil and gas industry. I do not believe it, but perhaps it is true.

The former head of Oil & Gas UK has warned that Labour’s Autumn Budget has “signed the official death warrant” of the North Sea oil and gas industry – and says Aberdeen must brace for a downturn.

Mr Webb said the government’s Energy Profits Levy and the new North Sea Future Plan will push skilled workers, investment and equipment out of the north-east.

The Energy Profits Levy "increases the rate of Energy Profits Levy by 3 percentage points to 38%, extends the end date of the Energy Profits Levy to 31 March 2030, and removes the Energy Profits Levy’s Investment Allowance."

The North Sea Future Plan will manage existing oil and gas fields for their lifespan and not to issue new licences to explore new fields.

 

[Theov]

Debatable, especially the latter.

Sure. Let's debate it then.
How do you want to debate it?
Name the 10 most important (medical) inventions of the last 100 years?
Name the 10 things we use the most in a week, look where they were invented?
Name the 10 most influential countries and see where they are located?
Name the 10 safest countries and see where they are located?
Name the 10 countries with the highest standard of living?
...
I think the west will come up a lot.

A whole 9.9%? Truly the end times.

This misses the fact that the number is rising.
10% is actually A LOT.
And the number is rising, not going down.

But hey - keep pretending there's nothing to worry about. I'm sure that will go just fine.

 

[Samson]

The left demonstrating their traditional ability to pull together and overlook minor differences of opinion that has brought them so much power over the years

Corbyn confirmed to journalists on Saturday that he preferred a single leader and is likely to stand for the role but Sultana said she would vote for collective leadership and that she did not believe parties should be run by “sole personalities”.

In a sign of further division within the fledgling movement, a spokesperson for Sultana said she would not be entering the conference hall on Saturday in solidarity with delegates who were expelled over links to other leftwing parties, describing the process as a “witch-hunt”.

It is understood that one of her supporters, James Giles, a councillor in Kingston, was barred from entering the conference centre. Other members were expelled on Friday over alleged membership of the Socialist Workers party.

Sultana said: “I think we have to work with the Greens and other parties so we can stop Nigel Farage getting into Number 10. That has to be the guiding principle for all of us who want to stop fascism.”

Corbyn said it “would essentially be a decision for the local branches of Your Party” to judge what was best in their area, but he that he would not rule out cooperating with the Green party, which has enjoyed a rise in popularity under its new leader, Zack Polanski.

They have also revealed a shortlist of names for its members to pick from: Your Party, Our Party, Popular Alliance and For The Many.

That article links this poll. It has some interesting graphs, but note this is measuring "those who would consider voting for Whichever Party". I THINK I would expect this to mean that everyone understands the foibles of FPTP but it is very open to interpretation. Whatever it means the greens have the highest percent of it, which cannot be a bad thing.

 

[danjuno]

Sure. Let's debate it then.
How do you want to debate it?

Let's go over your original point, shall we?:

But the gist of it is: the Western culture is beautiful and has given the world most of the technology and pieces of welfare we enjoy today. Art, history, science, technology, welfare... it's all there. To see it so rapidly decline is saddening.
There's nothing weird about that.

Technology and culture overlap, but are not one and the same.

This misses the fact that the number is rising.
10% is actually A LOT.
And the number is rising, not going down

Plenty of places are higher than that. Australia is up to something like a third and hasn't collapsed yet.

 

[Samson]

Did Trump pressure Starmer to ban Palestine Action?

The British government’s Cabinet Office rejected Declassified’s attempts to learn whether Donald Trump and Keir Starmer discussed Palestine Action shortly before the group’s proscription.

Conversations between the two leaders were referenced during a legal challenge against the direct action group’s ban, which opened in the High Court this week.

Starmer and Trump spoke on 10 and 30 March 2025 after Palestine Action vandalised Trump’s Turnberry golf course in Scotland earlier that month.

On 31 March, Trump declared on Truth Social: “I was just informed by Prime Minister Starmer of the United Kingdom, that they caught the terrorists who attacked the beautiful Turnberry, in Scotland. They did serious damage, and will hopefully be treated harshly”.

He added: “The three people who did this are in prison. You cannot let things like this attack happen, and I greatly appreciate the work of Prime Minister Starmer, and UK Law Enforcement”.

The post would suggest that Trump and Starmer discussed Palestine Action, as well as law enforcement in Britain, with Trump appearing to use specific wording from the Terrorism Act (“terrorists” and “serious damage”) to justify a harsh response.

On 14 September, The Telegraph reported that: “After Trump Turnberry was vandalised with red paint by pro-Gaza protesters in March, the Prime Minister was asked for updates on those arrested from Police Scotland and briefed Trump personally on developments”.

Changing the judges​

The legal process was marked by controversy before it began.

Last week, Mr Justice Chamberlain, who has overseen the case and was billed to preside over the judicial review, was swapped out for Victoria Sharp, Karen Steyn, and Jonathan Swift.

It is unclear why this change was made, and the judiciary’s press office has reportedly refused to respond to media requests.

The move has raised eyebrows because Swift was previously the government’s top lawyer between 2006 and 2014, acting for the defence and home secretaries in at least nine cases.

For her part, Sharp’s family have attained high-level positions in the British establishment after being appointed by Conservative ministers.

Tayab Ali, a partner at the law firm Bindmans, told the Guardian: “A sudden and unexplained shift from the single judge who already had conduct of the case to an entirely new panel of three is deeply concerning, particularly without any stated justification”.

 

[Theov]

Let's go over your original point, shall we?:

Technology and culture overlap, but are not one and the same.

Without the West we'd still be living stuck in the middle ages.

Plenty of places are higher than that. Australia is up to something like a third and hasn't collapsed yet.

Australias immigration policies very different than the ones Europe.

 

[Senethro]

Without the West we'd still be living stuck in the middle ages.

Uh huh. This is the sort of statement that comes from twitter accounts with statue user pics.

Said so generally, its meaningless. But even if you chose to qualify it, I don't think you're capable of explaining it, or how it should supposedly inform immigration policy.

So its just empty cheering to justify xenophobia. Bro, if the West did do something special and unique, I'm certain you have no connection to it and are not advancing it further.

 

[Samson]

Your Party to have ‘collective leadership’ in win for Zarah Sultana (bits from here and here)

A new member-led executive will take the big decisions around the party’s management and strategy, ” headed by a non-MP. The model won by by 51.6% to 48.6%.

There were also wins for the other positions advocated by Sultana, including for members to be able to have dual-membership of other political groups.

Members of other parties will be eligible to join only after their party has been ratified by its executive (CEC) and conference as being aligned with the party’s values.

 

[danjuno]

Without the West we'd still be living stuck in the middle ages.

How do you even begin to evidence such a wild and broad claim?

Australias immigration policies very different than the ones Europe.

I'd imagine, but how exactly does this justify your position that it should be stricter if the country that allowed more immigrants in is doing fine?

 

[Theov]

Uh huh. This is the sort of statement that comes from twitter accounts with statue user pics.

I'm not on there, so I don't know what you mean.

Said so generally, its meaningless. But even if you chose to qualify it, I don't think you're capable of explaining it, or how it should supposedly inform immigration policy.

"I don't think you're capable of explaining it"
That's a poor way of saying you don't understand it.

So its just empty cheering to justify xenophobia.

*selective* xenophobia... Yes. There's nothing wrong with wanting to keep your culture as it is and protecting it from ideas you don't like.

My stance is: mass immigration is a bad idea for any country and any culture.
Just that I don't think it's a good idea if a million Europeans move into Ghana tomorrow.
Or if a million Chinese move into Brazil.

If you call that 'xenophobic' then go ahead.

Bro, if the West did do something special and unique,

steam engine, radio, electricity and electronics, chips, cars, bicycles, clocks, literally every health care device and treatment, ... I don't think you realize that 99% of the things that shape modern life come from the West.

I'm certain you have no connection to it and are not advancing it further.

Ah, you're back to your ad hominem statements.

 

[Theov]

How do you even begin to evidence such a wild and broad claim?

See my answer to the other poster above

I'd imagine, but how exactly does this justify your position that it should be stricter if the country that allowed more immigrants in is doing fine?

Different kinds of immigrants have different impact on society.
If you look at the countries people come from to Australia, they are vastly different than the ones that come to Europe.

Foreign-born population of Australia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[amadeus]

How do you even begin to evidence such a wild and broad claim?

I don’t think it could be proven in the scientific sense, but I think a good place to start would be asking why the formerly advanced civilizations in Greece, Egypt, China, etc. all fell behind over time and were surpassed by, primarily, northwestern Europeans.

I’ve heard some different theories over time that didn’t involve culture at all—that ancient slave labor made the elite class lethargic, that Britain had easy access to coal and iron to make steel, that 17th century maritime powers expanded through trade, that consolidated polities like the Ming made reactionary governments fall behind.

At some point I think there is a divorce of culture as what people eat and how they dress versus how they build institutions, and what we’ve seen over the last century is how an impartial judiciary, rule of law, and property rights all tend to lead towards an affluent society.

I thought these things could be universal, but then we spent 20 years in Afghanistan and they’re no better off today than they were then. Iraq, marginally, but when considering Saddam Hussein was in the same league as General Amin or Mengistu, it isn’t hard to improve on that.

super ninja edit: to sum up I don’t know what the answer is.