What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

22 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

Every fucker knows that it's just a figure of speech which has been used a good number of times on WWays in the past.

Let's just put this in the same file as typos and the jokes being fine because the black barman laughed too.

2 hours ago, wanderer1984 said:

"You liked" ... "I didn't like" 😂 playground stuff 😂

I don't think I did "like" it anyway.

"Beat the shit out of her" He didnt say that did he?

Anyway ... Back to your debate. What's worse ... Assassinating someone or giving someone a slap?

Sure is playground stuff

 you love it too 

what do you call it if you slap someone repeatedly until you never tire? 

10 hours ago, royal white said:

You’re getting your knickers into a twist over GT  yet when multiple people on here have said they would like to see a politician killed there’s nothing from you. Just find it a bit weird. 

Knickers in a twist 😂

I couldn’t give a shit

 I’m just pointing out it’s fckn weird wanting to slap her up. 
 

Nothing from me on the Don at the time aye, couldn’t give a shit about that either. Must have been busy 😄

Edited June 23, 2025Jun 23 by London Wanderer

8 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Loudon Wanderer is very stupid. This has now been confirmed.

The saying I used has been used on here many times in the past. Anyone who takes that as a serious statement is a complete fucking imbecile.

Besides that, I would tire after about 15 minutes.

Gone down to a wee 15 minute beating now has it 

 

Interesting read about Reform’s plans for taxing non-doms.  Obviously a balance be struck by any policy/party to maximise tax revenue (and fairness for the rest of us) w/o scaring these billionaire folks out of the country and taking their wealth with them.  Suspect views on here will fall into the usual camps 😂.

Don’t like the sound of them getting a free pass on IHT though.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c14e03dvydno

“All they need to do is process them faster”  🙄

 

2 minutes ago, royal white said:

“All they need to do is process them faster”  🙄

 

I know. You'd expect them to have this completely sorted this by now. They've almost had a full year! 

17 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I know. You'd expect them to have this completely sorted this by now. They've almost had a full year! 

I dint think anyone expected it sorted. I think less people thought the numbers would double. Especially something that many on here predicted would be an easy fix (just process them faster 🙄) maybe it’s harder than people think, regardless of who’s in power. 

1 minute ago, royal white said:

I dint think anyone expected it sorted. I think less people thought the numbers would double. Especially something that many on here predicted would be an easy fix (just process them faster 🙄) maybe it’s harder than people think, regardless of who’s in power. 

These are appeals. So presumably lots of applications have been processed - which means more appeals? That's a good thing isn't it? 

Otherwise these people might still have been sat there pending a decision. Needs a bit of thinking through this one before I jump to any conclusions. 

For me - this is  a bit like when people were criticising Donald Trump for the confirmed COVID numbers being so high in the US - his point being that that's because they were testing more people. Which he was right about. 

 

6 minutes ago, royal white said:

I dint think anyone expected it sorted. I think less people thought the numbers would double. Especially something that many on here predicted would be an easy fix (just process them faster 🙄) maybe it’s harder than people think, regardless of who’s in power. 

It might also suggest that there's been an increase in the number of asylum applications that have been declined. Which again - you'd probably think is a positive thing - if your ambition is to being down immigration? 

2 minutes ago, kent_white said:

It might also suggest that there's been an increase in the number of asylum applications that have been declined. Which again - you'd probably think is a positive thing - if your ambition is to being down immigration? 

Of course but it’s taking longer than ever to process these appeals, also it’s easier to decline more numbers when you’re letting more than ever before in. Which brings me back to my earlier point, it’s not as simple as saying let’s just process them faster. 

3 minutes ago, royal white said:

Of course but it’s taking longer than ever to process these appeals, also it’s easier to decline more numbers when you’re letting more than ever before in. Which brings me back to my earlier point, it’s not as simple as saying let’s just process them faster. 

No it's not. But I very much doubt the entire plan is just to process people faster. Although it will be part of it. 

I imagine appeals will continue to rise for the next year or two while the backlog is taken care of. 

Net migration is actually down quite considerably from 2023 to 2024 so it's unlikely to be that. Although that drop off is mostly due to the measures Rishi Sunak put in place and Labour kept.

Be a couple of years before we can really assess whether Labour's approach has worked. 

2 minutes ago, royal white said:

Of course but it’s taking longer than ever to process these appeals, also it’s easier to decline more numbers when you’re letting more than ever before in. Which brings me back to my earlier point, it’s not as simple as saying let’s just process them faster. 

To be fair, no one is "letting them in". I said the same when the Tories were in power.

Some folk are choosing to come here, mainly via France but France takes in a lot more than we do. So who has the biggest problem, us or France?

It's not something that is going to go away and I agree that Starmer shouldn't have said he could deal with it because it is impossible.

9 minutes ago, Winchester White said:

To be fair, no one is "letting them in". I said the same when the Tories were in power.

Some folk are choosing to come here, mainly via France but France takes in a lot more than we do. So who has the biggest problem, us or France?

It's not something that is going to go away and I agree that Starmer shouldn't have said he could deal with it because it is impossible.

Basic Geography dictates why France has a bigger problem. How much of a bigger problem is it though? 

12 minutes ago, royal white said:

Basic Geography dictates why France has a bigger problem. How much of a bigger problem is it though? 

Much bigger. But I wouldn't have thought the general population of the UK gives a shit, just like the general population of France is unlikely to care about immigration concerns in the UK.

 

7 hours ago, London Wanderer said:

Sure is playground stuff

 you love it too 

what do you call it if you slap someone repeatedly until you never tire? 

Not sure why you won't answer your own stupid debate question.

He never said repeatedly ... he was using a figure of speech. Like ... "Folk never tire of running rings around LondonWanderer on WW"

Do you think its possible to repeatedly slap someone and never tire?

Ah, the numbers game again!

France is considerably bigger in area than we are.

Easier to build facilities/accommodation. 

Curious to know how many they have in hotels, as it seems they have thousands knocking about in unofficial camps- the fucking Nazis.

26 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Ah, the numbers game again!

France is considerably bigger in area than we are.

Easier to build facilities/accommodation. 

Curious to know how many they have in hotels, as it seems they have thousands knocking about in unofficial camps- the fucking Nazis.

The whole of the EU took in 900k immigrants last year. A reduction of the previous year. 
 

The U.K. took in 108k. A rise from the previous year. 

Just now, royal white said:

The whole of the EU took in 900k immigrants last year. A reduction of the previous year. 
 

The U.K. took in 108k. A rise from the previous year. 

Seen you playing your real life role as a Lefty elsewhere. Good to know. 😂😀👍😎

4 minutes ago, royal white said:

 

The U.K. took in 108k. A rise from the previous year. 

Not even close

1 minute ago, Casino said:

Not even close

Applicants*

4 minutes ago, Ani said:

Seen you playing your real life role as a Lefty elsewhere. Good to know. 😂😀👍😎

😂😂 thing is I’m being honest on the other. I don’t want any of them here but I’m wondering why the mass panic for Iranians but not for other nationalities  

6 minutes ago, royal white said:

Applicants*

Still not sure what the 100k figure is

Is that accepted asylum seekers?

Just now, Casino said:

Still not sure what the 100k figure is

Is that accepted asylum seekers?

Net migration was 431,000 in 2024 down from 685,000 in 2023. About 68,000 of them were people who successfully applied for asylum. 

13 minutes ago, Casino said:

Still not sure what the 100k figure is

Is that accepted asylum seekers?

108k applicants that’s 84k main applicants and 24k dependants. (Give or take)