It depends on the context doesn’t it. Lots of people will fly the England flag or wear an England shirt during a football tournament, and all they mean by that is “I support the England team” without a further political meaning. But the meaning of the current flag-flying from lamp posts seems to essentially be “we don’t want immigrants in the UK” which can make the flags intimidating (which is probably the exact intention).
Here’s another example of context changing meaning. Churchill used to give a two-fingered salute (see picture below), and his intended meaning of that salute was that it was a “V” for “victory” in WW2. But of course these days, that same outwards two-fingered salute means “fuck off”. Context changes the meaning.
Fair enough, but according to a couple of sites that Wikipedia refers to, Churchill originally didn’t know that the outward facing gesture was rude until he was told about it. If true then I guess his gesture was intended to mean “here is a V for victory” instead of “fuck off you lot” or “fuck the Germans”.
Is it about immigrants in general though or the people trying to game the system by pretending to be refugees, entering via the english channel.
Churchill’s “V for Victory” was flipping the germans off.
I’ve been to England a few times and saw people and buildings flying St George’s cross before this crisis, also had seen it used online in emoji form in bios, etc.
Very few people are gaming the system, but the ones that are won’t be caught because asylum seekers aren’t having their claims processed.
If this was your genuinely held concern you should be pushing for the government to allocate the resources to properly vet asylum claims and get all of these people processed appropriately.
I suspect you wouldn’t like that solution though because in the end it will likely remove less than a percent or two of asylum seekers
39% (43,600) of asylum seekers arrived on a small boat and a further 11% (12,100) entered through other irregular routes (on lorries, shipping containers, or without relevant documentation)
55,700 people with no regard for the law or nation entering during 2025 alone is deeply troubling.
Neither of the things you just said prevent someone from seeing asylum. It’s the UK government that has no regard for the law, they have a duty to process these claims as signatories of the UN convention on the rights of refugees.
Hey, you’re that same bozo who was trying to tell me he didn’t know 14 88 was a dog whistle earlier, I wonder if your opinions on this are fact based and well researched…
The UK government can not like these people as much as it wants, it doesn’t make their asylum claims illegal
I think you’ve banged the nail on the head - that’s why people are annoyed. It SHOULD prevent them from gaining asylum. The law is outdated and it’s funding a people smuggling industry. Every claim where the seeker came through from a safe country such as France should be rejected immediately. They’re not refugees. The asylum law is for refugees. Australia was able to solve it and we almost had it with the (albeit overpriced) Rwanda policy.
Before I get assumed to be a racist, I actually think the UK law to immigrate legally is too strict. The thresholds are too high and requiring one for a british citizen with non british spouse or children is borderline racism.
British citizens don’t require anything to immigrate whether they have a spouse or child or where the spouse, child, lack of spouse or lack of child are from.
YI mean… Effectively they are. There is a process but unless you are a violent criminal or something your visa as a spouse isn’t going to be denied. The process is mainly to ferret out fraudulent ones, something you would seemingly be infavor of.
Children of British citizens are literally automatically citizens as well unless their parent was also born outside the UK. Even then in most cases they still will or can be, do you have any idea what you’re even talking about?
Because it would mean people trying to get to the UK illegally from a safe country would be sent to Rwanda instead. So unless they are trying to get to Rwanda intentionally, they’ll stop coming into the UK
I have to assume at this point you are deliberately misusing words? Because I believe both you and I know that it’s not illegal to cross into the UK from France to claim asylum. And I’m fairly certain we’ve established this.
Can we carry on in reality instead of in your Dreamworld?
Wether it shouldn’t or shouldn’t is immaterial to this conversation. To follow both UK and international law all these asylum claims need to be processed.
If showing up on a boat disqualified you, the Tories would be chomping at the bit to process them and turf them.
The things your saying all sound lovely and in a perfect world of it was like that we might agree that it was better.
There’s no point carrying on this conversation if you’re going to continue to claim that people arriving on small boats and other irregular means are illegal
So why did the Tories spend 15 years not processing them if it would have been quick and easy? Is it because coming from France doesn’t make their claims invalid? And that’s just something that you’d personally like to be true and has absolutely no bearing on this discussion whatsoever?
It depends on the context doesn’t it. Lots of people will fly the England flag or wear an England shirt during a football tournament, and all they mean by that is “I support the England team” without a further political meaning. But the meaning of the current flag-flying from lamp posts seems to essentially be “we don’t want immigrants in the UK” which can make the flags intimidating (which is probably the exact intention).
Here’s another example of context changing meaning. Churchill used to give a two-fingered salute (see picture below), and his intended meaning of that salute was that it was a “V” for “victory” in WW2. But of course these days, that same outwards two-fingered salute means “fuck off”. Context changes the meaning.
The outward facing V of two-fingers meaning offence predates Churchill by a few centuries.
Fair enough, but according to a couple of sites that Wikipedia refers to, Churchill originally didn’t know that the outward facing gesture was rude until he was told about it. If true then I guess his gesture was intended to mean “here is a V for victory” instead of “fuck off you lot” or “fuck the Germans”.
Is it about immigrants in general though or the people trying to game the system by pretending to be refugees, entering via the english channel.
Churchill’s “V for Victory” was flipping the germans off.
I’ve been to England a few times and saw people and buildings flying St George’s cross before this crisis, also had seen it used online in emoji form in bios, etc.
Very few people are gaming the system, but the ones that are won’t be caught because asylum seekers aren’t having their claims processed.
If this was your genuinely held concern you should be pushing for the government to allocate the resources to properly vet asylum claims and get all of these people processed appropriately.
I suspect you wouldn’t like that solution though because in the end it will likely remove less than a percent or two of asylum seekers
Gov.UK says it is 50%, or 55,700 people.
55,700 people with no regard for the law or nation entering during 2025 alone is deeply troubling.
Neither of the things you just said prevent someone from seeing asylum. It’s the UK government that has no regard for the law, they have a duty to process these claims as signatories of the UN convention on the rights of refugees.
Hey, you’re that same bozo who was trying to tell me he didn’t know 14 88 was a dog whistle earlier, I wonder if your opinions on this are fact based and well researched…
The UK government can not like these people as much as it wants, it doesn’t make their asylum claims illegal
I think you’ve banged the nail on the head - that’s why people are annoyed. It SHOULD prevent them from gaining asylum. The law is outdated and it’s funding a people smuggling industry. Every claim where the seeker came through from a safe country such as France should be rejected immediately. They’re not refugees. The asylum law is for refugees. Australia was able to solve it and we almost had it with the (albeit overpriced) Rwanda policy.
Before I get assumed to be a racist, I actually think the UK law to immigrate legally is too strict. The thresholds are too high and requiring one for a british citizen with non british spouse or children is borderline racism.
British citizens don’t require anything to immigrate whether they have a spouse or child or where the spouse, child, lack of spouse or lack of child are from.
The spouse and children should be given a visa regardless
YI mean… Effectively they are. There is a process but unless you are a violent criminal or something your visa as a spouse isn’t going to be denied. The process is mainly to ferret out fraudulent ones, something you would seemingly be infavor of.
Children of British citizens are literally automatically citizens as well unless their parent was also born outside the UK. Even then in most cases they still will or can be, do you have any idea what you’re even talking about?
Oh my god… Wait… You’re PRO rawanda refugee policy? Oh please do tell me your thoughts on the benefits of that program
Because it would mean people trying to get to the UK illegally from a safe country would be sent to Rwanda instead. So unless they are trying to get to Rwanda intentionally, they’ll stop coming into the UK
I have to assume at this point you are deliberately misusing words? Because I believe both you and I know that it’s not illegal to cross into the UK from France to claim asylum. And I’m fairly certain we’ve established this.
Can we carry on in reality instead of in your Dreamworld?
Wether it shouldn’t or shouldn’t is immaterial to this conversation. To follow both UK and international law all these asylum claims need to be processed.
If showing up on a boat disqualified you, the Tories would be chomping at the bit to process them and turf them.
The things your saying all sound lovely and in a perfect world of it was like that we might agree that it was better.
There’s no point carrying on this conversation if you’re going to continue to claim that people arriving on small boats and other irregular means are illegal
It’s not ethically right. Sure they should be processed, but that processing shouldn’t take very long considering they just came from France.
I assume when you say “it’s not ethically right” that the unwritten text there was “but yes, it is legally right”. Could you just confirm?
So why did the Tories spend 15 years not processing them if it would have been quick and easy? Is it because coming from France doesn’t make their claims invalid? And that’s just something that you’d personally like to be true and has absolutely no bearing on this discussion whatsoever?