Reply to THIS thread
Start a NEW Talkback Thread
Talkback Home

GB News - AR (16th Jul 2025 - 20:18:04) Anyone watch GB News tonight about throwing people out to house Afghanistans ? This was appalling.

Re: GB News - Richard (17th Jul 2025 - 08:56:26) Just going to copy and paste the tagline at the top of the page as regards what this page is for 'Local Talkback - Talkback is for the residents and businesses in Liphook to voice their views and opinions about local issues and events' LOCAL issues and events. How the hell is what is on GB bloody News a LOCAL event. Can I suggest the Editor does what an Editor and Edits out crap like the original post which seems to just be there to stir up the usual crap Thankyou

Re: GB News - Paul (17th Jul 2025 - 10:51:34) Richard - it IS a local issue as the people in question have been housed locally. This is your blue pill / red pill moment ....

Re: GB News - Anne (17th Jul 2025 - 11:12:07) An edits out your unnecessary language!!

Re: GB News - C (17th Jul 2025 - 12:43:05) Sadly much of what is on this forum is totally irrelevant. And as for GB news.....contempt for this 'channel' doesn't even come close.

Re: GB News - er (17th Jul 2025 - 13:25:54) I didn't see it, but in case the report was in any way related to or connected with the 13 new houses built in Bordon for asylum seekers, we need to know the FACTS: 1 HOUSE was built for an Afghan family 12 HOUSES were built for Ukrainian families. I notice the media has ZERO problem with the UK housing hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian families, in fact we went out and got them, no boats needed, but they DO LOOK A LOT LIKE US! Hmmm! Or perhaps a lot like we used to look and the right wing would love is all to look again? Hmmm. It's the one Afghan family that gets all the attention. Most Afghans refugees actually did way more for us, actually fighting with the British army against their own countrymen, many lost their lives, then we left their country and to our shame, left them there, to be treated as traitors, living in hiding because I guess, they didn't look like us enough! We should hate the right wing media and the racist attitudes they are openly promoting again nowadays! Let's not be silent. No refugee is illegal, because WE signed the Refugee Acts which ALLOW people to flee across borders without papers precisely because that's usually the only way you can flee persecution as a refugee! Our soldiers for over a hundred years have fought and died so people would have that right, let's honour that.

Re: GB News - AR (17th Jul 2025 - 14:09:15) @ C Why the contempt ? GB News is the biggest breakfast news channel. with favourites like Ann Diamond, Eamon Holmes, " Chopper " Hope, and loads of young journalists like Charlie Peters ( who beat every other channel ) for his reporting. They won the Tric awards which is a public voting TV competition for the third year. The piece that was on last night was about an old couple in Bordon that had been thrown out of their home. That, I believe counts as local news. For those that are clutching their pearls and who don't like the truth, the BBC is there to spoon feed you the drivel.

Re: GB News - passfield resident (17th Jul 2025 - 14:22:42) er-brilliant post. Well said.

Re: GB News - Pete (17th Jul 2025 - 14:24:11) er - Well done couldnt have put it better.

Re: GB News - John Jonson (17th Jul 2025 - 16:43:57) I too regret the many non-local topics discussed on here. But no vulgar outrage is being thrown at them unless if they seem to arrive from the Right of politics. This says a lot about the intolerant and indecency of Left of politics and ruling class. To - er (17th Jul 2025 - 13:25:54) and enthusiastic angry mob. You want to talk about the "facts" lets see what you've got there in your recent posting for us. Apparently we have a problem with Afghans because they 'don't look like us'? It just so happens that when, after a fair fight, the civil servants are forced to release the true figures, you will find that Afghans in the UK top the chart of (for instant) sexual offenses by a vast margin compared to other nationalities who, as you say, do or don't look like us'. Take a minute to digest. Second fact: In the afghan war the UK was helping afghans not the other way around. Yes, the UK has an obligation to assist those who assisted us in the war, but our involvement in the war was about helping the Afghans help them from themselves. Third "fact": Refugee Act and similar are for truly deserved refugees, not for dangerous criminal economic migrants who have forced their way in. We should provide basic food and shelter (NOT dignity) to genuine refugees, making a vanishingly small fraction of immigration, NOT an ever expanding silver plate. As for GBNs: Thank goodness we have a single journalism option to counteract the reporting of party-political BBC and similar. It's fragile and we must protect it despite the annoying ads.

Re: GB News - D (17th Jul 2025 - 18:58:21) On the subject of refugees, how can any one of the hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants travelling from France to the UK claim to be fleeing persecution in fear of their lives? Surely any arrangements should only apply to the first safe country they come to? Not decide on which country offers the best benefits like a stock broker studying the markets.

Re: GB News - Sam (18th Jul 2025 - 19:31:22) Ever considered that those migrants going through France don’t speak French and their 2nd language is English as a reason? Perhaps the former British empire has some questions to answer here ?

Re: GB News - D (19th Jul 2025 - 01:36:36) Don't think so, given how many of them don't speak English any way.

Re: GB News - Sue (19th Jul 2025 - 07:35:42) A great pleasure to wake up to another gem of a posting from OUR Sam. So Sam, you'd like to propose that we deserve having our country being destroyed by bad immigration. Yet another excuse to blame anything that's British for any wrong in the world. Simplistic elementary school history level of argument. So you're trying to assert that the illegal economic immigrants who are here for the overly generous public funded benefits are here because they do speak English? Explain how come OUR NHS spends over £13,000,000 every year on translation services? This is only the bill for OUR NHS. The entire tax-payer funded civil service and government, national and local, generate their own additional inflated annual translation bills. Why are there several varieties of Arabic texts on the back of my NHS letters? The deceptive immigrants speak English if they have to, when suits. The rest of the time we are having to pay the bill for their foreign language of choice. Wake up tax-paying Brits! Good night Sam.

Re: GB News - Richard (19th Jul 2025 - 10:07:45) Always amuses when those that bang on about monies to Immigration are usually flag-waving right-wing Royalists. Which based on the current monarch (mother half-German and dad a Greek) is, for some reason fine as far as they're concerned.

Re: GB News - D (19th Jul 2025 - 15:06:16) You really shouldn't pigeon hole people, Richard. Right wing? Maybe I am, being a royalist doesn't mean one automatically approves of the current incumbent. Given the sick society the UK has become, I'm sure it's only a matter of time until "pigeon hole" takes on a sinister subversive possibly sexual connotation.

Re: GB News - Paul2 (19th Jul 2025 - 15:51:22) I understand that a hotel in Petersfield has changed from being open to the public for bookings, to being 'not available to the public'. It is currently Home Office policy not to inform local residents if a hotel changes use in this way. And a follow-on question - as the country is rapidly changing, will our various local centres and Christian facilities ever change?

Re: GB News - D (19th Jul 2025 - 19:43:14) Paul 2, I think so, yes. In two hundred years there will be no white people in this country and no Christianity.

Re: GB News - Grape (20th Jul 2025 - 17:23:22) 200 years?! try 20

Re: GB News - D (20th Jul 2025 - 18:23:23) I think you're closer to the mark than me, Grape. By the time the government of Little Britain ban heterosexual same race marriages in favour of politically correct mixed race marriages. If all the soaps and advertisements we see are to be believed indigenous British (I daren't say "white") people are already in the minority. As for finding a non mixed race marriage on telly, forget it.

Re: GB News - Sandy (21st Jul 2025 - 10:55:23) It's the Great Replacement of the indigenous European populations in action!

Re: GB News - John Jonson (22nd Jul 2025 - 12:40:25) GBNs the only reporters brave enough to report from inside the Calais jungles actually facing and uncovering the hardcore characters. GBNs reporters are subject to rejection from Lefties and the ruling class, they are physically attacked by the vicious violent criminals (live arms, blades, sexual violence, murder, theft, vandalism) of the jungles. Their brave action has forced the reluctant local police to pay a token visit at long last. Much of those nasty characters are already here (Petersfield, Bordon, as well as fair Liphook), untold scores of them are coming as we speak. Sleep well, sweet dreams.

Re: GB News - Sam (22nd Jul 2025 - 13:22:20) Some people have their own view on migrants, yes agreed it’s not sustainable etc but many of the same people whom believe all problems are related to migrants also look up to the Elon Musks the Rupert Murdocks etc, the global elite whom either own media to influence you or don’t pay enough tax or both… it troubles me that people focus on a few migrants when most of the squeeze on your life is actually caused by the global elite whom are rolling around the floor with glee that you have been distracted and blame the ordinary person next to you. Everything is being done on purpose to make you look the other way, or at lesser issues, when it’s a revolution we need yet won’t be possible if all people are sub divided into little opposing groups fighting amongst themselves.

Re: GB News - mammal (22nd Jul 2025 - 15:48:01) If anyone thinks mass immigration is good, look what a disaster it has been for Palestine. Most recently, of course, the West Bank.

Re: GB News - M (22nd Jul 2025 - 19:14:34) For those worried about mass immigration.. It's kind of been happening here forever. One could argue immigration here is almost a British thing to do? Here's a brief time line up to 1950's so you can all see Prehistoric – c. 8000 BC onward Who: Early hunter-gatherers and farmers From: Continental Europe, Near East c. 2500–1800 BC Who: Beaker culture migrants From: Central Europe c. 800–100 BC Who: Celtic tribes From: Central and Western Europe 43–410 AD (Roman Britain) Who: Roman soldiers, officials, settlers From: Italy, North Africa, Middle East, Gaul 410–700 AD (Anglo-Saxon Migration) Who: Angles, Saxons, Jutes From: Northern Germany, Denmark, Netherlands 800–1100 AD (Viking Age) Who: Norse settlers From: Denmark, Norway, Sweden 1066 onwards (Norman Conquest) Who: Normans From: Northern France 12th–15th Century (Medieval Immigration) Who: Jews, Flemish weavers, Hanseatic merchants From: France, Low Countries, Germany 1500s–1600s (Tudor & Stuart Era) Who: Huguenots, Dutch artisans, African individuals, Sephardic Jews From: France, Netherlands, Iberia, Africa 1700s (Empire and Trade Era) Who: Africans (enslaved or free), Lascars, Ashkenazi Jews From: West Africa, South Asia, Eastern Europe 1800s (Industrial Age) Who: Irish migrants, Italians, Jews from Eastern Europe, Indian & Chinese sailors From: Ireland, Italy, Russian Empire, India, China 1900–1950 (World Wars & Refugees) Who: Belgian refugees, Jewish refugees, Commonwealth soldiers, Polish & Eastern European troops From: Belgium, Germany, Austria, India, Caribbean, Poland, Baltics

Re: GB News - Paul2 (23rd Jul 2025 - 08:58:18) @M - can you update that list with the welfare and legal bills for each of those groups?

Re: GB News - John Jonson (23rd Jul 2025 - 10:12:33) - Sam (22nd Jul 2025 - 13:22:20), As ever on the forum, so infantile not worthy of a reply, whom-whom. - M (22nd Jul 2025 - 19:14:34), Thanks for the historic list of immigration period. Without going into its verifiable veracity, please allow me to point out the following: 1) The duration of the listed periods are incomparable with what we're seeing here now. Centuries and millennia long waves have had the time to eventually settle down and truly integrate in a less disruptive manner than the rush we're seeing now. 2) What figures are you talking about? How many individuals have moved in, and what proportion of the pre-existing population have they made up? Were they allowed dependents to move in soon after? Come to talk of numbers, were the old immigration waves outstripping the pre-existing population with immense, incomparable rates of birth? 3) Some of those historic waves were faced with a brutal welcoming such as you won't see these days. Are you proposing we should allow that history to repeat itself? 4) What benefits were the historical waves of immigration received compared with what they are given now? The State was not even providing today's welfare to pre-existing people, not to mention criminals arriving unannounced uninvited. How would the historic authorities deal with those immigrants who'd fallen foul of basic behaviour and law abidance? These days of lawless Britain, it's all about perpetrator protection and softly-softly when it comes to criminal immigrants, untouchables. 5) Many of those historical immigrants you refer to were far more compatible, similar to the absorbing pre-existing population. If they weren't of similar culture - they were at least trying, willing to fit-in and comply. Recent immigrants don't give a toss. 6) I bet you in the last century or two, asylum application were stringently conducted, screening out much larger portions of bad applications. These days the scrutiny is a farce. Illegal immigrants are not refugees. 7) Many of the historic immigration waves were of net benefit to the State and local communities almost from the word Go. Some were happy, grateful to work hard, others brought in wealth which was spread in the general, population (not the insular ghettos we're seeing here now). A world of difference! Nowadays we have become used to the fact that immigration is necessarily a drain on resources, and ever mushrooming benefit dependency and sense of entitlement. So what precisely was the point you were trying to make by comparing apples with pigs? - Paul2 (23rd Jul 2025 - 08:58:18), You've beaten me to it :)

Re: GB News - M (23rd Jul 2025 - 14:34:10) My point was that large scale immigration has always impacted large parts of GB...i thought my point was obvious? Haven't got a clue about the questions you've asked...but that's not my point. However I'd guess there's always been hatred and blame for migrants coming to GB just like there is now.

Re: GB News - D (23rd Jul 2025 - 15:56:26) M, it's nothing to do with migrants who go through a lengthy legitimate process of applying to come here legally. It's the ones who just sail in on a rubber dinghy and get handed on a plate what many of us have worked decades for to achieve. Nothing to do with hatred, surprised you've not used the bigot word yet. I really don't think it necessary to explain this.

Re: GB News - AR (23rd Jul 2025 - 16:57:26) M If you like your history, maybe go read up about the Crusades.

Re: GB News - M (23rd Jul 2025 - 18:08:49) Who said I liked history? But yes, I do a little bit - Infact a known theory by historical scholars (such as Christopher Tyerman, Bernard Lewis etc) is that the Crusades helped start a centuries-long chain of events that indirectly led to immigration to the UK. They expanded trade routes, intensified contact with the Middle East and Africa, and shaped religious and colonial ideologies. These developments later influenced European empire-building, including the British Empire, which directly led to migration from Asia, Africa, and the Middle East to the UK in later centuries.

Re: GB News - er (24th Jul 2025 - 00:04:54) Worrying times again. Watching all the threatening 'hotel protests', you have to raise an eyebrow at the intelligence of the right wing movement in England. For example, I often read on social media nowadays that Islam is going to take over and impose Islamic Law in England, in place of British law. Despite the fact that we've had Christian and Jewish courts for years and they don't impose 'British law' on anyone, just religious law on those who choose to follow those religions. We don't have any religious courts, Islamic or otherwise than can overrule British courts or government. Plus, by far the biggest demographic growth in the UK is consistently British people describing themselves as 'of no religion' at nearly 50% of the population! How the Muslims are going to impose Islamic law on them I don't know! Next, I hear that due to immigration, soon there will be no white people left in Britain. Really? Allowing in much needed young immigrants in itself will not cause there to be less white people! White people losing their religion and not wanting to have children isn't the fault of immigrants, if there would be less white people in future, it's more likely because young people are losing faith in their own society,. Look inwards for answers, we are no longer an attractive society even to our own kids! Perhaps the most ironic argument: England is a 'Christian country'. No, we really aren't a Christian country, our churches are empty, you guys really aren't going to church anymore, you cannot blame immigrants for that, immigrants are usually far more religious than us, be it Christian, Hindu or Muslim etc, it's the 'Brits' who stopped being religious not foreigners! And finally, Islam is an alien religion! (often said with real anger!) Yet Christianity is itself a derivation of Judaism, from... the Middle East, exactly like Islam! Only the Jews don't consider Muslims to be idolatrous and visa versa, whereas Christians are considered idol worshippers (by both) for having '3 Gods'! and many other odd teachings, like our God (or a third of Him) being born to a married woman, then killed by God (another third of Him) to save everyone, then Christians ate his body and drank his blood etc These are originally Middle Eastern theological disputes that the majority of 'English Christians' would hardly understand or care about, yet the right wing shamelessly use the argument 'our English Christianity is under threat' as a rally cry against 'alien immigration from the Middle East'. You couldn’t make it up! They are a very confused bunch.

Re: GB News - D (24th Jul 2025 - 08:06:11) er, you don't mention my comment of having worked for decades for things these illegal immigrants get handed on a plate as soon as they get off the dinghy. As I've already said, the objection isn't immigration, it's ILLEGAL immigration. You seem to be making no distinction between the two.

Re: GB News - A different M (24th Jul 2025 - 08:26:09) And lets not forget that all religion is made up story, a pack of lies and untruths! Perhaps that's where the route of the worlds problems lie?

Re: GB News - Jen (24th Jul 2025 - 08:35:00) I think what is at the root of the problem with immigration that we have nowadays is a matter of scale. Whereas M is correct in that immigration into this country has occurred for thousands of years it has happened on an unprecedented scale in recent decades. I was listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 just now and they were discussing immigration. The presenter quoted Paul Morland, a renowned and respected demographer, from a recent podcast of his. In essence he said that in each year since 1997 there has been more immigration into the UK than in the whole of the previous 1,500 years. Therein lies the problem.

Re: GB News - Charlie (24th Jul 2025 - 09:56:04) At last a sensible post. Thanks Jen. Succinct and to the point and goes right to the nub of the problem unlike some of the previous rambling posts with statistics probably found on Google.

Re: GB News - er (24th Jul 2025 - 16:06:24) D, you said I never mentioned your comments, that's because I wasn't replying to your post specifically, nor I suppose did you answer any of my points,so we're even! I will answer you though. I'll give you two answers. a) The Simplistic answer (I'll call this the 'Farage' answer😁): Yes, it annoys many people seeing money being spent on asylum seekers when they (some of them at least) have spent years paying taxes and/or never claimed a penny when they were down. Yes, illegal immigrants should be deported and where a crime has been committed, punished appropriately. The above is all true, but simplistic, and unfortunately dangerous when used to rally the rabble who are too stupid to think any deeper than that. b) The considered Answer: (Most people will switch off here and start moaning about money, ethnicity, culture etc,but I believe you are one of the few people who will read it D, for all your opinions which I often agree with, often not, you are interested in these matters and I commend you for it) Firstly, we don't spend a penny out of budget on Asylum Seekers. What we do is allocate a sum for foreign aid, a sum that would be spent on foreign aid irrespective. Out of that money we allocate (about 25%) to fund our asylum system, a bit of clever accounting, that's all, no net cost to the UK and arguably a lot that we gain. Secondly, it is 100% lawful to claim asylum, it is equally lawful to pass through other countries we consider safe, to seek a destination you feel safe in, this can be as simple as the fact you speak the language or have family there (Three quarters of refugees have historical links to the UK, usually a result of colonialism, not really their fault! It is lawful to cross a border without a visa to do this, that is often the only way (especially to get to the UK as we don't offer much in the way of safe or secure routes and you can only claim once you physically get here) The Illegal Migration Act seeks to end this, but is mired in legal controversy and yet to be enforced. It is said if it ever goes into effect it could well cost the best part of a million pounds per asylum seeker we deport to Rwanda. Meanwhile (and probably even after) we are still bound by the Refugee Convention that we not only signed up to, but co-wrote! This means we cannot send asylum seekers to another country untill we have fulfilled our duty to determine their claims. NO claims is illegal UNTIL or unless their claim has been heard and rejected and they have failed to leave (subject to appeal rights). If their claim succeeds they become a ’Refugee' and gain full legal Refugee status, welcome to Britain, by right! So the bigger question ought to be, WHY are we so slow (often taking years) to hear and determine asylum claims? This is not the refugees fault and is largely a legacy from Tory days! It is NOT illegal to claim and be denied asylum, it is certainly NOT illegal to flee through France and cross the channel on a boat to claim asylum. (It is illegal to facilitate and charge rip off premiums to the desperate people fleeing though and that's where resources and bitterness are better directed) So there are NO ILLEGAL ASYLUM CLAIMANTS! That is a contradiction of terms, there is only the 'potential' to become a 'failed' asylum seeker who then refuses to leave, at that point illegality could be pursued, subject to Habeus Corpus etc. There is (quite rightly) no criminal duty placed on an asylum seeker to fully understand and comply with all the latest laws of the place they flee to, if their application succeeds (and 90% do) then WE have deemed it a lawful act, if it fails, no inference if criminality automatically follows. There are therefore no illegal Asylum Seekers. If you feel hard done by, I urge anybody and everybody to blame our law writers and politicians, not the poor folk trying to flee to a safer place they have a connection with. The routes are so dangerous and beset by gangs preying on them, it is no wonder the men flee first to a place they feel safe in, where a claim can only be made once you arrive, and THEN apply for their wives and children to come. Of course if you operate that kind of asylum system and have zero process for applying before you get here, the only people who will make it here are the most desperate young men, many of the other will have died, are beaten, robbed and killed, the women and children taken captive, raped, killed, because there are no safe routes and we begrudgingly pay lip service to the Asylum Laws we wrote and that so many of generations of our young men fought and died for. We live in an inverted pyramid of old people, before modern times we would have repopulated our own nations internally and left those outside to die, but in modern times we are more enlightened and wealthier, we grow old in care homes, looked after by immigrants, our children choose not to have kids and we replenish ourselves with immigration, of which less than 1% are ever convicted of any crime, well below the national average I would imagine! (PS sorry for any errors or emission, writing on the train and haven't got time to check again!)

Re: GB News - passfield resident (24th Jul 2025 - 17:28:09) er-thanks for taking the trouble to write such a long post. It's so good to hear a balanced, humane view.

Re: GB News - D (24th Jul 2025 - 17:56:35) er, if that's the law then that's the law though I don't agree with a lot of it. I personally think our present situation stems from Gordon Brown's open door policy when he extended the immigration rights beyond e.u. countries to the rest of Europe. As a regular visitor to Q.A. I'm well aware of the importance of immigration, we couldn't manage without them. But people's resentment of illegal immigrants (we'll have to agree to differ on that one) is quite understandable. As always, a pleasure to correspond with you.

Re: GB News - Paul2 (25th Jul 2025 - 10:39:17) People's stance on illegal migration will likely change rapidly when it directly affects them. It probably feels abstract at the moment. But just up the road in Aldershot there is a current example of police escorting in hard left agitators to counter protest. There is a hotel in Petersfield already housing military-aged males seeking asylum. And we have already have HMO's in Liphook. Migration and economic stats indicate it won't be long before everyone commenting here becomes directly affected - whether through increasing tax burden, decreasing public services, lower quality of life or having an HMO next door.

Re: GB News - Charlie (25th Jul 2025 - 14:56:51) er As D says your post is informative and compassionate, but I do also understand and agree with Paul2’s post, when he says attitudes may change and harden as they are beginning to do when people experience the direct and sometimes unfortunate result of excessive immigration. I agree completely with your statement that “immigrants seeking asylum are not illegal until they have been duly processed etc etc”. The only thing I would say about the word asylum being used at the moment is that many of the immigrants seeking to live in the UK are economic migrants and the majority appear to be young men, not families with children – you only have to look at the occupants of the boats to see that. I agree that we need immigration but the numbers now entering our country in my opinion are not sustainable. I think that the law regarding asylum seekers should be reviewed and that anyone crossing in a boat organised by the vile people smugglers should be returned to the country from whence they came and these people should apply through the correct and legal systems that we have in place. Australia just to name but one country, have very strict rules with regard to people wishing to live and work in Austrialia. I think we should be applying some of these rules ourselves. It is called self-preservation.

Re: GB News - Was Undecided Now Decided (25th Jul 2025 - 18:31:12) Some of the points being offered in this thread are considered complex, and therefore fall into grey areas. For instance, saying we don't spend a penny out of budget on asylum seekers ignores the fact that processing, housing (in hotels and HMOs) and social services does involve domestic spending. In 2023, £4.3bn was spent on asylum support and processing - likely significantly more in 24 and 25. And the UK's Immigration Rules do allow the Home Office to deem an asylum claim inadmissible if the applicant has a connection to a safe third country where they could have claimed asylum. France is a safe third country. And entering the UK by irregular means is a breach of immigration rules, as is overstaying after a failed claim, destroying real or using fraudulent documents. The UK offers several safe and legal routes.

Re: GB News - Paul2 (29th Jul 2025 - 09:14:49) The national 'problem' is getting closer and closer to Liphook ... telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/07/23/protest-fears-over-plan-to-house-35-migrants-high-street My point remains - it's all feels distant and academic until it happens next door. And it will, it definitely will.

Re: GB News - passfield resident (29th Jul 2025 - 14:39:43) A bigger national problem is the increase in the shouty, football hooligan , nasty, intolerant right who have a respectable seeming figurehead in Nigel Farage but who are actually often rascist and anti-democratic like the American right, using scaremongering tactics concerning immigration to encourage support for their political ambitions.

Re: GB News - D (29th Jul 2025 - 16:06:47) Passfield Resident, it's so easy to label an opinion you don't agree with. I am anti illegal immigration, those just sailing into the country when others have gone through a costly lengthy legitimate application process. This does not make me a racist or a bigot, (another word used to discredit someone you may not agree with).

Re: GB News - passfield resident (29th Jul 2025 - 17:58:04) D-did I say you were a racist? Your post on the football thread was certainly bigoted-look up the definition if you have a dictionary.

Reply to THIS thread
Talkback Home