Journo mad at Facebook users for reacting to drowned migrants with 😆, doxxes them

His willingness to talk about his views on migration was somewhat overshadowed by the bile he spouted.

"No problem... it's a total joke mate," he begins, adding: "Thousands of murders (sic) male feminists terrorists coming into our country daily. The government are traitors!!"

But when I confess I am struggling to see how the deaths of 27 people are remotely funny things begin to sour.

"It's great news (they drowned)! You support the ***** probably. **** of (sic). I hope every boat ******* sinks."

I question what's got him to this point.

Those coming are "male feminists murders (sic) nonces terrorists and they are robbing our country left right and centre cos they come from **** all and got no morals. Don’t like them never will there (sic) scum," he says.

It's an appalling explosion of hate and not backed up by any statistics whatsoever.

I ask him to show me any evidence for his claims. He can't but still tells me to "go away and do my homework".

So I do. For all his talk of murderers and male feminists I found not a single news report linking a serious offence to someone who had used the route and very few about any asylum seekers committing offences.

More than 200,000 refugees live in the UK compared to the 3.1 million living in Turkey, which has the most in the world.

Last year, the UK received 36,000 asylum applications, the fifth highest number in Europe. Germany had 122,015 applicants and France 93,475. The UK's intake was 17th in Europe per head of population.

These numbers don't match a vision of a country "under attack" from "invaders" or even economic migrants.

And nor do the numbers – well over 70% of people risking their lives in the Channel are granted asylum, meaning their claims are genuine.

Chatham dad Steve tells me: "The should stay at home and stop ******* coming over here. Or do it through the right procedures the scum bags."

I ask him if the fact 27 people, including women and children, had died had bothered him.

"Not at all mate not my family and not my children," he says, adding another laughing emoji for good measure.

"So would you laugh at anyone dying who you weren't related to?" I ask.

Steve is not happy about this question.

"Nope just them *****," he says.

"They are supposed to seek refuge in the first country they get to not travel through them to come to ours. Because of all the ***** my daughter can't get doctors appointments because there is too many of them here now causing a strain on our NHS. There is veteran's on the streets when there being put up in hotels (sic)."

He tells me to "sort myself out".

But Steve is wrong, asylum seekers do not have to seek refuge in the first country they arrive in.

It's a common misconception fed by political rhetoric about passing through "safe countries" but there is no rule requiring asylum seekers to do this.

Somewhat ironically, given how many of the people I message have been vocal supporters of Brexit in the past, Britain did have more tools at its disposal when it was a member of the EU.

The Dublin Regulations required asylum seekers to register a claim in the first EU country they reached and for the decision of that country to be final.

As for his point about using the right processes, it's the most reasonable thing he says, but the fact of the matter is they barely exist.

As Baron Kerr told the House of Lords last week schemes like the Syrian and Dubs are no longer in place.

Some 3,187 Iranians came in the past 18 months, the largest single group, yet only one got in through the official route.

Kurds, like Baran and many of those who drowned, are among the largest groups to make the crossing. They are also the largest ethnic group without a state on the planet and have fled persecution for decades, often settling in Europe.

Unfortunately, it's too late to tell Steve that because he's told me to jog on again.

'Ronni Pickering' has also blocked me by this point. It's a common theme. Everyone I message who at first was willing to engage would only do so on their terms.

I asked for facts to back up their claims and was met with abuse, silence or more misinformation.

I presented facts and was told they were wrong or simply to "**** off".

One man tells me all they do is "take jobs" and says "most of them that come here are in jail for murder or r*pe."

When I tell him asylum seekers can't work and ask for more information on his paradoxical second claim he ignores me before eventually saying "**** 'em."

Debating the topic of immigration, and in particular the current system, is hugely important but any hope a reasoned conversation could be had with people who found drowned children funny was in hindsight misguided.

Even if their arguments were sound no amount of evidence is going to justify laughing at an atrocity.

But there is hope among the hatred. For the 96 who clicked the laughing emoji more than 400 responded with outrage.

Comments previously used to be immediately closed on articles such as last week's but now they're left open for people to challenge each other's views, something which happens more often than not and outweighs the blind bigotry.

Reasoning with these people was never going to work, maybe one day education will win but until then perhaps the best approach, to redirect one man's insult, is "**** 'em".

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent/news/27-people-drowned-and-i-laughed-258352/