Readers discuss migrant protests, Labour's left-wing, water systems and taxes
It's so depressing that a heinous crime is being used as a political football to attack refugees.
Far-right activists claim that the reason they are targeting a hotel housing asylum seekers in Epping is because one of those asylum seekers was arrested for allegedly attempting to kiss a 14-year-old girl (Metro, Mon).
Rates of sexual assault are just as high among men born and bred here as they are among ethnic minorities or migrants.
Why aren't these activists also protesting about that? When a white Brit is said to have committed a sexual offence, where are all these guys? Fighting for better prevention strategies and higher rates of police investigation?
Nope. They're busy finding some other reason to bash the migrants. Because this isn't about safety. It's about racism. Charlie Parrett, Stoke
When I want to solve a problem, I go after the cause. If Nigel Farage and other right-wing politicians actually cared about migration, they'd try to get to the bottom of what's causing it.
We've already tried to limit benefits to migrants and the right to bring their families with them, so it isn't that.
The ones who come illegally don't have the right to claim benefits anyway. People are risking their lives to come here. Why?
If there's not a pull, then there must be a push. These people's homelands are being torn apart in a hellstorm of totalitarianism, war and famine. If you want to stop people coming here, you have to help sort out the countries they're coming from.
Remember – if someone's talking about a problem but they're not trying to solve the problem, then they're trying to use the problem to serve their own ends. Helen Shaw, Liverpool
Robert Hughes (MetroTalk, Mon) says Jeremy Corbyn's new party will only benefit the Conservatives and Reform by splitting Labour's left-wing vote.
Perhaps if Labour offered any sort of concession or appealed to the left wing of its party (its not really extreme considering Labour call themselves democratic socialist) then Corbyn's party wouldn't have nearly as much momentum.
They have nobody to blame but themselves. Maybe Labour should worry about their own voter base rather than trying and failing to appeal to the right? James Freeman, Bognor Regis
Our junior, now called 'resident', doctors are either striking or leaving altogether because we don't have the money to pay them enough.
Our water system is collapsing because we don't have the money to take it back under public ownership.
We can't give disabled people the extra help they need because we don't have the money for their 'pip' personal independence payments.
We don't have the money to help children with special educational needs, either. All because chancellor Rachel Reeves refuses to tax the unused wealth of the super-rich.
People say that if we have a wealth tax, these super-rich people will leave. And maybe some of them will.
But a lot of them won't. People aren't motivated by money alone. They're motivated by where they and their families want to live and work.
Is it really worth bankrupting our country just to hold on to as many super-rich people as possible? And besides, if we're so broke that our basic infrastructure is starting to fall apart, surely that would be a good reason for those people to leave anyway. Rob Slater, Norfolk
The death of a child from measles in Liverpool this month highlights the UK's decline in vaccination rates.
Some areas are seeing rates below the 95 per cent target recommended by the World Health Organization. More Trending
Sadly, this will lead to more deaths from preventable diseases.
The spread of lies and disinformation – particularly on social media – is leading to a misplaced distrust in vaccines.
Vaccines have been proven to be safe and have saved millions of lives, including from Covid.
If vaccination rates continue to fall, we will see more tragic deaths that could have been easily prevented as well as outbreaks of previously eradicated diseases. Mark Dawes, London
MORE: Noel and Liam Gallagher's brother Paul Gallagher, 59, charged with rape
MORE: Back-to-school coats sorted – Regatta has kids covered (literally) with up to 50% off
MORE: If your dry cuticles are screaming for help this new launch is the answer
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
17 minutes ago
- The Independent
UK will recognise Palestinian state in September unless Israel ends ‘appalling situation' in Gaza, Starmer vows
Keir Starmer and his senior ministers have agreed to recognise to recognise a Palestinian state in September unless Israel ends its starvation tactics in Gaza. The prime minister held an emergency virtual cabinet meeting where he laid out his plan for peace agreed over the weekend with French President Emmanuel Macron and German chancellor Friedrich Merz. In an ultimatum to Benjamin Netanyahu's government, he used the threat of recognising Palestine in September to try to force Israel to change tactics. A readout from the cabinet meeting stated: 'The Prime Minister said it had been this Government's longstanding position that recognition of a Palestinian state was an inalienable right of the Palestinian people and that we would recognise a Palestinian state as part of a process to peace and a two state solution. 'He said that because of the increasingly intolerable situation in Gaza and the diminishing prospect of a peace process towards a two state solution, now was the right time to move this position forward. 'He said that the UK will recognise the state of Palestine in September, before UNGA, unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, reaches a ceasefire, makes clear there will be no annexation in the West Bank, and commits to a long-term peace process that delivers a two state solution.' Pressure had been mounting on Sir Keir to recognise Palestine as a state, but the decision to put the ball in the Israeli government's court was a compromise to satisfy two competing factions in his cabinet. Senior Cabinet members who support plans to recognise a Palestinian state include deputy prime minister Angela Rayner, justice secretary Shabana Mahmood, energy secretary Ed Miliband and foreign secretary David Lammy. Mr Lammy is at a conference in New York discussing recognising Palestine as a state where he is due to speak. But on the other side chancellor Rachel Reeves, tech secretary Peter Kyle, chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden, who have been officers of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), were worried recognition would 'reward Hamas'. Politically Sir Keir had been helped by Donald Trump when they met in Scotland on Monday, where the US president said he did not object to the prime minister taking a position on state recognition. This undermined the US State Department's opposition to the move, expressed angrily by secretary of state Marco Rubio last week, when President Macron announced France would recognise a Palestinian state. At home Sir Keir has been threatened by the creation of Jeremy Corbyn's new party which includes the former Gaza independents who unseated senior Labour MPs at the last election and came close to defeating Ms Mahmood and health secretary Wes Streeting. Added to that more than 250 MPs from nine different parties have called for Palestine to be recognised as a state. This included more than 90 of the new Labour MPs elected last year.
STV News
17 minutes ago
- STV News
UK will recognise state of Palestine by September unless Israel meets conditions
The UK will recognise the state of Palestine by September, at the UN General Assembly, unless Israel agrees to a peace plan based on a two-state solution and the free flow of aid into Gaza. Hamas must also agree to a ceasefire and to release remaining hostages. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has faced mounting calls in recent weeks to recognise Palestinian statehood immediately. Downing Street previously said Starmer was working with France and Germany to 'bring about a lasting peace' with US President Donald Trump. Starmer plans to share details with Arab states and other key allies in the coming days. Recognition of a Palestinian state is supported by more than 200 MPs and was a commitment in Labour's election manifesto. The Prime Minister's official spokesman previously said: 'This week, the Prime Minister is focused on a pathway to peace to ensure immediate relief for those on the ground, and a sustainable route to a two-state solution. 'We are clear that the recognition of the Palestinian state is a matter of when, not if, but it must be one of the steps on the path to a two-state solution as part of a wider plan that delivers lasting security for both Palestinians and Israelis.' Amid international alarm over starvation in Gaza, Israel announced at the weekend that it would suspend fighting in three areas for ten hours a day and open secure routes for aid delivery. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The National
17 minutes ago
- The National
Labour are engulfed in major online safety furore
It worked for rapper Kendrick Lamar; why not Technology Secretary Peter Kyle? Kyle delivered a quite extraordinary, spittle-flecked response to critics of the Online Safety Act on Tuesday morning. Nigel Farage is on the same side as paedophiles, Kyle spat. Not just any paedos either, the minister said that Farage would be on the same side as Jimmy Savile, were he still alive. Going even further later on, he said that anyone wanting to overturn the controversial legislation is 'on the side of predators'. That includes more than 400,000 people who have signed a petition calling for the Act to be repealed and could expand to organisations like Liberty, Big Brother Watch, Index on Censorship and the parent companies of Facebook and Wikipedia. Even Ian Russell, the chair of the Molly Russell Foundation, a child protection charity, said that the Act was not up to snuff and had to be replaced by something even tougher. Who knew paedophiles had so many allies? Quite why Labour are defending a Tory piece of legislation – the Act was passed by the Conservatives but is only coming into force now – is a question with a couple of answers. The first is a political one. 'Protect our children' has become a potent rallying cry for the right, identifying bogeymen in everyone from asylum seekers to drag queens. This is Labour's counterblast: You're putting children at risk. If you're against us, you're on the same side as child abusers. READ MORE: Labour respond as 400k demand repeal of Online Safety Act As a strategy it could work. Many parents will doubtless be glad to see the Government come down hard on the worst bits of the internet. It will certainly be welcomed by many that unregulated social media companies will be held responsible for removing content like child pornography and blocking children's access to sexual content or instructions for committing acts of self-harm or suicide. There is unlikely to be great amounts of sympathy for arguments about the sanctity of end-to-end encryption or free online speech. The flipside: are Reform UK railing against the Act – which this week enforced age restrictions on adult content – as a means to target the porn-addicted, misanthropic young men likely to make up its youth base at the next election? Quite possibly. (Image: James Manning/PA) The other reason that Kyle and his Labour comrades so aggressively back the Act is that they genuinely believe in it. They do not care about warnings that by introducing strict age checks, people might be pushed into downloading software to evade restrictions and access the darker corners of the internet. Demand for virtual private networks, which allow people to browse the web away from the prying eyes of regulators, is soaring. Kyle, as a rational being, must consider it plausible that the Act could have unintended consequences, though he shows no signs that he does. He seems to believe that the intention of legislation is its effect. He appears to care only about why laws were introduced, not how they work. Keir Starmer's response to criticism of the Act earlier this week took a similar approach: 'I don't see that as a free speech issue, I see that as child protection.' It surely cannot be beyond him that the two are not mutually exclusive. So it was with the SNP's doomed Named Person Scheme. Ministers were warned in 2016 that while the aim of the policy was 'unquestionably legitimate', it would violate people's human rights. It took another three years before it was officially ditched by the Scottish Government. With Donald Trump's sidekick JD Vance threatening consequences for governments insufficiently amenable to his definition of free speech, perhaps Starmer and co might catch up with the laws of unintended consequences sooner rather than later.
