West Ham Online

, wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025, 09:54 Splodder, I read about the Bristol grooming gang on12 November, BBC News app.

Splodder wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025, 08:58 Didn't see the Bristol rapist gang reported anywhere on the good old unbiased Beeb!

That's because this Country clearly doesn't have an issue at all with rape gangs. You're just a racist. Now pass go and collect your 200 Britcard points..  

goose wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025, 07:09 In other news, Rachel from accounts may have changed her mind (or had it changed for her) about raising income tax.

F 129 Row66" wrote: ↑14 Nov 2025, 05:01 Does calling ordinary people demonstrating outside migrant hotels a Nazi, qualify as hate speech? Especially when shouted by far left extremisy who themselves actually behave like Herr Hitler's brown shirts?

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 22:16

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 19:28

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 19:16

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:58

Yes you did, you conceded that Brexit got through in spite of the States attempts to stop it. Your words not mine.

Another referendum getting through would once again prove your  theory wrong.

I do agree that the state is a problem but they are not unbeatable. History has proven that.

Change is coming you’ll see. And the state won’t be a match against the will of the people.

It was a challenge to get about half the population off their arses and vote in the Brexit referendum. Apathy in the UK (God save the Queen) has gone up an order of magnitude or two since then, as any observant resident will testify, so an ECHR referendum is more likely to go down in history as a vote with the lowest turn-out ever than delivering "the will of the people".

That's not "defeatist", that's simply reading society, which anybody can do.

Had Brexit been accepted at the time by the state, then it would have sailed through effortlessly, but "the will of the people" decided otherwise, it seems.

Your arguments get more and more "6th-formy" by the minute. The state, as I said, holds all the aces, all the power, and cannot be voted out.

If by 6 th for my you mean right, I’ll agree.

Currently the state is happy with masse immigration and the rape of the children.

Tat will change once the ECHR is removed and your entire argument will be proven wrong again.

Your argument has a lot of waffle and nonsense. It sounds like you’re arguing with yourself.

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 19:16

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:58

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:49

If you believe that coming out of the ECHR will have any impact on the way the state runs the country then you deserve to be incarcerated into Barley Lane hospital...for life.

These "barriers" are not being compiled by the government (either colour) but by the state in an attempt to get what it wants.

"Doubling down" against something I never claimed doesn't actually enhance your defence here, at all.

Yes you did, you conceded that Brexit got through in spite of the States attempts to stop it. Your words not mine.

Another referendum getting through would once again prove your  theory wrong.

I do agree that the state is a problem but they are not unbeatable. History has proven that.

Change is coming you’ll see. And the state won’t be a match against the will of the people.

It was a challenge to get about half the population off their arses and vote in the Brexit referendum. Apathy in the UK (God save the Queen) has gone up an order of magnitude or two since then, as any observant resident will testify, so an ECHR referendum is more likely to go down in history as a vote with the lowest turn-out ever than delivering "the will of the people".

That's not "defeatist", that's simply reading society, which anybody can do.

Had Brexit been accepted at the time by the state, then it would have sailed through effortlessly, but "the will of the people" decided otherwise, it seems.

Your arguments get more and more "6th-formy" by the minute. The state, as I said, holds all the aces, all the power, and cannot be voted out.

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:58

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:49

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:41

Sorry, I thought we were having a 2 way conversation.

You said that nothing would be achieved by the electorate. I simply gave you your example of Brexit and doubled down with Farage clips on ECHR and his plans on the ECHR referendum as an example of what will change.

Coming out of the ECHR removes the barriers currently being used as an excuse by the UK Gov’t as to why people have to live in fear for their kids and women.

If succesful I’d say that’s a big change and a big win for the people and another big loss for the state. Wouldn’t you?

If you believe that coming out of the ECHR will have any impact on the way the state runs the country then you deserve to be incarcerated into Barley Lane hospital...for life.

These "barriers" are not being compiled by the government (either colour) but by the state in an attempt to get what it wants.

"Doubling down" against something I never claimed doesn't actually enhance your defence here, at all.

Yes you did, you conceded that Brexit got through in spite of the States attempts to stop it. Your words not mine.

Another referendum getting through would once again prove your  theory wrong.

I do agree that the state is a problem but they are not unbeatable. History has proven that.

Change is coming you’ll see. And the state won’t be a match against the will of the people.

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:49

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:41

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:35

So at what point did I (that's me, that is, not you) mention the ECHR and "deporting savages"?

Sorry, I thought we were having a 2 way conversation.

You said that nothing would be achieved by the electorate. I simply gave you your example of Brexit and doubled down with Farage clips on ECHR and his plans on the ECHR referendum as an example of what will change.

Coming out of the ECHR removes the barriers currently being used as an excuse by the UK Gov’t as to why people have to live in fear for their kids and women.

If succesful I’d say that’s a big change and a big win for the people and another big loss for the state. Wouldn’t you?

If you believe that coming out of the ECHR will have any impact on the way the state runs the country then you deserve to be incarcerated into Barley Lane hospital...for life.

These "barriers" are not being compiled by the government (either colour) but by the state in an attempt to get what it wants.

"Doubling down" against something I never claimed doesn't actually enhance your defence here, at all.

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:41

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:35

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:33

I found the video clip I was looking for. The one explaining the terms of the ECHR treaty. I thought you’d find it useful. It’s what’s currently being referenced to as a reason as to why we can’t deport these savages.

It’s kind of important.

So at what point did I (that's me, that is, not you) mention the ECHR and "deporting savages"?

Sorry, I thought we were having a 2 way conversation.

You said that nothing would be achieved by the electorate. I simply gave you your example of Brexit and doubled down with Farage clips on ECHR and his plans on the ECHR referendum as an example of what will change.

Coming out of the ECHR removes the barriers currently being used as an excuse by the UK Gov’t as to why people have to live in fear for their kids and women.

If succesful I’d say that’s a big change and a big win for the people and another big loss for the state. Wouldn’t you?

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:35

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:33

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:22

Come on then, what is it that you've "found", not "what do I sound like" (to you)?

I found the video clip I was looking for. The one explaining the terms of the ECHR treaty. I thought you’d find it useful. It’s what’s currently being referenced to as a reason as to why we can’t deport these savages.

It’s kind of important.

So at what point did I (that's me, that is, not you) mention the ECHR and "deporting savages"?

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:33

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:22

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:18

You sound like a Democrat talking about the Deep state. I’ve heard it all before mate. 

Come on then, what is it that you've "found", not "what do I sound like" (to you)?

I found the video clip I was looking for. The one explaining the terms of the ECHR treaty. I thought you’d find it useful. It’s what’s currently being referenced to as a reason as to why we can’t deport these savages.

It’s kind of important.

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:22

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:18

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:05

What, exactly, is it you've "found", and how does it relate to my claim that the state holds all the aces when it comes to actually running the country?

You sound like a Democrat talking about the Deep state. I’ve heard it all before mate. 

Come on then, what is it that you've "found", not "what do I sound like" (to you)?

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:20

Nutsin wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:08

Mike Oxsaw" wrote: ↑13 Nov 2025, 18:01

 

Allow me to correct you.

Whatever flavour of government is in power, it is the state, not the government that actually implements the government's policies - but only if they approve; just look at the effort they put in to getting/trying to get Brexit overturned. They're still smarting like crazy from that one - how very dare the population have a say in how the state runs the country?

If the state (Be it the MoD, MoJ, Home Office, HMRC, etc.) decides to not play along, nothing happens.

 

I disagree, Brexit proves the point. A referendum on the ECHR would be a second example.
Don’t underestimate the power of the people.

 

Brexit only got through because the people were pissed off with it dominating the headlines.

Boris Johnson caught that sentiment and got into power on the back of it, but even then the state was using every trick in the book - and then some - to try and thwart him; they came pretty close at times, too.

It wasn't "people power" that got Brexit over the line, it was simply a case of media fatigue - nobody wanted to hear about it 24/7 any more - either way.

I doubt that many those being asked to partake in a referendum for leaving the ECHR have the slightest clue as to what it does, so calling one would only create a tsunami of disinformation from both sides and, most probably a result not too dissimilar to the Brexit result and it's following state encouraged shenanigans.

Politicians are not the answer. Curbing the power of the state is.