From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Wed May 06 12:44:39 2026 Return-path: To: JNugent73 at ..il.com Subject: Re: Re: Is Zack Polanski Right? References: <10t7h9d$2tah5$1@dont-email.me> <10t7tro$31c85$1@dont-email.me> <10tad61$3oj7u$1@dont-email.me> <3387262317.11940fa1@uninhabited.net> <10tco34$dpbc$1@dont-email.me> <10tdcjd$koaj$1@dont-email.me> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [177806316116227] reject abuse Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Wed, 06 May 2026 12:44:38 +0100 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to another contributor. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Wed May 06 11:26:01 2026 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uni-berlin.de; dkim=pass header.d=uni-berlin.de header.s=fub01 header.a=rsa-sha256 > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:From: Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:In-Reply-To: References; bh=CHthmAKMWq/a9QrdE3cX7pGX8jBGg6AajuSWsHbR3iQ=; t=1778063154; x=1778667954; b=IMY9ppmuPPMY0+EI4lXncqJiYsYdQaVH+NgBdEAs8y5bxYJthtxu0EKw+APBX PVpzKITYOIh+DM > From: JNugent > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Is Zack Polanski Right? > Date: Wed, 06 May 2026 11:25:52 +0100 > Organization: Home User > Message-ID: > References: <10t7h9d$2tah5$1@dont-email.me> <10t7tro$31c85$1@dont-email.me> <10tad61$3oj7u$1@dont-email.me> <3387262317.11940fa1@uninhabited.net> <10tco34$dpbc$1@dont-email.me> <10tdcjd$koaj$1@dont-email.me> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net oCAFLPRR0ER9NtbGzmxtxw1egygNT+VpkEDAq1ef2XkONhTp9V > Cancel-Lock: sha1:Wn280vlpNWQwYn1jR5UvT8ZkVUA= sha256:7z0SaGPBwF6eoOt9ffFgxKkIFk2ndVvqLQO8FqlNdhg= > User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 > X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 260505-12, 5/5/2026), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 78 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=7.8 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 05/05/2026 07:23 PM, billy bookcase wrote: > > "JNugent" wrote in message > > news:n5u9hsFt3kU1@mid.individual.net... > >> On 05/05/2026 01:33 PM, billy bookcase wrote: > >> > >>> "JNugent" wrote: > >>>> > >>>> In other (connected) news, I hear that today, Reform UK has issued a > >>>> statement > >>>> to the effect that if they win the next election, they will confine illegal > >>>> immigrants to areas which voted Green. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> QUOTE: > >>>> Reform UK has said it would open migrant detention centres for people > >>>> awaiting > >>>> deportation in areas that vote for the Green Party. > >>>> The party had previously said it would build removal centres in remote areas > >>>> of the country if elected, as part of plans to detain up to 24,000 people > >>>> within 18 months. > >>>> Zia Yusuf, Reform UK's home affairs spokesperson, said Green-controlled > >>>> areas > >>>> would be prioritised because of what he described as the party's support for > >>>> "open borders". > >>>> A Green Party spokesperson said it was a "disgusting idea" and accused > >>>> Reform > >>>> of "making abhorrent announcements in attempts to distract voters" from its > >>>> other policies. > >>>> ENDQUOTE > >>>> > >>>> Odd... I'd have thought that the Greens would have welcomed this spotlight > >>>> on > >>>> their avowed policy. Don't they want publicity for their promises? > >>>> > >>>> How can it be a "disgusting idea"? > >>> > >>> I'm sorry but I don't follow your own, or Reform's logic in this, at all. > >> > >> In what way? > >> > >> I am not taking up Reform's position at all. I am asking what objection Green > >> voters could have to it, since open borders are one of the pafrty's principal > >> policies. > >> > >> That being the case, what objection could they have to asylum seekers being > >> housed near their homes? It's hard to see what that objection might be, isn't > >> it? > > > > But who has said they would have any objection to their being placed > > near their homes ? > > > > If such measures were adopted by Reform, despite all objections, then > > who has said Green Party Supporters might not welcome these Asylum > > Seeker Camps to their areas ? > > > > As they could possibly befriend the failed asylum seekers, through the > > chain link fence. Maybe even throw them food parcels over the top ? > > > > What's the problem with that ? > > > > (Although it would obviously be a problem foe Reform were TV News > > cameras to show up filming this "unwelcome fraternisation") > > > > Simply because Reform choose to regard failed asylum seekers as sub human > > scum who should be housed in camps (formerly as far away from civilisation > > as possible ) doesn't necessarily mean that everybody else does. > > > > The fact that such a possibility doesn't even seem to have occurred to > > Reform "policy makers" (that some people might not necessarily regard > > failed asylum seekers as scum) should maybe come as no real surprise > > > >> > >> Well, apart from the obvious one: hypocrisy. > > > > Well, if one were to assume that Green Party supporters necessarily > > regard failed asylum seekers as scum, as presumably one must do so > > oneself, then one could indeed, come to such a conclusion. > > > > Except that they don't and never have > > > > Their whole objection is to the whole idea of caging failed asylum seekers > > up behind chain link fences *anywhere". Not to where those cages are to > > be located. > > > >> > >> The only possible reason for any objection from the party's voters would be > >> that open borders shouldn't affect them, but should only affect Reform voters, > >> Brexit supporters, etc. > > > > So its not possible for anyone to object to the idea of caging > > people up behind chained link fences, "on principle" ? > > > > Oh really ? > > > >>> > >>> What message exactly are Green Party Supporters supposed to draw, from > >>> being able to watch failed asylum seekers, from the other side of a > >>> chain linked fence ? > >> > >> That actions have consequences? For oneself as well as for others one doesn't > >> care about? > >>> > >>> What would be the point of that ? > >> > >> If you can't already tell, I doubt you'd be receptive to a logical explanation > >> (not that I reckon there is one beyond the very obvious). > > > > One "obvious" explanation is that because Reform themselves regard > > failed asylum seekers as scum, they automatically assume everybody > > else, including Green Party supporters do so as well. > > > > That's my "obvious explanation". > > > > What's yours ? > > That's classic BB all over - well past the bottom of the barrel and > still digging. The only question now is his emergence point, Sydney or > Perth? > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmn7KaYACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x4vSQgAlTtNCQ3A01A5NSw+BgQwt105+Abm0JwB+jdR3VVuVZowxaotQ5VqzTsr JUryhrJ/36LKFMxc0PTsKGsKSmTRVzA+u0woLBR64mUgP/bgeP3s3Q4AB7Q0a80M r6p5nCy8Wu0+1PrVveATMXl5HukYm7yLr0bJJWdwzmoMkH0x5+apdZy7Qk43CdaD iEejwxm4Tsr/gS7okHNIbqQ3B3MsI+1i40LczAk7iSdppB5jV0S11s1Q9MFVShcW FpnFdsq9HA/0KWTCP8PImpzwQShpFnS072eMQSsYlWg9VLwfyniTw2RrFQPlVChA sS0gKNkUoxaXwoO3zifW+QD+s1/btg== =31bV -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----