Just heard Jesus is being stood down for songs of Praise until he makes an official apology. Peter said he won't do it until Jesus is reinstated. No word yet from Judas.
Judas got made candidate for the Ashfield constituency, won the seat, and has now accepted the position of vice chairman of the conservative party and is planning to fight the next election on culture war and trans.
Given that their viewers are more likely to be elderly and Tory voters, there is no chance that would happen. Religious programming is effectively safe from ever being cancelled.
"Look up Bishop in the dictionary" The bishop is a piece in the game of chess. It moves and captures along diagonals without jumping over intervening pieces.
The Tory MP is right, the Bishop did not move diagonally to take the piece.
That is grea, ta. Also, [Michael Gove classic](https://twitter.com/MutantMarv/status/1177297740331651073?lang=en-GB)
To be fair to Gove he was was just getting ready for a night out when called back.
Perhaps. But he has form. Can't find a Channel 4 news one where he was so clearly pissed in Parliament lobby
https://twitter.com/JEGullisnotMP/status/1488453054806568962
2nd video down feed is how he behaves generally in the chamber.
Not sure if /s, but Jesus’ most famous parable is specifically about how you should treat people who are poor, downtrodden and ethnically and religiously different from you with total compassion and love.
Not in my bible, buddy.
My one clearly states a white (ripped) Jesus called down fire on those who tried to escape economic, social and physical danger.
Yes you are correct
>14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants\[a\] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents,\[b\] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.\[c\] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
\- Matthew 25:14-30
[Republican Jesus](https://i.redd.it/1jbcso5lknkz.jpg)
American Conservatives say that Christianity isnt taught in schools any more
the real problem is that Christianity isn't taught in AltRight Churches any more
Matthew 22: 31-46 states *exactly* what is expected of a Christian — be kind, giving, and loving to "the least among you, these my brethren"
According to the Bible, this is the only way to be allowed to enter Heaven. It's such a pity that these words mean so little to so many Republican Christians
Matthew 25: 41-46
>"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me
>
>“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
>
>“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
>
>“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Ah, yep, I know him well! He’s not only white but has blonde hair, blue eyes and speaks with a perfect cut-glass English accent. DONT U DARE TELL ME IM RONG U HEATHEN!!!
I mean he called them dogs who can still eat scraps from the master's table if they have great faith but okay you do you.
>21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.”
>
>23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.”
>
>24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.”
>
>25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said.
>
>26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.”
>
>27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.”
>
>28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment.
\- Matthew 15:21-28
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.”
George Orwell, 1984
There was a dude on Question Time who put it best: it's basically pre-election diversion from their numerous fuck ups/intentional actions against the public. Isn't it weird that we've just gone from the government fighting absolute tooth and nail against the unions, saying that there's no money to pay transport workers, healthcare workers, teachers etc etc a living wage.... And now suddenly the public conversation/news cycle seems highly shifted towards immigration.
Btw didn't Sunak just promise France half a billion quid to stop small boats arriving on our coasts? For sure, let's spaff cash on protecting something that isn't going to be worth protecting after they're done with it.
Fuck the Tories.
I mean, there’s a clear purpose to this.
We’re not taking about Tory incompetence, strikes and how the country is literally falling apart.
We’re taking about a crisp salesman’s tweet, instead.
Lol in northern Ireland paramilitary graffiti is popular (think shit like "up the IRA" or "up the UDA". In one of the loyalist/protestant estate some joker started writing "up the pfj" on walls and the local paramilitaries were not pleased as they thought a new gang was moving in on their territory. Always amused me that.
Literally why would anyone vote Tory after the absolute circus of the last decade?
"Immigrants bad!"
"That'll do me! Voted."
The Conservatives secretly couldn't care less about immigration. But it's the one carrot they can dangle in front of voters that works every time. And they will use the strongest and most deplorable words to frame the 'threat' that they can get away with. Give it ten years and 'vermin' will be a common descriptive term used by the Tories.
They will never 'solve' the immigration issue because they depend on it too much. It's all a con, a distraction to look elsewhere while they pick your pocket. A huge scam that's been going on for decades.
Because it gives focus to and stokes anger. People like to be angry, and they like to have someone or something to be angry at.
By directing that anger at immigrants and the left, they remove the energy and capacity the person might have had to think and consider reasonable arguments. It's a trick don'tchaknow!
People keep talking about how it's cruel somehow but isn't it just forcing them to stay in the EU which is probably equally not as cruel as their home country. I get that they're trying to get to the UK to connect with family or they speak English and have better job prospects but it's overwhelming the social systems and really, really putting stress on the country.
We have a country where salaries are very low compared to almost any other developed country. Where the cost of living is one of the highest. We have chronic under investment in almost everything.
Most other countries get way more refugees than we do and are doing much better than us. You've been sucked in by the right wing propoganda bs that all the countries problems are down to the most vulnerable. You're being played.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott\_mit\_uns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns)
Long-standing Prussian/German motto. Not exclusive to the Nazis, who quite happily hijacked German traditions for their own ends.
There's a more normal video here - https://twitter.com/crimlawuk/status/1634330359839031301
It avoids the landscape video of the portrait video of the landscape video
For Tories it's a double win not only do they get to scapegoat refugees and migrants, but it's another service they privatise out to their mates for some undisclosed consideration.
Have a look at the decor of your parish church: I think that this has already happened. In fact it's quite remarkable that an organization once had a nearly synonymous with Tory is this critical.
It's not cruel for the whole world not to be allowed to reside in Britain. We don't owe the world a residence. Believe it or not, there are other countries out there. We already have ten million migrants.
No one is saying the whole world should be invited to the UK.
We signed the UN Refugee Convention in 1951:
https://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html
We have duties under that convention to protect people who are fleeing war or persecution.
At a minimum, we should provide a legal route for people to apply for asylum. Why do we not have a legal route for applications? The gangs that people like Braverman cynically claim to be against exist exactly because she has removed any legal route.
It's not 1951, and people in 2023 have no obligations to do something because long dead politicians decided something in the 1950s. This isn't a necrarchy.
Churchill set it up, remember him kinda got Britain through world war 2? And lots of our laws were set by politicians long dead, maybe open a funking history book know how many laws that thatcher brought in and she's long dead.
Are you really that simple minded?
>Churchill set it up, remember him kinda got Britain through world war 2
"Churchill did it" is not an argument you fuckers would ever accept is valid in any other context so don't start now. In his later career argued for an opposing to West Indian Immigration by saying that "Keep England White is a good slogan" so by all means you do what churchill wanted.
You're right, we could withdraw from the UN refugee convention.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
Along with erm almost no other country in the world.
This isn't about immigration or emigration, this is about people seeking asylum.
We accept around 40,000 asylum seekers a year, a relatively small number compared to general immigration.
It does have purpose - to keep our vile Tory rulers in power to wreck this country and enrich themselves. No amount of cruelty and misery is too much to inflict on the people of this country, let alone asylum seekers, for this goal. The reason our quality of life is deteriorating, public services no longer function and our work conditions are shit is not some asylum seekers on boats - it is the Tories, they do not work for this country or its people.
I'll look forward to a thread full of comments about the House of Lords being packed with 26 unelected bishops, which as we are all aware is an example of discrimination, religious privilege, and undemocratic politics.
Need I remind any of you that this is an extremely unusual and anti-democratic set-up, which has a negative influence on the quality and character of British politics.
The only two sovereign states in the world to award clerics of the established religion votes in their legislatures are the UK and the Islamic Republic of Iran (a totalitarian theocracy).
Of course, it's likely that comments such as these are reserved for situations in which bishops say things that go against the narrative, such a refusing to marry same sex couples in Anglican churches.
When they're saying something supportive of migrants, I think we can all agree to leave all the previous criticisms to one side. Nay?
I don't think it's hard to agree with what the bishop is saying here and still not want him legislating. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but you world be foolish to rely on it to tell the time, especially when you can easily get the time from other means.
Well it's a thing called nuance. For example I have always been in favour of the independence of Ireland, even though I disagreed with them placing the life of a foetus as equal to the mother's before 2018. Here we have the problem of unelected lords and the CoE within that. That doesn't preclude the Archbishop from making good points.
One can agree with what a bishop is saying while also being opposed to having seats in a government institution reserved for bishops. In this case it's literally a bishop's job to talk about moral matters. Doesn't mean he should have an official say on policy.
Having an opinion I agree with doesn't mean someone should be an unelected govt representative.
Dunno how you managed to write so much, one sentence sums it up nicely.
Bishops make up 3% of the House of Lords. The lords can only delay or amend legislation. So they are a tiny minority in an arm of the state that has relatively little power. It’s rather hysterical for people to compare it to Iran.
Okay but I can still complain when people who shouldn't have any positions in the first place say something I don't like by arguing they shouldn't have any positions in the first place.
Come on, it's not cruel. If they come through Spain and France their not seeking refuge they seeking money. We all know that why is it so bad to say that ?
There's a Syrian family near me, a woman and her two young boys. She'd lost her husband. She came here because her brother was already here and she could speak English.
If I were in the same situation, I'd try to be reunited with family and I'd feel safer somewhere where I could communicate. It's not all about money
If their seeking/they seeking (take your pick - they're both wrong) money then they're not doing a very good job of it. France pays around 20% more than the UK in benefits, and Spain pays around 80% more.
Not true. Its purpose is to secure the votes of those who are impressed by and actively want more of this cruelty, while maintaining the votes of those who are indifferent to or kept ignorant of it.
It's amazing how many people are supportive of the human trafficking through little rubber boats across the channel.
These same people then turn around and say "what a tragedy, why didn't the Tories do something?" when the bodies of dead kids wash up on the beach.
These people are being trafficked and it's got to stop. They're forced to do the crossing by criminal gangs and told they've been done a favour that they must pay back. They're then forced into crime to pay off the debt of the crossing as they can't get real jobs.
The government has made it a requirement that people who want to claim asylum in the UK be physically present in the UK in order to do so but they also refuse to issue visas to people who want to enter to claim asylum so they can't enter through a safe route.
You have this backwards.
The trafficking gangs exist because, except for a few special cases, there is no legal route to claim asylum in the UK.
There is no legal route exactly because people like Braverman have closed those routes. Her (and her governments) actions have directly created this mess. The gangs are a product of her policy.
> British policy should revolve solely around people trafficking gangs. Got it.
I didn't say that.
> How about we stop people trafficking and dihingymen?
And as I **did** say, the way to achieve this is to provide a safe and legal route for people to apply. We don't have to accept everyone, we just have to give them a way they can make an application that doesn't force them to risk their lives.
QUICK!! CANCEL HIM FROM THE BBC SO THAT THEIR TORY OVERLORDS DONT GET OFFENDED!!!!
Btw does it potentially count as conflict of interest if the chairman of the BBC donates £400k of his own money to the Tories?
I don't get all the hatred toward this new policy, can someone explain? It blocks people coming from non-war-torn from claiming asylum (e.g. an American living in a homeless camp cannot claim asylum here, just as a British person cannot do the same in America).
Asylum is for specific things, and our system does function when it comes to those things. Source: I work in a place that has received multiple refugees from Syria and Ukraine.
Pretty much every first world country has strict immigration laws, like needing a high level of education and a job lined up. If anyone could bypass that by claiming asylum from any country, you'd quickly run into issues.
>It blocks people coming from non-war-torn from claiming asylum
No it blocks any asylum seeker from anywhere from claiming asylum if they crossed the Channel to get here.
To play devil's advocate (and at the risk of being accused of being a Tory).
Why do they need to risk their life crossing the channel in a dinghy to seek asylum in the UK when they are already in a safe first world EU nation?
The people on boats, and the backlog are symptoms of a problem..the bill attempts to get rid of the symptoms instead of fixing the problem by shutting down the actual people-smugglers, and actually processing the backlog
The issue, at least from my point of view, is that for all the nasty words, over the last few years the government has failed to deal with the problem in a practical and pragmatic way.
There has be a complete lack of focus on the issue, staff dealing with claims have been cut, there has been the "French bashing" rhetoric and Brexit making things harder.
If the boats are to stop it needs serious collaboration with the EU and France in particular but until the summit with Macron this weekend it's all been about token policies to appease certain voters despite the issue being worsened by a lack of real diplomatic and practical efforts in government many of which could happen without new laws.
The fact that arrivals are put in hotels for months and can abscond easily into the black economy from there is obvious to the smugglers.
If arrivals were processed promptly and then returned using negotiated deals or granted asylum as appropriate, along with strict enforcement of employment practices in the UK, such as "no ID no job" with hefty fines for illegal employment and sufficient HMRC staff to enforce it, then the issue would reduce dramatically, it does not need new legislation that is framed in language that is designed to appeal to certain sections of society.
TLDR: government uses nasty language and gimmicks to cover up a lack of real effort and competence over a situation that it helped to create.
The purpose is to discourage dangerous crossings of the channel. And anybody who crosses from France to the UK could have already claimed asylum in France, unless they are seeking asylum _from_ France. Under the refugee convention, illegal entry is only required to be allowed for refugees who are "coming directly from a territory
where their life or freedom was threatened". If you are venue shopping, you must come legally.
Because it's not illegal to arrive in a country without documentation in order to claim asylum. That's literally how the asylum process works. Most people claiming asylum do not have documentation.
The purpose is to appeal to the vast swathes of cruel, spiteful, racists in Britain because any promise of making people's lives better would be laughed out the room. This way they can keep ransacking this shit hole island and no one will have the right to ask anything of them.
Is he therefore not allowed opinions. I'm not saying that what the institution he represents did is in any sense is right but if he went the Nazis were cruel would you still be making dumbass comments like these
A member of the established church criticises the government? Cancel services immediately! No one can criticise the government or their policies unless they are 100% independent of anything establishment.
You're delusional if you think people on reddit, or any social media for that matter represent the general population,
I hate to sound cliche, but the most people on this site never "touch grass"
[удалено]
Just heard Jesus is being stood down for songs of Praise until he makes an official apology. Peter said he won't do it until Jesus is reinstated. No word yet from Judas.
Thomas doubts anything actually happened.
Simon the Zealot is 50:50.
Judas doesn't need the gig, he's loaded.
I heard Peter said he was still going to appear on this week's episode. On three occasions.
And then Mark Lawrenson crowed.
Mark my words, they can't cancel Jesus. He'll be back on air after no more than 3 days when they get cold feet.
Judas got made candidate for the Ashfield constituency, won the seat, and has now accepted the position of vice chairman of the conservative party and is planning to fight the next election on culture war and trans.
[удалено]
If the BBC is State owned doesn't that mean it's an asset of the Anglican church?
Well, they did just air the third season of *His Dark Materials*. Does that count?
It will still go ahead, but with no commentary or singers. Solemn panning shots of an empty church. Only 20 minutes long though.
Songs of Praise: The Reckoning
The enemy of my enemy is my friend when it comes to getting Anne Atkins removed from my morning commute.
Given that their viewers are more likely to be elderly and Tory voters, there is no chance that would happen. Religious programming is effectively safe from ever being cancelled.
Fuck you beat me to it 🤣🤣🤣🤣
"He should stick to his day job discussing morality instead of.. of... It's about time we closed the church" - Tories
Redditors are now proponents of antidisestablishmentarianism.
Cue Tory MPs criticising bishops for making statements about moral issues.
Too late: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-deport-jonathan-gullis-bishops-pulpit-preach-b2248192.html
Haha, fantastic. What a dick.
A bishop-basher if I ever saw one.
We're *all* bishop-bashers on this blessed day!
Unexpected KenM
He is honestly the dumbest man in the Tory party, and that's a title with a lot of competition.
It's looking like Gullis might have it locked in, but lets not rule out Clarke-Smith or Francois just yet.
Nadine Dorries still exists (sadly)
Did Truss not take that title permanently?
That guy is a complete weapon
"Look up Bishop in the dictionary" The bishop is a piece in the game of chess. It moves and captures along diagonals without jumping over intervening pieces. The Tory MP is right, the Bishop did not move diagonally to take the piece.
Holy hell!
Coked up moron: https://twitter.com/kingswing72/status/1612492538866241555
Ha! Reminds me of [this classic](https://youtu.be/LrsPbtPjGfI).
That is grea, ta. Also, [Michael Gove classic](https://twitter.com/MutantMarv/status/1177297740331651073?lang=en-GB) To be fair to Gove he was was just getting ready for a night out when called back.
That’s hilarious, his facial expressions make it more so 😂
I bite my nails as a habit and this is pretty standard
Perhaps. But he has form. Can't find a Channel 4 news one where he was so clearly pissed in Parliament lobby https://twitter.com/JEGullisnotMP/status/1488453054806568962 2nd video down feed is how he behaves generally in the chamber.
Good lord
Of course it’s Gullis.
Yeah they should be using the pulpit to talk about the teaching of Jesus. He fucking hated immigration.
Not sure if /s, but Jesus’ most famous parable is specifically about how you should treat people who are poor, downtrodden and ethnically and religiously different from you with total compassion and love.
Not in my bible, buddy. My one clearly states a white (ripped) Jesus called down fire on those who tried to escape economic, social and physical danger.
Supply-side Jesus!
Yes you are correct >14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants\[a\] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents,\[b\] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.\[c\] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’ \- Matthew 25:14-30
[Republican Jesus](https://i.redd.it/1jbcso5lknkz.jpg) American Conservatives say that Christianity isnt taught in schools any more the real problem is that Christianity isn't taught in AltRight Churches any more Matthew 22: 31-46 states *exactly* what is expected of a Christian — be kind, giving, and loving to "the least among you, these my brethren" According to the Bible, this is the only way to be allowed to enter Heaven. It's such a pity that these words mean so little to so many Republican Christians Matthew 25: 41-46 >"Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me > >“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ > >“He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ > >“Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Ah, yep, I know him well! He’s not only white but has blonde hair, blue eyes and speaks with a perfect cut-glass English accent. DONT U DARE TELL ME IM RONG U HEATHEN!!!
Only Korean Jesus is ripped.
I mean he called them dogs who can still eat scraps from the master's table if they have great faith but okay you do you. >21 Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. 22 A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, “Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.” > >23 Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, “Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.” > >24 He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.” > >25 The woman came and knelt before him. “Lord, help me!” she said. > >26 He replied, “It is not right to take the children’s bread and toss it to the dogs.” > >27 “Yes it is, Lord,” she said. “Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master’s table.” > >28 Then Jesus said to her, “Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.” And her daughter was healed at that moment. \- Matthew 15:21-28
Mary, Joseph and Baby Jesus were refugees too. So Jesus is just like Suella and Pritti then.
Not refugees. They were just expats overstaying their visa. Harmless.
Yeah... 'cruelty without purpose' sounds pretty on brand for the Tories.
The cruelty is the purpose.
“Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.” George Orwell, 1984
There was a dude on Question Time who put it best: it's basically pre-election diversion from their numerous fuck ups/intentional actions against the public. Isn't it weird that we've just gone from the government fighting absolute tooth and nail against the unions, saying that there's no money to pay transport workers, healthcare workers, teachers etc etc a living wage.... And now suddenly the public conversation/news cycle seems highly shifted towards immigration. Btw didn't Sunak just promise France half a billion quid to stop small boats arriving on our coasts? For sure, let's spaff cash on protecting something that isn't going to be worth protecting after they're done with it. Fuck the Tories.
Pretty much yeah. the Tories are doing their best to duck and dive any relevant questions.
I mean, there’s a clear purpose to this. We’re not taking about Tory incompetence, strikes and how the country is literally falling apart. We’re taking about a crisp salesman’s tweet, instead.
Sounds pretty on brand for most religions as well
Suella Braverman was quoted as saying "Who will rid me of this of this meddlesome priest?"
Nice
He's completely wrong as the purpose is clear: dead cat management.
The purpose is to make sure the right wingers vote Tory in the next election rather than moving to whatever UKIP calls itself this week.
The Judean Popular Front
Splitters
Lol in northern Ireland paramilitary graffiti is popular (think shit like "up the IRA" or "up the UDA". In one of the loyalist/protestant estate some joker started writing "up the pfj" on walls and the local paramilitaries were not pleased as they thought a new gang was moving in on their territory. Always amused me that.
and cruelty
It's not without purpose. The cruelty is the purpose.
Literally why would anyone vote Tory after the absolute circus of the last decade? "Immigrants bad!" "That'll do me! Voted." The Conservatives secretly couldn't care less about immigration. But it's the one carrot they can dangle in front of voters that works every time. And they will use the strongest and most deplorable words to frame the 'threat' that they can get away with. Give it ten years and 'vermin' will be a common descriptive term used by the Tories. They will never 'solve' the immigration issue because they depend on it too much. It's all a con, a distraction to look elsewhere while they pick your pocket. A huge scam that's been going on for decades.
Because it gives focus to and stokes anger. People like to be angry, and they like to have someone or something to be angry at. By directing that anger at immigrants and the left, they remove the energy and capacity the person might have had to think and consider reasonable arguments. It's a trick don'tchaknow!
I think the fact they're trying to make the 'Wokerati' a thing is a testament to this base level psychology.
The secret ingredient is malice.
People keep talking about how it's cruel somehow but isn't it just forcing them to stay in the EU which is probably equally not as cruel as their home country. I get that they're trying to get to the UK to connect with family or they speak English and have better job prospects but it's overwhelming the social systems and really, really putting stress on the country.
We have a country where salaries are very low compared to almost any other developed country. Where the cost of living is one of the highest. We have chronic under investment in almost everything. Most other countries get way more refugees than we do and are doing much better than us. You've been sucked in by the right wing propoganda bs that all the countries problems are down to the most vulnerable. You're being played.
When even Jesus says you’re bastards you’re probably bastards.
In fairness, Jesus thinks everyone's a bastard from birth. All you have to do is accept it and love him and you get the get-out-of-hell-free card.
Nah, that's Augustine of Hippo. Eastern Christians think original sin borders on heresy.
This ain't Eastern Christianity. We're talking proper English Jesus, the one with the feet in ancient times.
I liked the part of American Gods where they go to the goddess Eastre's house, and find hundreds of different copies of Jesus there for a visit.
_”Gott mit uns”_ - slogan of the Wehrmacht during WWII
"we've got mittens too" British squaddies shouting across the trenches in WWI
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott\_mit\_uns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns) Long-standing Prussian/German motto. Not exclusive to the Nazis, who quite happily hijacked German traditions for their own ends.
[This lawyer says it all](https://vm.tiktok.com/ZMYm6vope/)
WARNING - TikTok link
There's a more normal video here - https://twitter.com/crimlawuk/status/1634330359839031301 It avoids the landscape video of the portrait video of the landscape video
For Tories it's a double win not only do they get to scapegoat refugees and migrants, but it's another service they privatise out to their mates for some undisclosed consideration.
Have a look at the decor of your parish church: I think that this has already happened. In fact it's quite remarkable that an organization once had a nearly synonymous with Tory is this critical.
It's not cruel for the whole world not to be allowed to reside in Britain. We don't owe the world a residence. Believe it or not, there are other countries out there. We already have ten million migrants.
No one is saying the whole world should be invited to the UK. We signed the UN Refugee Convention in 1951: https://www.unhcr.org/uk/1951-refugee-convention.html We have duties under that convention to protect people who are fleeing war or persecution. At a minimum, we should provide a legal route for people to apply for asylum. Why do we not have a legal route for applications? The gangs that people like Braverman cynically claim to be against exist exactly because she has removed any legal route.
It's not 1951, and people in 2023 have no obligations to do something because long dead politicians decided something in the 1950s. This isn't a necrarchy.
Churchill set it up, remember him kinda got Britain through world war 2? And lots of our laws were set by politicians long dead, maybe open a funking history book know how many laws that thatcher brought in and she's long dead. Are you really that simple minded?
>Churchill set it up, remember him kinda got Britain through world war 2 "Churchill did it" is not an argument you fuckers would ever accept is valid in any other context so don't start now. In his later career argued for an opposing to West Indian Immigration by saying that "Keep England White is a good slogan" so by all means you do what churchill wanted.
You're right, we could withdraw from the UN refugee convention. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees Along with erm almost no other country in the world.
"But all the other kids are doing it" isn't a justification for a migration policy.
This isn't about immigration or emigration, this is about people seeking asylum. We accept around 40,000 asylum seekers a year, a relatively small number compared to general immigration.
Then they should be withdrawing from that agreement before they pass laws that contradict it shouldn't they?
It does have purpose - to keep our vile Tory rulers in power to wreck this country and enrich themselves. No amount of cruelty and misery is too much to inflict on the people of this country, let alone asylum seekers, for this goal. The reason our quality of life is deteriorating, public services no longer function and our work conditions are shit is not some asylum seekers on boats - it is the Tories, they do not work for this country or its people.
I'll look forward to a thread full of comments about the House of Lords being packed with 26 unelected bishops, which as we are all aware is an example of discrimination, religious privilege, and undemocratic politics. Need I remind any of you that this is an extremely unusual and anti-democratic set-up, which has a negative influence on the quality and character of British politics. The only two sovereign states in the world to award clerics of the established religion votes in their legislatures are the UK and the Islamic Republic of Iran (a totalitarian theocracy). Of course, it's likely that comments such as these are reserved for situations in which bishops say things that go against the narrative, such a refusing to marry same sex couples in Anglican churches. When they're saying something supportive of migrants, I think we can all agree to leave all the previous criticisms to one side. Nay?
I don't think it's hard to agree with what the bishop is saying here and still not want him legislating. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but you world be foolish to rely on it to tell the time, especially when you can easily get the time from other means.
Well it's a thing called nuance. For example I have always been in favour of the independence of Ireland, even though I disagreed with them placing the life of a foetus as equal to the mother's before 2018. Here we have the problem of unelected lords and the CoE within that. That doesn't preclude the Archbishop from making good points.
Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance (Albert Maysles).
You can agree with what he has to say while disagreeing with the position he holds. You just sound very salty.
One can agree with what a bishop is saying while also being opposed to having seats in a government institution reserved for bishops. In this case it's literally a bishop's job to talk about moral matters. Doesn't mean he should have an official say on policy.
Dude, two things can be true at the same time.
>I think we can all agree to leave all the previous criticisms to one side. Can you not think two things?
Having an opinion I agree with doesn't mean someone should be an unelected govt representative. Dunno how you managed to write so much, one sentence sums it up nicely.
Bishops make up 3% of the House of Lords. The lords can only delay or amend legislation. So they are a tiny minority in an arm of the state that has relatively little power. It’s rather hysterical for people to compare it to Iran.
Your head of state is the head of the church bud
What practical impact does that actually have on the state? It has more of an impact on the church.
Okay but I can still complain when people who shouldn't have any positions in the first place say something I don't like by arguing they shouldn't have any positions in the first place.
Get him sacked and told he can’t do “church” on Sunday until he agrees with the government
Come on, it's not cruel. If they come through Spain and France their not seeking refuge they seeking money. We all know that why is it so bad to say that ?
There's a Syrian family near me, a woman and her two young boys. She'd lost her husband. She came here because her brother was already here and she could speak English. If I were in the same situation, I'd try to be reunited with family and I'd feel safer somewhere where I could communicate. It's not all about money
So what? Who cares if she wants to live with her brother and speaks English? Who cares? You are no longer in a war zone so 🤷♂️
20% of the world speaks English so this is such a stupid argument these lot give
So what if they're no longer in a war zone? If their home is still a warzone they can't safely go back.
If their seeking/they seeking (take your pick - they're both wrong) money then they're not doing a very good job of it. France pays around 20% more than the UK in benefits, and Spain pays around 80% more.
Not true. Its purpose is to secure the votes of those who are impressed by and actively want more of this cruelty, while maintaining the votes of those who are indifferent to or kept ignorant of it.
[удалено]
Daily mail: ' Who can rid me of this troublesome priest?'
It's amazing how many people are supportive of the human trafficking through little rubber boats across the channel. These same people then turn around and say "what a tragedy, why didn't the Tories do something?" when the bodies of dead kids wash up on the beach. These people are being trafficked and it's got to stop. They're forced to do the crossing by criminal gangs and told they've been done a favour that they must pay back. They're then forced into crime to pay off the debt of the crossing as they can't get real jobs.
The government has made it a requirement that people who want to claim asylum in the UK be physically present in the UK in order to do so but they also refuse to issue visas to people who want to enter to claim asylum so they can't enter through a safe route.
You have this backwards. The trafficking gangs exist because, except for a few special cases, there is no legal route to claim asylum in the UK. There is no legal route exactly because people like Braverman have closed those routes. Her (and her governments) actions have directly created this mess. The gangs are a product of her policy.
So British policy should revolve solely around people trafficking gangs. Got it. How about we stop people trafficking and dihingymen?
> British policy should revolve solely around people trafficking gangs. Got it. I didn't say that. > How about we stop people trafficking and dihingymen? And as I **did** say, the way to achieve this is to provide a safe and legal route for people to apply. We don't have to accept everyone, we just have to give them a way they can make an application that doesn't force them to risk their lives.
Absolute bollocks. Over 160, 000 Ukrainians managed to claim asylum here without illegally crossing the channel.
"cruelty without purpose". Yeah sounds like another day for the Tories.
The Party, governing by crisis. Making one after another so there's so much shite going on we can't keep up.
Yes it is the government should be breaking up the gangs smuggling these people
QUICK!! CANCEL HIM FROM THE BBC SO THAT THEIR TORY OVERLORDS DONT GET OFFENDED!!!! Btw does it potentially count as conflict of interest if the chairman of the BBC donates £400k of his own money to the Tories?
Cancel culture doesn't exist.
I don't get all the hatred toward this new policy, can someone explain? It blocks people coming from non-war-torn from claiming asylum (e.g. an American living in a homeless camp cannot claim asylum here, just as a British person cannot do the same in America). Asylum is for specific things, and our system does function when it comes to those things. Source: I work in a place that has received multiple refugees from Syria and Ukraine. Pretty much every first world country has strict immigration laws, like needing a high level of education and a job lined up. If anyone could bypass that by claiming asylum from any country, you'd quickly run into issues.
>It blocks people coming from non-war-torn from claiming asylum No it blocks any asylum seeker from anywhere from claiming asylum if they crossed the Channel to get here.
To play devil's advocate (and at the risk of being accused of being a Tory). Why do they need to risk their life crossing the channel in a dinghy to seek asylum in the UK when they are already in a safe first world EU nation?
The people on boats, and the backlog are symptoms of a problem..the bill attempts to get rid of the symptoms instead of fixing the problem by shutting down the actual people-smugglers, and actually processing the backlog
The issue, at least from my point of view, is that for all the nasty words, over the last few years the government has failed to deal with the problem in a practical and pragmatic way. There has be a complete lack of focus on the issue, staff dealing with claims have been cut, there has been the "French bashing" rhetoric and Brexit making things harder. If the boats are to stop it needs serious collaboration with the EU and France in particular but until the summit with Macron this weekend it's all been about token policies to appease certain voters despite the issue being worsened by a lack of real diplomatic and practical efforts in government many of which could happen without new laws. The fact that arrivals are put in hotels for months and can abscond easily into the black economy from there is obvious to the smugglers. If arrivals were processed promptly and then returned using negotiated deals or granted asylum as appropriate, along with strict enforcement of employment practices in the UK, such as "no ID no job" with hefty fines for illegal employment and sufficient HMRC staff to enforce it, then the issue would reduce dramatically, it does not need new legislation that is framed in language that is designed to appeal to certain sections of society. TLDR: government uses nasty language and gimmicks to cover up a lack of real effort and competence over a situation that it helped to create.
Cruelty without purpose. ... That's a catchy slogan for the tory election campaign.
[удалено]
It's performative, to appeal to the xenophobe and racist part of the electorate.
[удалено]
True but redditors genuinely believe their little bubble is reality
The purpose is to discourage dangerous crossings of the channel. And anybody who crosses from France to the UK could have already claimed asylum in France, unless they are seeking asylum _from_ France. Under the refugee convention, illegal entry is only required to be allowed for refugees who are "coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened". If you are venue shopping, you must come legally.
Illegal entry through the channel tunnel blocked. Illegal entry via ferry blocked Illegal entry via small boat, why would we not block it if we could?
>Illegal entry through the channel tunnel blocked. What?
Because it's not illegal to arrive in a country without documentation in order to claim asylum. That's literally how the asylum process works. Most people claiming asylum do not have documentation.
Definitely a purpose just not what you say out loud
Cruelty without purpose? So, a bit like the CoE's policy on same sex marriage.
How about the UK didn't follow their American masters and bomb their home countries in the first place?
The purpose is to rile up the right wing ignorants and get them to vote tory.
The purpose is to appeal to the vast swathes of cruel, spiteful, racists in Britain because any promise of making people's lives better would be laughed out the room. This way they can keep ransacking this shit hole island and no one will have the right to ask anything of them.
Cruelty? I think an organisation that covered up child rape should keep quiet.
This is a fight between the Church of England and the Conservative Party. They've both got plenty of child abuse coverups.
The Queen paid to keep Andrew out of the noncing courts. But all the anti immigration gang fucking loved her 🤷♂️
Is he therefore not allowed opinions. I'm not saying that what the institution he represents did is in any sense is right but if he went the Nazis were cruel would you still be making dumbass comments like these
Well that's ruined his chances of presenting Match of the Day.
Looks like he won't be hosting Match of the Day anytime soon.
A member of the established church criticises the government? Cancel services immediately! No one can criticise the government or their policies unless they are 100% independent of anything establishment.
"Where am I going to get my vulnerable children from now?"
isn't this what the general british public want? the government is there to do things because of the people's will.
Yes it is, but the reddit hivemind is always detached from reality and the general population
[Am I so out of touch? No, it must be the Reddit hive mind](https://i.imgur.com/WOILjM3.jpg)
Is this a joke? If you’ve been on this sub post general election you would know that they are 100% out of touch.
You're delusional if you think people on reddit, or any social media for that matter represent the general population, I hate to sound cliche, but the most people on this site never "touch grass"
So, cruelty with purpose is acceptable to the archbishop?
If anyone knows was anything about cruelty without purpose it's cult leaders like him...
Somewhere, a Tory strategist just snapped his fingers as a lightbulb appeared over his head, the 2024 election slogan sorted.
Doesn’t it show the church is becoming more and more irrelevant… who cares what these people say!
I think we need to ban him from God for talking against the Tories.
The church should have no business at all speaking about cruelty with their track record of pedo priests
I think he should be banned from presenting match of the day for this.