It was announced today by Hazel Blurghs, that town halls should monitor racial tensions, and profile known troublemakers to establish their political stance.
Seems like the government are getting overly paranoid, and can't fathom out why they have done so badly in the recent polls and council elections. So now they propose to SPY on people EVEN MORE vigorously than before. Gone are the days when your political views were your own affair.
I am guessing that this is an attempt to find out which people are likely to vote BNP, and will be targeted unjustly by government departments, once they establish such.
This is a government in total meltdown, and a PM on the verge of a nervous breakdown (dangerous times indeed) and will only serve to bring about their demise even quicker.
Being a working class white man, I never thought I would see this by a party who, until recently (4 years ago) I believed had the interests of the poorer classes at heart. How wrong I was.
This bunch of degenerates, who refer to the likes of me as "little Englanders" are only interested in lining their own pockets, and keeping the masses in check. This has been proven, time after time during their 11 year reign of power. And now, not even our political views are safe from scrutiny, with the proposals set out by Blurghs today, who resembles a pampered lapdog, feeding on the kindness of her electorate masters.
Thts what they seem to forget, that it is we, the electorate who are the masters. And we determine which MP's keep their privillidged positions.
Which is why they are becoming desperate, like rats and a sinking ship, jumping on anything which might save their slimy little necks.
Well bring it on Blurghs, and see how much popularity you gain from it. I can only imagine this proposal will be supported by communists, leftists, and the super rich alike. We'll see.
but anyone who votes for this bunch of self serving pondlife, will be voting for their own demise.
I don't mind saying, that I now vote BNP at every opportunity, and anyone who believes the spin, and the LIES of the Liberal Lefty Loonies, are in my opinion, seriously misguided and deluded to the point of madness. How much more evidence do people need to see that this lot don't give a flying f**k about the normal people who built this nation. Labour are on a mission to destroy EVERTHING that is good and British in our society, and will use any means to achieve their goal.
Monday, 12 May 2008
Saturday, 10 May 2008
Winston knew, way back then.
Warnings From the Lion
Churchill understood the threat to the West.
by David Hamilton
Sir Winston Churchill is one of the few major British politicians who had the courage to try to stop open-door immigration. He had strong views about race and was a keen supporter of eugenics. Late in his career, as post-war prime minister from 1951 to 1955, he might have succeeded in barring the door had it not been for failing health. Most biographers and historians now downplay his racial views and thereby give a false picture of the great man.
Churchill was different from academics and mushy liberals who theorize about multi-racial utopia. He was a brave and practical man who did not go to university but to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, and later won a commission in the Fourth Hussars. As a young man he was with Lord Kitchener at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898, when the British avenged the 1885 murder in Khartoum of General Charles “Chinese” Gordon. He was a war correspondent during the Boer War, was captured, held prisoner and escaped. As Home secretary in 1911, he personally took charge of the Siege of Sidney Street, when a small gang of Latvian anarchists holed up at 100 Sidney Street in Stepney, and fired on police. He called in the Scots Guards, and when a fire broke out at 100 Sidney Street, he made the decision to let the anarchists burn rather than have the fire brigade douse the flames. During the First World War, he commanded a battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers as a Colonel.
Churchill as a young man.
Churchill was not taken in by liberal orthodoxy. He knew that different races compete for power and territory, and he had seen sub-Saharan slavery first-hand. In 1899, he wrote a book about Kitchener’s Sudan campaign called The River War, in which he expressed views that in today’s Britain would have him up on charges of inciting racial hatred:
“The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab and Negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking because they are more intelligent than primitive savages. The stronger race soon began to prey upon the simple [black] aboriginals … To the great slave-market at Jeddah a continual stream of Negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the traffic by placing the ignorant Negroes at a further disadvantage. Thus the situation in the Sudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved them.”
As for Islam, in the first edition of the book he wrote passages well worth pondering today:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
Churchill was an enthusiastic eugenicist, and was a sponsoring vice president — as were the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Bishop of Ripon — of the first International Eugenics Conference, which took place in London in 1912. Arthur Balfour delivered the opening address with Leonard Darwin — Charles Darwin’s son — presiding.
Churchill’s papers from this period show that he worried that “moral degenerates” and people of low intelligence were outbreeding the educated classes. He proposed that “mental defectives” be incarcerated and that the “feeble-minded” be forcibly sterilized. As Home Secretary, Churchill reportedly told his government colleagues that:
“The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded classes, coupled with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks constitutes a race danger. I feel the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.”
Churchill was deeply suspicious of intellectuals and their utopian theories. In his St. George’s Day address of 1933, he said:
“The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded classes … constitutes a race danger.”
“The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country who, if they add something to the culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large portion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?”
Many of Churchill’s views have gone out of fashion. He was convinced, for example, of Britain’s right to rule the lesser breeds. In a 1931 address at the Royal Albert Hall he said, “We gave India a civilization, far above anything they could possibly have achieved themselves, or could possibly maintain.” In his tribute to the Royal Marines in 1936, he explained that Britain was a gift passed from one generation to the next: “Those who do not think of the future are unworthy of their ancestors.”
Churchill went on to became the embodiment of the struggle against Nazism. He would never have been an appeaser. In October 1930, before Hitler had even taken power, he expressed his views of Nazis: “If a dog makes a dash for my trousers, I shoot him down before he can bite.” The fight against Germany did not change his racial views. During the war, a black official at the Colonial Office had to stop eating at a London club when American officers took it over and enforced segregation. When Churchill heard of this, he replied, “That’s alright. Tell him to take a banjo; they will think he is one of the band.”
At Yalta with Roosevelt and Stalin.
When he resumed power after the war, he opposed non-white immigration, but he was 76 years old. His instincts were sound but he no longer had the energy of a young man. Records of a cabinet discussion on Nov. 25, 1952 show that he asked if “the Post Office was employing large numbers of coloured workers. If so, there was some risk that difficult social problems would be created.” He then “raised the whole issue … of whether coloured subjects of the Commonwealth and Empire should be admitted to the country from now on.”
“We gave India a civilization, far above anything they could possibly have achieved themselves, or could possibly maintain.”
In 1953 Churchill suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed on the left side. He went into decline and was not capable of decisive action, but his cabinet continued to debate immigration. In March 1954, his Home Secretary, David Maxwell-Fyfe, told the cabinet “that large numbers of coloured people are living on National Assistance” and that “coloured landlords by their conduct are making life difficult for white people living in the same building or area … [T]he result is that white people leave and the accommodation is then converted to furnished lettings for coloured people, with serious overcrowding and exploitation.” In October 1954, Churchill warned Maxwell-Fyfe, “that the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and serious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe replied that they could not be kept out under then-current law.
Britain allowed all Commonwealth citizens automatic entry but Maxwell Fyfe “did not believe that the problem had yet assumed sufficient proportions to justify legislation, which … would antagonize liberal opinion.” Churchill foresaw, however, that “the rapid improvement in communications was likely to lead to the continuing increase in the number of coloured people coming to this country, and their presence here would sooner or later come to be resented by large sections of the British people.” He, too, was not sure, however, that “the problem had assumed sufficient proportions to enable the Government to take adequate counter-measures.”
Faces from the Empire Windrush, which arrived in 1948 with the first load of Commonwealth immigrants.
Churchill once explained to Governor of Jamaica Hugh Foot why he opposed non-white immigration: “It would be a Magpie society: that would never do.” Ian Gilmour, then owner and editor of the Spectator, relates that just before he stood down because of his health in April 1955, Churchill told him “It [immigration] is the most important subject facing this country, but I can not get any of my ministers to take any notice.”
In fact, many of his advisers were appeasers, though this time it was Indians and Pakistanis they wanted to placate. The Commonwealth Relations Office feared that if Britain kept out non-whites “there might well be a chance of the governments of India and Pakistan introducing retaliatory restrictions against the entry or residence of members of the British business community.” Commonwealth Secretary Earl Home also warned of possible retaliation.
In Eminent Churchillians, Andrew Roberts quotes people who worked closely with Churchill, and who probably had the sentiments typical of the period. One of Mr. Churchill’s private secretaries remembered that “at that time it seemed a very good idea to get [coloured] bus conductors and stuff.” A junior minister complained that “it was becoming hard to find somebody to carry your bags at the station.” As one minister put it later, “we were just stalling and hoping for the best.” After Churchill resigned, the internationalist Anthony Eden took over, and any hope of serious immigration control was lost.
In today’s climate what Churchill really thought is considered so unpalatable that at least one modern biographer chose deliberately to censor him. As Gretchen Rubin wrote in her 2003 book, Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchill:
“To shield his reputation, this account has downplayed Churchill’s deplorable attitudes toward race. Churchill used opprobrious terms like blackamoor, chink, wop, and baboo and distinguished between the white race and others. [emphasis in the original] For example, he wrote that at a September 1944 conference, he was “glad to record” that “the British Empire … was still keeping its position, with a total population, including the Dominions and Colonies, of only seventy million white people.” He never outgrew his views. His doctor recalled that in 1955, Churchill asked whether “blacks got measles … When he was told that there was a very high mortality among negroes from measles, he growled, ‘Well, there are plenty left. They’ve a high rate of production.’”
Today’s Tories are backing away from Churchill in other ways, claiming that his concept of the welfare state is “out of date.” Tory leader David Cameron recently asked an advisor, Greg Clark, to rethink “conservative” policy on poverty, and this was his conclusion: “The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum — that poverty is absolute, not relative. Churchill’s safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness.” What does this mean? Seaside vacations and cell phones for the poor?
Grandson Winston also understood what was at stake.
Good sense may run in the Churchill family. Winston’s grandson, also named Winston, was a Conservative member of Parliament from 1970 to 1997. In 1993 he got in trouble for saying that the British way of life was threatened by a “relentless flow of immigrants” from the Indian subcontinent. Then-Prime Minister John Major piled on in the ensuing criticism, but Mr. Churchill was unrepentant, claiming that despite widespread public condemnation, many colleagues, including government ministers, privately expressed their agreement. He left politics when the seat he held was abolished.
It is tempting to imagine what Britain would be like if the grandfather had maintained his vigor and combativeness through the crucial period during which immigration policy was set. Perhaps his force of personality could have pushed through sensible policies. At any rate, it is unlikely he would ever have had to face shouts of “Fascist!” or “Nazi!” no matter how strongly he defended Britain’s right to a European heritage and destiny.
Mr. Hamilton is a British free-lance writer.
Churchill understood the threat to the West.
by David Hamilton
Sir Winston Churchill is one of the few major British politicians who had the courage to try to stop open-door immigration. He had strong views about race and was a keen supporter of eugenics. Late in his career, as post-war prime minister from 1951 to 1955, he might have succeeded in barring the door had it not been for failing health. Most biographers and historians now downplay his racial views and thereby give a false picture of the great man.
Churchill was different from academics and mushy liberals who theorize about multi-racial utopia. He was a brave and practical man who did not go to university but to the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, and later won a commission in the Fourth Hussars. As a young man he was with Lord Kitchener at the Battle of Omdurman in 1898, when the British avenged the 1885 murder in Khartoum of General Charles “Chinese” Gordon. He was a war correspondent during the Boer War, was captured, held prisoner and escaped. As Home secretary in 1911, he personally took charge of the Siege of Sidney Street, when a small gang of Latvian anarchists holed up at 100 Sidney Street in Stepney, and fired on police. He called in the Scots Guards, and when a fire broke out at 100 Sidney Street, he made the decision to let the anarchists burn rather than have the fire brigade douse the flames. During the First World War, he commanded a battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers as a Colonel.
Churchill as a young man.
Churchill was not taken in by liberal orthodoxy. He knew that different races compete for power and territory, and he had seen sub-Saharan slavery first-hand. In 1899, he wrote a book about Kitchener’s Sudan campaign called The River War, in which he expressed views that in today’s Britain would have him up on charges of inciting racial hatred:
“The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab and Negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking because they are more intelligent than primitive savages. The stronger race soon began to prey upon the simple [black] aboriginals … To the great slave-market at Jeddah a continual stream of Negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the traffic by placing the ignorant Negroes at a further disadvantage. Thus the situation in the Sudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved them.”
As for Islam, in the first edition of the book he wrote passages well worth pondering today:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities — but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
Churchill was an enthusiastic eugenicist, and was a sponsoring vice president — as were the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Bishop of Ripon — of the first International Eugenics Conference, which took place in London in 1912. Arthur Balfour delivered the opening address with Leonard Darwin — Charles Darwin’s son — presiding.
Churchill’s papers from this period show that he worried that “moral degenerates” and people of low intelligence were outbreeding the educated classes. He proposed that “mental defectives” be incarcerated and that the “feeble-minded” be forcibly sterilized. As Home Secretary, Churchill reportedly told his government colleagues that:
“The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded classes, coupled with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks constitutes a race danger. I feel the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.”
Churchill was deeply suspicious of intellectuals and their utopian theories. In his St. George’s Day address of 1933, he said:
“The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded classes … constitutes a race danger.”
“The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within. They do not come from the cottages of the wage earners. They come from a peculiar type of brainy people always found in our country who, if they add something to the culture, take much from its strength. Our difficulties come from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large portion of our politicians. But what have they to offer but a vague internationalism, a squalid materialism, and the promise of impossible utopias?”
Many of Churchill’s views have gone out of fashion. He was convinced, for example, of Britain’s right to rule the lesser breeds. In a 1931 address at the Royal Albert Hall he said, “We gave India a civilization, far above anything they could possibly have achieved themselves, or could possibly maintain.” In his tribute to the Royal Marines in 1936, he explained that Britain was a gift passed from one generation to the next: “Those who do not think of the future are unworthy of their ancestors.”
Churchill went on to became the embodiment of the struggle against Nazism. He would never have been an appeaser. In October 1930, before Hitler had even taken power, he expressed his views of Nazis: “If a dog makes a dash for my trousers, I shoot him down before he can bite.” The fight against Germany did not change his racial views. During the war, a black official at the Colonial Office had to stop eating at a London club when American officers took it over and enforced segregation. When Churchill heard of this, he replied, “That’s alright. Tell him to take a banjo; they will think he is one of the band.”
At Yalta with Roosevelt and Stalin.
When he resumed power after the war, he opposed non-white immigration, but he was 76 years old. His instincts were sound but he no longer had the energy of a young man. Records of a cabinet discussion on Nov. 25, 1952 show that he asked if “the Post Office was employing large numbers of coloured workers. If so, there was some risk that difficult social problems would be created.” He then “raised the whole issue … of whether coloured subjects of the Commonwealth and Empire should be admitted to the country from now on.”
“We gave India a civilization, far above anything they could possibly have achieved themselves, or could possibly maintain.”
In 1953 Churchill suffered a stroke that left him paralyzed on the left side. He went into decline and was not capable of decisive action, but his cabinet continued to debate immigration. In March 1954, his Home Secretary, David Maxwell-Fyfe, told the cabinet “that large numbers of coloured people are living on National Assistance” and that “coloured landlords by their conduct are making life difficult for white people living in the same building or area … [T]he result is that white people leave and the accommodation is then converted to furnished lettings for coloured people, with serious overcrowding and exploitation.” In October 1954, Churchill warned Maxwell-Fyfe, “that the problems arising from the immigration of coloured people required urgent and serious consideration.” Maxwell-Fyfe replied that they could not be kept out under then-current law.
Britain allowed all Commonwealth citizens automatic entry but Maxwell Fyfe “did not believe that the problem had yet assumed sufficient proportions to justify legislation, which … would antagonize liberal opinion.” Churchill foresaw, however, that “the rapid improvement in communications was likely to lead to the continuing increase in the number of coloured people coming to this country, and their presence here would sooner or later come to be resented by large sections of the British people.” He, too, was not sure, however, that “the problem had assumed sufficient proportions to enable the Government to take adequate counter-measures.”
Faces from the Empire Windrush, which arrived in 1948 with the first load of Commonwealth immigrants.
Churchill once explained to Governor of Jamaica Hugh Foot why he opposed non-white immigration: “It would be a Magpie society: that would never do.” Ian Gilmour, then owner and editor of the Spectator, relates that just before he stood down because of his health in April 1955, Churchill told him “It [immigration] is the most important subject facing this country, but I can not get any of my ministers to take any notice.”
In fact, many of his advisers were appeasers, though this time it was Indians and Pakistanis they wanted to placate. The Commonwealth Relations Office feared that if Britain kept out non-whites “there might well be a chance of the governments of India and Pakistan introducing retaliatory restrictions against the entry or residence of members of the British business community.” Commonwealth Secretary Earl Home also warned of possible retaliation.
In Eminent Churchillians, Andrew Roberts quotes people who worked closely with Churchill, and who probably had the sentiments typical of the period. One of Mr. Churchill’s private secretaries remembered that “at that time it seemed a very good idea to get [coloured] bus conductors and stuff.” A junior minister complained that “it was becoming hard to find somebody to carry your bags at the station.” As one minister put it later, “we were just stalling and hoping for the best.” After Churchill resigned, the internationalist Anthony Eden took over, and any hope of serious immigration control was lost.
In today’s climate what Churchill really thought is considered so unpalatable that at least one modern biographer chose deliberately to censor him. As Gretchen Rubin wrote in her 2003 book, Forty Ways to Look at Winston Churchill:
“To shield his reputation, this account has downplayed Churchill’s deplorable attitudes toward race. Churchill used opprobrious terms like blackamoor, chink, wop, and baboo and distinguished between the white race and others. [emphasis in the original] For example, he wrote that at a September 1944 conference, he was “glad to record” that “the British Empire … was still keeping its position, with a total population, including the Dominions and Colonies, of only seventy million white people.” He never outgrew his views. His doctor recalled that in 1955, Churchill asked whether “blacks got measles … When he was told that there was a very high mortality among negroes from measles, he growled, ‘Well, there are plenty left. They’ve a high rate of production.’”
Today’s Tories are backing away from Churchill in other ways, claiming that his concept of the welfare state is “out of date.” Tory leader David Cameron recently asked an advisor, Greg Clark, to rethink “conservative” policy on poverty, and this was his conclusion: “The traditional Conservative vision of welfare as a safety net encompasses another outdated Tory nostrum — that poverty is absolute, not relative. Churchill’s safety net is at the bottom: holding people at subsistence level, just above the abyss of hunger and homelessness.” What does this mean? Seaside vacations and cell phones for the poor?
Grandson Winston also understood what was at stake.
Good sense may run in the Churchill family. Winston’s grandson, also named Winston, was a Conservative member of Parliament from 1970 to 1997. In 1993 he got in trouble for saying that the British way of life was threatened by a “relentless flow of immigrants” from the Indian subcontinent. Then-Prime Minister John Major piled on in the ensuing criticism, but Mr. Churchill was unrepentant, claiming that despite widespread public condemnation, many colleagues, including government ministers, privately expressed their agreement. He left politics when the seat he held was abolished.
It is tempting to imagine what Britain would be like if the grandfather had maintained his vigor and combativeness through the crucial period during which immigration policy was set. Perhaps his force of personality could have pushed through sensible policies. At any rate, it is unlikely he would ever have had to face shouts of “Fascist!” or “Nazi!” no matter how strongly he defended Britain’s right to a European heritage and destiny.
Mr. Hamilton is a British free-lance writer.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
Labour's New points based immigration system, Flawed.
New points based system likely to result in higher immigration The Government’s claim that their new Points Based system will result in lower levels of immigration is pure spin. The scheme has no limits and, in fact, will probably result in even higher levels of immigration.
It is so complex and bureaucratic, with potentially 26,000 job titles, that it is highly likely to lead to chaos and confusion, increasing the scope for abuse, says a report from think tank Migrationwatch which has analysed the system in detail.(see Briefing Paper 3.3)
‘Piece by piece the Government’s case for the highest levels of immigration in our history has been dismantled, most recently by the House of Lords Economic Committee. Yet, once again, the government have ducked the issue of limits to the numbers admitted,’ said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman.
‘The numbers could well take off as employers emulate their competitors, leaving the Home Office struggling yet again,’ he said. ‘Including students, we could see nearly half a million applicants a year. On past form, the Home Office will not have the staff to check the authenticity of applications. If so it will be only a matter of time before they simply go through the motions for the sake of appearances. As we have seen in the past, this leads to chaos and, eventually, collapse – as in the case of the asylum system three years ago.’
In its analysis Migrationwatch lists ten specific concerns with the Scheme. The first being that the very basis of the scheme is flawed because, as the recent House of Lords report conclusively demonstrated, there is no significant benefit to the host community from large-scale immigration, yet the new scheme assumes that there is.
‘Its main effect will be to open the skilled section of our labour force to cut price competition, thus reducing the incentive for employers to train British staff,’ said Sir Andrew. Furthermore, the bar has been set very low. Anyone with a job offer and a Bachelor’s degree need only earn £20,000 before tax. This is less than the average starting salary for a graduate;’ he added.
The government calls it an “Australian style” system when in fact it is entirely different. The Australians start with a limit and select within that total. The UK scheme maintains the current ‘no limits’ philosophy.
Furthermore, all work permit holders can become qualified for settlement in Britain and later for citizenship, whether or not their skills are needed beyond the short term
‘Because of the complexity of the scheme and the likely scale of applications there is bound to be abuse and, given the absence of embarkation controls and the legal and practical obstacles to removing people the numbers could well get out of hand,’ said Sir Andrew.‘The government are now promising to listen. They would do well to listen to the 75% of the public who wish to see a substantial reduction in immigration – certainly not an open ended conveyor belt adding still further to the numbers we already have from Eastern Europe. The bottom line is that a Points Based System without a limit is worse than pointless’, he added.
Source: Migrationwatch UK
It is so complex and bureaucratic, with potentially 26,000 job titles, that it is highly likely to lead to chaos and confusion, increasing the scope for abuse, says a report from think tank Migrationwatch which has analysed the system in detail.(see Briefing Paper 3.3)
‘Piece by piece the Government’s case for the highest levels of immigration in our history has been dismantled, most recently by the House of Lords Economic Committee. Yet, once again, the government have ducked the issue of limits to the numbers admitted,’ said Sir Andrew Green, Migrationwatch chairman.
‘The numbers could well take off as employers emulate their competitors, leaving the Home Office struggling yet again,’ he said. ‘Including students, we could see nearly half a million applicants a year. On past form, the Home Office will not have the staff to check the authenticity of applications. If so it will be only a matter of time before they simply go through the motions for the sake of appearances. As we have seen in the past, this leads to chaos and, eventually, collapse – as in the case of the asylum system three years ago.’
In its analysis Migrationwatch lists ten specific concerns with the Scheme. The first being that the very basis of the scheme is flawed because, as the recent House of Lords report conclusively demonstrated, there is no significant benefit to the host community from large-scale immigration, yet the new scheme assumes that there is.
‘Its main effect will be to open the skilled section of our labour force to cut price competition, thus reducing the incentive for employers to train British staff,’ said Sir Andrew. Furthermore, the bar has been set very low. Anyone with a job offer and a Bachelor’s degree need only earn £20,000 before tax. This is less than the average starting salary for a graduate;’ he added.
The government calls it an “Australian style” system when in fact it is entirely different. The Australians start with a limit and select within that total. The UK scheme maintains the current ‘no limits’ philosophy.
Furthermore, all work permit holders can become qualified for settlement in Britain and later for citizenship, whether or not their skills are needed beyond the short term
‘Because of the complexity of the scheme and the likely scale of applications there is bound to be abuse and, given the absence of embarkation controls and the legal and practical obstacles to removing people the numbers could well get out of hand,’ said Sir Andrew.‘The government are now promising to listen. They would do well to listen to the 75% of the public who wish to see a substantial reduction in immigration – certainly not an open ended conveyor belt adding still further to the numbers we already have from Eastern Europe. The bottom line is that a Points Based System without a limit is worse than pointless’, he added.
Source: Migrationwatch UK
Tuesday, 6 May 2008
UK Population, estimated at 77-80 Million
It is the statistic that dare not speak its name, though eventually it must. It has huge ramifications for the civil and political life of this country, the health of the equity markets and, most immediately, the residential property market. So don't forget you read it here first: the population of the UK is presently somewhere between 77 and 80 million.
The 2001 census, already hopelessly out of date and easy to avoid for those who find filling in forms a trifle inelegant, numbered us at a little under 59 million. But as statistics go, that one's most definitely a damned lie.
My sources for the above statement are good, but scared of admitting the truth for fear of incurring the wrath of Whitehall. It's like the best way of monitoring illegal drug consumption: forget the pious statements from ministers - the foolproof method is to sample our water and the effluent in it. That's easily the best way of monitoring what the nation has been consuming.
Consumption - that's the thing. Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat onelunch and one dinner.
The supermarket in question was privately lobbying the Competition Commission to let it grow its market share. The argu- ment, reasonably enough, was that the market was far bigger than the regulator realised, so expanding the network was fair.
Source: Bnet.co.uk
The 2001 census, already hopelessly out of date and easy to avoid for those who find filling in forms a trifle inelegant, numbered us at a little under 59 million. But as statistics go, that one's most definitely a damned lie.
My sources for the above statement are good, but scared of admitting the truth for fear of incurring the wrath of Whitehall. It's like the best way of monitoring illegal drug consumption: forget the pious statements from ministers - the foolproof method is to sample our water and the effluent in it. That's easily the best way of monitoring what the nation has been consuming.
Consumption - that's the thing. Based on what we eat, one big supermarket chain reckons there are 80 million people living in the UK. The demand for food is a reliable indicator; as Sir Richard Branson says, you can have all the money in the world but you can only eat onelunch and one dinner.
The supermarket in question was privately lobbying the Competition Commission to let it grow its market share. The argu- ment, reasonably enough, was that the market was far bigger than the regulator realised, so expanding the network was fair.
Source: Bnet.co.uk
Sunday, 4 May 2008
Ethnic Riots in Utrecht. Untold Story.
Utrecht: Ethnic Riots after Dutchman is Killed by Police
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2007-03-14 13:31
Ondiep, a working class neighbourhood in the Dutch town of Utrecht, is in turmoil. After the death last Sunday of Rinie Mulder, a 54-year old indigenous Dutchman who was shot by a police officer, non-immigrant citizens went on a rampage, burning cars, looting shops and arsoning a community centre in “inverted Paris style riots.” According to our sources the police officer who killed Mulder is a woman of Moroccan origin.
The Ondiep residents have been complaining for months about harassment and intimidation by immigrant youths of Moroccan origin. The Dutch mainstream media do not go into much detail about what is going on. Most of them do not mention the ethnicity of the victim and the police officer, though the riots clearly have an ethnic nature.
Apparently Mulder intervened when Muslim youths harassed a pregnant native Dutch woman. He was able to grab the knife of one of the youths. When the police arrived Mulder was shot because he had raised the knife. Witnesses say Mulder was indicating to the police that he had called for them.
Locals claim the police has failed to protect them for years. They say the authorities are afraid of the immigrants and tolerate their criminal behaviour. After the death of Mulder the indigenous Dutch decided they had had enough and started riots which went on for two continuous nights. The police made 130 arrests: 60 of them are Ondiep residents. According to the mainstream media the others are mainly “football hooligans” from other parts of the country. Annie Brouwer-Korf, the Socialist mayor of Utrecht, has ordered Ondiep to be sealed off from the rest of town to keep non-residents out. She expressed some sympathy for the frustrated Ondiep residents. “I understand that residents are sometimes upset about the nuisance around their own house and neighbourhood. That does you no good whatsoever.”
The riots are no surprise. As I wrote last January:
The Netherlands are bracing themselves for more [Parisian style] incidents this year. An official report published last week states that the Government has seriously underestimated “tensions between various ethnic and cultural groups of youths.” The report says that the Dutch authorities fail to grasp the gravity of the problem. If nothing is done the country will soon witness situations similar to the French riots of 2005 and 2006 which led to the police abandoning immigrant suburbs to gangs of Muslim youths. The result of the French ambivalence is that the same gangs have now taken over effective control of more than 750 French urban neighborhoods.Ondiep is one of the Dutch urban neighbourhoods which seem to have been abandoned by the authorities. It is hardly a surprise that the natives are beginning to fight back. The same thing happened recently in Britain.
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2007-03-14 13:31
Ondiep, a working class neighbourhood in the Dutch town of Utrecht, is in turmoil. After the death last Sunday of Rinie Mulder, a 54-year old indigenous Dutchman who was shot by a police officer, non-immigrant citizens went on a rampage, burning cars, looting shops and arsoning a community centre in “inverted Paris style riots.” According to our sources the police officer who killed Mulder is a woman of Moroccan origin.
The Ondiep residents have been complaining for months about harassment and intimidation by immigrant youths of Moroccan origin. The Dutch mainstream media do not go into much detail about what is going on. Most of them do not mention the ethnicity of the victim and the police officer, though the riots clearly have an ethnic nature.
Apparently Mulder intervened when Muslim youths harassed a pregnant native Dutch woman. He was able to grab the knife of one of the youths. When the police arrived Mulder was shot because he had raised the knife. Witnesses say Mulder was indicating to the police that he had called for them.
Locals claim the police has failed to protect them for years. They say the authorities are afraid of the immigrants and tolerate their criminal behaviour. After the death of Mulder the indigenous Dutch decided they had had enough and started riots which went on for two continuous nights. The police made 130 arrests: 60 of them are Ondiep residents. According to the mainstream media the others are mainly “football hooligans” from other parts of the country. Annie Brouwer-Korf, the Socialist mayor of Utrecht, has ordered Ondiep to be sealed off from the rest of town to keep non-residents out. She expressed some sympathy for the frustrated Ondiep residents. “I understand that residents are sometimes upset about the nuisance around their own house and neighbourhood. That does you no good whatsoever.”
The riots are no surprise. As I wrote last January:
The Netherlands are bracing themselves for more [Parisian style] incidents this year. An official report published last week states that the Government has seriously underestimated “tensions between various ethnic and cultural groups of youths.” The report says that the Dutch authorities fail to grasp the gravity of the problem. If nothing is done the country will soon witness situations similar to the French riots of 2005 and 2006 which led to the police abandoning immigrant suburbs to gangs of Muslim youths. The result of the French ambivalence is that the same gangs have now taken over effective control of more than 750 French urban neighborhoods.Ondiep is one of the Dutch urban neighbourhoods which seem to have been abandoned by the authorities. It is hardly a surprise that the natives are beginning to fight back. The same thing happened recently in Britain.
Saturday, 3 May 2008
Great result for the BNP
May 1st 2008 saw the electorate go to the polls for the Nationwide Council elections.
As predicted, the Labour Nazi's were overwhelmingly trounced on all sides. Mainly by the Conservative party.
But the Conservative party are not the only ones who were celebrating. With unprecedented victories over the Labour Nazi's, the BNP have also cause to celebrate, having gained extra seats to take their total up to 100.
Not only did the BNP gain in the council elections, they even helped to get rid of Mufti/Hitler loving, Red Ken, and gained a seat on the London Mayoral assembly. Too bad that Londoners saw fit to elect a bumbling buffoon to the top spot. But, hey ho, onwards and upwards.
The results, according to Brown and his Nazi followers, are down to a proposed abolition of the working class 10p tax rate. If only one issue such as this would change the minds of the electorate so easily, the BNP would be in power by now, considering all the corruption and sleaze that is attributed to the Labour Nazi's of late.
But I am guessing the seismic shift away from Labour, is more to do with their policies which oppress the indigenous British people. Such as Anti White Racism, Anti white Genocide, Anti white political correctness, not to mention the immigration chaos.
Labour tell us that immigration is good for the economy. So why do we have a £57,000,000,000 national debt? How can immigration be good for the economy, if British workers are being undercut, and forced onto the dole by third world immigrants, who barely stoke up the treasury, because most will work for less than their British counterparts, thus paying less tax.
They actually take more from the system than they give, when you consider the cost to the economy of looking after their families. The extra strain on public services, such as the NHS. How can immigrants afford to live in Britain, if they are undercutting us? We can barely afford to scrape a living ourselves, because the British cost of living is so high. One can only assume that their earnings are topped up by the British taxpayer, then they are told by their interpreters to keep quiet about the 'EXTRAS' they receive.
And then there is the fact that most immigrants out breed us, particularly the Muslim community, who out breed British families by at least 5-1. And the Muslim community have the highest rate of unemployment, per capita, of any ethnic group in Britain today. This can be easily verified by checking out the national statistics website. They are the least financially productive group, yet they shout the loudest. And the government are only too happy to listen to their whingeing. But the reason for this, is that the Arab world has a lot of money to invest in Britain. Especially in London, where sharia banks, which give interest free mortgages to Muslims, are opening right left and centre.
Another bank which supplies interest free, sharia mortgages to Muslims, is the HSBC bank. While we struggle to pay our interest payments, Muslims get a helping hand from the banks to buy British property, because of their 'religion'.
Sharia is beginning to infect many aspects of British life. Not only do they have their own civil laws in Britain, even British universities like Oxford, Cambridge, Durham etc, are being infiltrated by Muslim lecturers, preaching the virtues of Islam, and sharia law to white British students, because they supply funds to these universities (with strings attached)
Is it any wonder that Britain is breeding its own enemies?
They are allowed to parade around the streets of our capital, with placards calling for the deaths and be headings of white westerners and Jews, yet the POLICE just stand by and look in the opposite direction. What happened to anti hatred incitement laws? Yet if we are to speak about these matters, we a branded racist, and risk being arrested? Come on, what happened to common sense? But as we all know by now, the police have become the Stasi, and the Gestapo of the Labour Nazi's.
Civil servants? Don't make me choke on my cornflakes. The police are as bad as our CORRUPT government who they support.
Are they feeling the slightest hint of guilt for selling off our gold reserves, when the price for gold was at rock bottom? I very much doubt it. Its not like it belonged to THEM, is it.
After all the millions, allegedly pumped into the NHS, Police/Law and Order, Education, have we seen any real improvement for OUR money? Not much, if any at all. The NHS is stretched, because of all the extra people needing treatment. The Police are stretched because of the increase in crime, and immigrants with uninsured, untaxed cars. Teachers are stretched because they have to spend more time on pupils who can barely speak English, so the standard of our own kids education drops right back.
We all know that all the money they receive, is spent on fighting illegal wars.
And now Des Brown MP, has just agreed to send more of our troops to Kosovo, to use more innocent Christian Serbs for target practice with the Americans.
The Serbs are fighting the same war as we face in the future, to preserve their ancestral homeland as a whole, and not have it split up by self serving, foreign, Islamic arse licking dictators, who want to give Muslims a foothold in Europe, so they can invest their wealth in the money grabbing hands of western governments, at the cost of introducing their Vile (sharia) ideologies, little by little.
We already have animals killed by the barbaric halal tradition, in Britain. and it is supposed to be against British Law, well for the MAJORITY it is anyway. Just who the hell is running this country anyway?
This government are ROTTEN to the core, and if it were not for the pride I have in the British people and our country, I would be ashamed to call myself English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
