Immigration and the cap

Seeing as we are 'allowed' to talk about immigration again, and the cat is out of the bag and all that, is it not odd that politicians are still lying to us?

The figure, not quoted by Mr Cameron, which tells you more about what is really happening, is the annual one for non-EU arrivals. For a long time now, that has been in the order of 300,000 a year. Add to it the illegals – 155,000 of whom, says Mr Cameron, were found to have been illegally claiming benefits. Then add EU citizens, who all have an absolute right to come here and use our public services. In sum, you have a society which, in large areas, would have been unrecognisable only 20 years ago. When Mr Blair declared, with apparent absurdity, in 1997, that Britain was a “young country”, perhaps he meant that he intended it to be something it had never been before. If so, he succeeded.

The upside is, I suppose, that voters appear to be privy to this state of affairs as well. None of the comments on this topic believe Cameron will do anything substantial (why are dependents of students given visas?) and if they do, they point out that it is far too late.

Only time will tell if they are right.

Immigration and the cap

I have had a thought that has been bungling my head now for some time, naturally in the current PC climate I have not uttered it for fear of character assassination and impending fathwas. It would appear that businesses think that the current cap is hurting their profits rather than helping them

The Government's immigration cap is facing fresh pressure after evidence from one of its own business advisory committees shows the damage it is doing to UK businesses.

Okay, so the 101 is that businesses want to bring in more cheap labour so that they do not have pay, admittedly, the astronomical costs associated with employing a British person. And since it is such an imperative, apparently, to bring in that cheap labour then why are they even bothering with having the business in the UK in the first place, if they are not going to employ British people? Surely if it is such a burden on them why not simply relocate and they do not have to pay the government imposed ridicule that constitutes the frankly affronting percentages that has become NI. Not to mention the soon to be raised income tax.

UK business have known for some time that this country does simply not produce cutting-edge graduates anymore, since we appear hell bound on becoming a third-world country on par with Zimbabwe. With this in mind it would seem easier to just relocate than to whine-down the government for attempting to stem the ridiculous levels of immigration seen under New Labour. They too must know that it is not politically expedient for the government to backtrack on anything remotely related to immigration.

Quick note on immigration

I found a very interesting site called 'The Poverty Site' - do have a look. You can be quite sure that anyone on the left, who actually proclaims to "know" anything about immigration has never seen the site, in common with all the other lefties who are the self-appointed keepers of the national conscience who argue that the opposition of many to uncontrolled immigration is racially motivated.

This certainly is interesting...

Sort of blows to pieces everything and anything the left has ever said on immigration. Oh the joy.

PS. There is a high probability that a lot of weird people are going to think that because I talk about immigration I am a baby-eating monster, genetically developed in a lab from flesh-eating cannibals from Sri Lanka. This is not the case; besides I gave away all my old mobile phones to charity today so fuck you.

Primary Purpose Rule

I bet few of you remember this.

Rational discource? Hardly

I have only to repeat the words of Cranmer, for they express precisely what I have on my mind.

13th Spitfire really does not know what to discuss today.

If he turns to immigration, he is racist.

If he queries issues of European Union, he is xenophobic.

If he expresses an opinion on the case of Philip Lardner, he is homophobic.

If he questions the Pope, he is a bigot.

If he expresses concerns over aspects of Islam, he is Islamophobic.

Thus is the level of political discourse in modern Britain: every contentious issue, no matter how worthy of scrutiny or debate, is swiftly closed down with threats of a fatwa or character assassination. In this age of hyper-sensitivity to offending anyone on any matter, discussion is suppressed and liberties are surrendered.

What do you call a liberal democracy which prohibits rational discourse?

Immature immigration numeration

I intend to take the lead on this new approach to debating which I fully intend to adopt after this post. The approach rests upon the assumption that I myself am hopefully clever enough and knowledgeable to rip apart an attack upon my person. An attack based on a legitimate view I hold with regard to government policy.

In polite circles everyone who even mentions the BNP in a comment piece is supposed to preface it with a condemnation of the party (Microsoft Word should create a programme for journalists that automatically types out “of course I loathe the odious BNP and everything they stand for…”). No one is obliged to write the same things when discussing the Socialist Workers Party or other similarly odious entities who have a very small support section.

This preamble is dangerous because it removes responsibility from the BNP and onto the person writing the comment piece. They never have to defend their polices because anyone who comments upon them is automatically supposed to say "bla bla bla, immigration is too high and I think we should reduce it BUT the BNP are racist scum". Enough already, we know that they are racist but for heavens sake focus on their polices; play the ball not the man.

If you start a supposedly probing piece on the BNP with the word "these crazy racists thugs" people will automatically assume that you are having a rant about the BNP and not the actual policies which compose the party. This has lead to the BNP being labelled a right-wing party when everyone knows, who has read their policies, that they are in fact a left-wing party. And this is the gist of the argument; few if any people have read their polices, they only know that a rather large man with a funny eye does not like immigrants and neither do his followers. Nothing is said about the increase in the state sector that would come with their highly unlikely government nor that they intend to give back Gibraltar if they win the election. Only the fact that they do not like immigration, which is why the media has (I reckon with some help from the current left-wing government) labelled them right-wing to distance the government and in particular the Labour party, from any embarrassing ideological connections with the BNP.

This is what it comes down to; drop all the prefaces and drop all the PC as well, everyone else is doing it privately and probably thinking the same things as you: lets control our borders sensibly. If you do not play into the media and government hand they will essentially be powerless since it will be very difficult to label the internet and more specifically the blogosphere, 'racist' even though, I am sure, they would very much like to.

New Labour's approach on immigration can be summed up as thus: A volcano in Iceland has done more to stop immigration in one week than the New Labour government has done in 13 years.

UPDATE: Word of the day 'lackadaisical.'

Immigration

I know that I said I was going to leave this blog alone for I a while, but I have spent the entire day doing some of the most boring coursework imaginable so I think I deserve a little relaxing via this blog. Now I am not actually the author of the main post but I found it on ConservativeHome. It regards immigration. Now I know that you have been brain washed into thinking that anyone who discuses immigration is in fact a racist (see my previous post for the correct academic definition of the word) to you I say this: fuck off. If you are still trapped in the New Labour bubble you are probably on this blog by accident as well - I want you to leave, your foul stench is scaring away all the other readers who actually want to know what this whole post is about. You are more than welcome to return when you realise that ostracising an entire country is wrong.

But I hope this emphasises precisely why I hate you: your loathsome moral righteousness espoused by your vindictive urge to crucify anyone who happens to disagree with you is the bane of all of this country's traditional adherence to common sense and the highest codes of conduct. I am sensing that you did not understand the previous sentence dear Socialist so I shall explain the one word which you need to know: "bane" means 'murderer' and it is a very old English word, of course you would not knowing anything about 'old' either since you seem hellbent on destroying any form of history.

But know this: the pseudo- courts whom you so dearly love and constantly refer to for moral guidance, with their enthusiasm for European 'rights' culture, are becoming sanctums for political correctness and are actively subverting British society. But they are merely a symbol of what once constituted a system that we believed in, a symbol which no one believes in looses all its powers because of that, it is nothing but an old rusty statue now. Why? Because the majority of the electorate simply do not buy your Fabian, multicultural and feminazi bullshit.

People are upset that they are being accused of racism whenever they comment or complain about the level of immigration; they feel that they have been let down by a government which has promoted culture that has encouraged this to happen. Think of this way; being called a racist was previously a very harsh accusation, some would say even one of the worst. By de-contaminating the word you remove its novelty, its tour de force. Formerly Goliath swung the hammer of ensuing horror of the word; but now it not worse than calling your everyday man a 'wanker' which is more like David wielding a BiC pen. Not particularly frightening but very infuriating, especially if you are on the receiving end. I am sure very many a reader can relate to what I am saying, I certainly can myself since I have been on the receiving end more than once.

Anywho, here is what the jolly man had to say:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Its not just permanent immigration

Its also supposedly temp immigration on work visas (many of which end up being given idefinite leave to remain anyways)

Why have we got a standing army of multiple hundreds of IT and Telco workers here on intra company transfer visas working for the outsourcers and subcontracted into our largest companies? mainly Indian nationals it has to be said. breaking many employment and immigration laws with no policing of the rules.

Why are a couple of hundred thousand Indian nationals still "on the journey" to residency, here on a work visa, when this route has supposedly been stopped for new entrants - why not stop it for those here already too

Why do work visa holders get tax and NI concessions?

Why so many families of work visa holders here attending state schools free, and clogging up the NHS - we have to pay for healthcare and kids schooling if we work in their country why is it different for them here?

Why does the famous "points system" not apply to intra company transfer visas?

Why so many sham marriages in places like Bradford allowing countless folk from India and Pakistan in when we all know many are not genuine loving couples?

Why are we allowing so much of the UKs leading technology to be moved to India in the name of outsourcing? we need to play a 1st world countries game and retain our IP we cannot hand it all over to the 3rd world or we really will continue on a downward spiral

Why are we borrowing an extra half a billion a year to give to India as "aid" when they can perfectly well borrow it just as easily

Why are we being so naive with India when they are systematically raping our country

Go look at any large BT site, the IT depts of Lloyds bank, the IT depts of any large British company and observe the 80% Indian national to less than 20 % Brit split. tell me it isnt obvious why no grads want to go into IT or Telco business. tell me we are not throwing our world lead away.

We need to be much harder with countries like India, their bullying working practises, the slave ship like outsourcing companies Cognizant, Wipro, Tech Mahindra, Satyam and so on. They are just laughing their socks off as they rape us.

Immigration will become a very big issue if educated folk like me give up on the main parties and over the coming years are forced to take another approach such as move to the BNP

The BNP are idiots, racist idiots at that, I genuinely dont think I am racist BUT WE CANNOT CONTINUE TO ALLOW THOUSANDS OF NATIONALS FROM THE 3RD WORLD TO WORK HERE it just doesnt work, and we cannot keep dishing out residency like confetti

Force employers to use and train Brits and Europeans, stop printing intra company and other work visas like confetti - and our competitive position will get better as we return to a leading position in the world IT and Telco business

Protect British IP from being moved to the 3rd world by multinationals

The steel plant also deserves a much bigger reaction

We have to support decent honest existing residents of this country and protect them from the slave labour racist practises of the outsourcers

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am back. Now I think most parts of that post were quite sensible bar a few bits which were a bit aggressive, but I am not in the business of censoring. Clearly the person knows what he is talking about and we would do well do listen. Let me just repeat this: England is the most densely populated country in Europe, we simply cannot go on like this.

This is about sheer numbers, not race. (I appreciate that this last line has helped little: I can already hear the cries of 'racist' and the need to rape and pillage my humble person, so much for modesty then). Racism is man's gravest threat to man - the maximum of hatred for a minimum of reason, numbers on the other hand are cold and unbiased proprietors of the truth. They know what is wrong and they know that their value needs to be severely reduced. Harangue the messenger if you want, I am just telling you what everyone else is thinking but dare not say for reasons stated above.

Racism and the changing tide of the nation

You will have noticed that us lot, the bloggers, are a fairly radical lot by normal standards. We fear not to talk of racism, immigration, British culture, patriotism and history. We talk of the virtues of the UK but also seek to correct the vices of her, through proper and thorough analysis - the kind the MSM would never dare to undertake. Our country right or wrong, when right to be kept right when wrong to be put right, were the words of one American senator Carl Schurz (1829-1906).

The Labour party's social engineering immigration policy is slowly making the rounds and as could have been expected the Tories are saying nothing about it for fear of loosing their liberal vote base. As much could have been expected - it is not more a right wing party than any of its members. Centre policies that is where they think power lies. Yet it is interesting to note that as the party has become more and more left-wing (the words 'Blue Labour' are thrown around a lot) they are loosing a lot of votes. Sure they may be ahead in the polls, but people would vote for Aladdin if they could, the Tories are the leading party by default not by merit or virtue. They got 8,785,941 votes in the 2005 general election, 9,600,943 in 1997 but 14,093,007 in 1992. Perhaps people do get turned off by parties without principles.

This leads us what today can be called the 'no-go-areas' of politics; immigration and the EU are to be avoided like the plague. Understandable considering that their policies can only be considered high treason had those laws not been removed when Tony Blair entered parliament. Since 1997 it is estimated that 5 million people have been added to the population of the UK. The figure is highly contentious since a) the government fixes its own figures to make it look better i.e. that less people have arrived and b) that independent sources like MigrationWatch have proved more accurate than the civil service. Some say 3 million others 4 million. You can be quite sure that of all the estimates you hear it is bound to be the highest one. This amount of immigration is bad for any country.

There I said it, call me a racist, I dare you. Argument by smear has had its day. It is time to argue with facts and reason. Before it was thus that anyone who opposed immigration was labelled a bigot, a reincarnation of Hitler, a second shadow of Stalin. For many years the liberal establishment have sought to use the accusation of ‘racism’ to terrorise opponents of immigration, to weaken conservative institutions, especially the police, and to silence conservative opinions in general. They have been highly effective. The times are changing. It is time to stop cringeing to the bigoted ‘anti-racists’. You will not get away with calling people racists today for opposing more immigration. If you do you, if the Labour years have taught you nothing, you are likely to be one of those people who would be spat on in the days of Queen Victoria I, hiding your loathing of this country behind a facade of liberal piety, a facade that is sometimes very thin indeed. You have only yourself to blame though, you sought to disestablish the country and completely reduce the history of the UK to nothing but a heap of rubble instead you made it more conservative, instead you let fascists into the EU parliament, instead you let true racism flourish around the country where hatred for your fellow man has become a daily occurence, instead you marginalised the voters whose very core support you depend on and then you have the audacity to call your opponents the enemies or reason? It shall not last.

What is this? I hear a Labour supporter say 'you cannot make an omelette without breaking a few eggs' certainly you cannot. But you are not supposed to break an entire fucking country to adopt a political policy which is of no benefit whatsoever to the people of that country (if you missed it read this House of Lords report on the economic impact of immigration).

UPDATE: As could be expected the first comment suggests that I am "afraid of ethnic diversity" I was anticipating a stupid comment from someone but not this stupid. Play the ball not the man. Hence to make it perfectly clear, the main point of this is to ask you: is 3-5 million (over 13 years) new people an acceptable level of immigration in an already overpopulated country?

DId you know it? We are more xenophobic and anti-immigrant than the rest of Europe

Now who made all this up then you might wonder? Well not so hard to guess now is it? It is our good old friend the Guardian on one of their blogs. They have it that the poll

"suggests the British are more anti-immigrant and xenophobic than the rest of western Europe – preferring a Fortress UK policy, blaming immigrants for unemployment, and split over whether to grant them equal social benefits."

That is quite a mouthful to blame on a peoples that are genuinely worried about the current net-immigration of 165,000 a year. That is a lot of people for such a small island country as England, and it is not helped by this sort of stuff. But hey it was a proper survey did you not know? So by that virtue whatever it says must be true, what is says completely and wholly describes the national character of Britain proper. Well, except the tiny little detail that when you click on the accompanying link to that article, which should lead to the German Marshal-Fund think you get a "404" message. Very embarrassing for the Guardian, not only are they smearing the rightly very worried British electorate but they have nothing, nicht, nil to back that smear up. Look at the government, at least they make a half-hearted attempt to have peer-reviewed smear.

But to raise the bigger issue, while it is all very well of accusing the people of being xenophobic, perhaps the Guardian should ask instead why the people are so worried if we are go with their claims? But of course that would actually entail proper journalism and the Guardian only does that very very occasionally.

Not exactly a rush for the Tories

I have for the past 30 minutes been floating around the blogosphere in search for something interesting to read for my morning tea. I realise that at the time of this writing is 2.30PM and any tea drinking should have been done ages ago. Well, I say this; I am student, yesterday was Saturday, you do the maths. Alas, moving on one is desperately struggling to find something very interesting to read mostly because my fellow bloggers probably have not arisen yet from their rosy slumbers dreaming of a better future. I am sure that once they do wake the full wrath of their malcontent will spring forth like Labour in 1997.

Now, whilst there might not be any grand posts to read right now there surely will be by tonight. But on this note I wish to go quite on a different subject altogether. Most of you will have noticed how Labour won the Glasgow North by-election by 58% when only 30% bothered to vote, put in other terms that means that only 17% of people actually wanted Labour to be in power for another shitty term. Fair enough, it is their vote and their opinion and one cannot but criticise their judgement but not their conviction.

But why did the Tories not win? Why were they almost beaten to fourth place by a gang of non-politicians who barely have a penny to their name (BNP) and where the Tories have millions upon millions of pounds pouring in from gullible donors wishing to get their hands on the next piece of British social architecture waiting to be privatised during their incoming reign. What will it be this time you ask? The BBC, Royal Mint, Royal Mail, Met Office and maybe even the MoD?

Just because something is mismanaged due to another government's misgivings does not give you the right to sell of our ancient institutions. We know you want to and you know we do not want to, we have told you time and time again; we like our national institutions, they provide pride where our government consistently fails - well 'pride' may perhaps not be the best word but I for one would have lunch with the head of the Queen Elizabeth Conference centre any day, before any one of the ministers from this government or the incoming.

So why is that when Labour are universally despised and will most likely become the third party at next election, HM Opposition are not cashing in on it? Sure they are consistently ahead 10% points in the polls but that is nothing compared to Blair before the election in 1997. The BNP are cashing in like never before and even the Greens and UKIP are hopping on that bandwagon. The latest poll on this issue has the minor parties on 18% where they previously only attained around 9%. Why are they not cashing in then? Everything Labour touches turns to rust and eventually dust - they are wholly incapable and fully incompetent when it comes to running this country and even the French could probably do a better job. We have sold of our electricity grid to them (EDF) so might we not follow suite with our government as well?

On a more serious note though, the Tories are not being honest about what they are going to do and certainly, probably, do not know what they are going to do. But most importantly they are wholly oblivious to what we want them to do.

Recall this poll, posted a few days ago. According to it Defence and Armed Forces, Immigration, Relationship with Europe (I presume they intended for this to be the EU since we seem to have little problem with the 47 nation entity that entails 'Europe' but are in a world of trouble when it comes to the 27 nation conglomerate known collectively as the EU) and Unemployment.

If we look at two of these areas one-by-one I think we will get a very clear picture of how the Tories, by this time in 2013, will be as despised as Labour are now. Any Tory supporters feel free to oblige me on the erroneous points I am, perhaps, about to make.

Unemployment: They will roll out a massive programme of apprenticeships. That sounds good but quite where are all these apprenticeships going to come from? The manufacturing sector only accounts for 12% or Britain's Economy and if you think that lads of 15-18years are going to be content with working in a boutique as part of their educations you are sadly mistaken. Boys are boys, presumably they will be given a choice as where to get their apprenticeship then? What about girls then? Well, if we are to believe the government's demonising statistics the problem makers are the white middle class boys ergo there wont be any problem with the girls. That seems to be the current orthodoxy at least. Lord Mandelson said something, for a change, clever, he figured we ought to start building 'stuff' again. Quite right Mr. Mandelson. What is more there is enough coal supply left to supply the nation for another 600 years. Dig the damn thing up, process it, invest in clean technology and burn it. Mr. Cameron would never do such a thing of course because it would piss of the Greenies and interfere with the housing schemes being built where the old coal mines once stood (there are a 1 million empty homes in London alone, what is that figure nationwide, why must we destroy the Green Belt when there simply is no need?)

Of course there is the elephant in the room which no one ever discusses. I was speaking to a Polish friend the other day and he was saying that he could not believe how tolerant we are in this country upon which I went into a tirade of why this was, connecting it with relevant pieces of history showing why extremist parties have had such a hard time (until now) in the UK. He went 'aha' and only concluded that if 2 million Brits had flowed into his country the equivalent of the BNP there would have got a majority and formed a government. What this little analogy is to purport is that immigrants do take jobs and if the government has a back-up plan to find jobs for the domestic youth then that is fine, problem is of course that there are not nearly enough jobs to go around since there is no back-up plan. We get the regular government pundits telling us that immigrants are not stealing jobs and how they add lots to the economy. This is another one of those common sense areas where it simply is not worth the time and energy listening to what the government has to say on the issue. You must have balanced immigration or quacks like the BNP start to rise up and demand to be counted. This ties nicely in with the unemployment issue in that people will be unemployed if there are not enough jobs to go around and haranguing the leader of the BNP on the BBC is not going to help particularly if the entire show is patronising the person whom more and more people are, wrongly in my opinion, starting to associate with.

Immigration: As the above paragraph hopefully showed there is a problem with immigration in this country in that it is far far too high. The tories propose to put a cap on these numbers yet they refuse to tell us what that cap might be set at. 10,000 or 100,000 we just do not know why they are completely untrustworthy on this issue. What is more they have not said if they are going to end the practise whereby immigrants are allowed to bring their spouses and children into the country after having settled down - a practise banned in every single european country but which the Labour government lifted in the UK in 1997, presumably as part of their plan to create a "truly multicultural Britain". What of the illegal immigrants then? There are as many as 1,000,000 - 2,000,000 illegals who bring absolutely nothing to this country at all. Going by what Boris said they will all get an amnesty if he were in command. Then we have the asylum seekers who Baroness Warsi so haphazardly told us was a legal term. Quite. However whilst she might be content that it is a legal term having reminded a man with a Law degree (Nick Griffin, and I know we should not take him seriously but we will damn well have to start to unless we want BNP MPs in the HoC - get of your lazy arse PC buts and write something constructive to aid the debate against the BNP instead of ostracising me for having reminded you that while Nick Griffin may have some pretty dodgy views he is not a stupid man) that was so, she seems to have forgotten what the 1951 Geneva Convention has to say on the issue. It says that an asylum seeker must seek refuge in the first country he/she passes through on his/her escape. Well Britain is at the end of the world as far as they are concerned and there is a whole swathe of countries between us and wherever they are coming from. They are by that token illegal asylum seekers who are preventing the truly desperate ones from reaching the UK and getting help. Why are they coming here? Simple, we have a very cushy benefits system where asylum seekers get £40 a week for their abode - an astronomical sum in some countries. If you want a really good analysis on the judicial aspect of them system please go here.

If you think I am telling you all this because I am cold-hearted capitalist scum you are wrong. I am telling you this because we cannot help people anymore who really need British help. What will the Tories do about all this? Nothing, everything they have proposed so far smacks well below average for they might lose voters in their quest to make the UK a better place, why they refuse to make the tough choices. Which is why I will reiterate my diktat time and time again; the Tories will not win in 2013 but neither will Labour - the oligopoly on British politics has ended.

So out of tune...

We all know that our politicians are hopelessly out of tune with public opinion so also the MSM but few could have got it as wrong as Arch-Twat David Aaranovitch...

"Migration can enrich us economically and culturally. But politicians are not brave enough to put the positive case"

Has the man been on holiday for the past few weeks, unfamiliar with the BNP acronym are we Mr. Aaranovitch? Look at the comments dear reader I daresay you will find one which is positive of Mr. Aaranovitch's comment (I did not).

For the record between 1997-2007, a net 2.7 million immigrants (ONS figures however and as such government figures which cannot be trusted) were let into the country of those roughly 500,000 were from the EU and the majority of which can be expected to return. These figures do not take into account the illegal immigrant figure nor the 'asylum' seeker figure (with apostrophes since international law states that anyone who is seriously at threat from foes in ones home country must seek asylum in the first country he or she enters when fleeing. Britain is the last fucking country in Europe and then you hit the Atlantic Ocean! Is it not amazing that they all manage to somehow avoid; France, Germany, Turkey, Spain, Austria, the Ukraine, Russia etcetera - I know that these countries have their fair share of asylum seekers as well but none have as liberal asylum laws as the UK where you as an asylum seeker can expect £40 a week for your troubles, a small fortune for most asylum seekers). If you want a full analysis of what has really been going on I suggest you read this.

Then of course we have the ignominious Baroness Warsi who pointed out to Nick Griffin last week that 'asylum' is an actual legal term. Not wishing to blow Mr. Griffin's trumpet, for the man is very strange but he has a law degree and knows, as do most of us, that 'asylum' is a judicial nomenclature which is being manipulated and exploited by people who simple want to come here for the country's very generous benefits system. By doing this of course they are sidelining the people who really are being persecuted by the deranged regimes of their origin, people which the UK could with all likelihood help with great success were we not flooded with simple crooks who do not have the common decency to work. I am a student, I work, why must I pay tax to people who do not care for anything but themselves? Tax which could have helped war-ravaged minds who need serious professional help from the likes of the NHS and the FCO. But instead that money is used to feed the system which our politicians are too pathetic to reform it to an end whose means could help asylum seekers from countries like Bonker-Burma or Irrational-Iran.

Why?

Addendum: For those of you who did not know the literary device of using three dots or '...' is called an ellipsis.

Laugh then Cry

One cannot but first laugh at this story but then one has to try. We first laugh because as the EU seeks to denigrate British immigration policy it is playing right into the hands of the Eurosceptics which already have a massive majority in the UK. They are in fact creating the UK's exit from the EU. We thought that we would have to do that but there is not a single day that goes by when the scales tip in favour of the highly eurosceptic parties in the UK. The latest story that all asylum seekers should be let into the country according to the EU's Justice Commissioner makes you wonder if this guy is truly aware of his employers popularity in the UK. I beg to differ.

Now of course it would be political suicide for any party to actually abide by these rules since if they did they would alienate pretty much the entire electorate whom they thought would vote for them in the first instance. That is never a good thing for a political party. The Justice Commissioner could play it safe of course and get this over with before the Labour government is terminated both as government and political party. If I were a French Justice Commisioner that is what I would do.

However now we have to cry. Just as this will play into the hands of UKIP it will also, unfortunately, play into the hands of the BNP. That is the tragic moral of this story. A moral which will continue I fret lest the Tories i.e. the incoming government gets its act together. You have to listen to the people no matter the content. You are here to serve us not yourselves. Now I do not think this will happen but I am a die hard cynic as well. Since I propose that whenever this country has changed over the past 20 years it has always been for the worse.

The BNP will clock up electoral success after sucess until they form somewhat of a majority in the political establishment UK. This is impossible you say? I thought so to but people are truly desperate. The main three offer nothing but platitudes and rhetoric on matters essential to the public. Take this simple immigration policy from the Conservative home page:

"Immigration can be a real benefit to the UK, but only if it is properly controlled with its impact on the economy, public services and social cohesion taken into account.

Our approach will ensure that we admit both the right people for our economy and also the right number of people. For economic migrants from outside the EU, we propose a two-stage process:

• The first stage is making eligible for admission those who will benefit the economy
• The second stage is an annual limit to control the numbers admitted with regard to the wider effects on society and the provision of public services

A Conservative Government would also apply transitional controls as a matter of course in the future for all new EU entrants.

To enforce such controls, and to prevent illegal immigration and combat criminals who compromise our security, we need a new, integrated approach to managing our borders.

So we will introduce a dedicated Border Police Force to bring together all the agencies responsible for border control.

Unlike Labour’s Border Agency, which does not even include the police, our force will have the power to stop, search, detain and prosecute the terrorists, traffickers and illegal immigrants who currently slip through the net. Only then will we be able to start making Britain safer."

Ambiguous to the bone at a time when the electorate's main concern is immigration and the economy (which Boris has a good take on) - two concepts which are inextricably interlinked. If it seen that the few jobs which are now available are going exclusively to immigrants prepare for another winter of discontent. Further I intend to spearhead the campagin whereby it becomes 'legal' again to speak of immigration without being pounded by the r-word. However if you are still trapped in that little New Labour world whereby any criticism of immigration or asylum seeker policy is a tabu, I tell you: grow up. This is politics, you cannot outlaw ideas and thoughts.

Quote of the Day

The attorney general sacked her housekeeper last night amid claims the woman had overstayed on a visa and was no longer legally entitled to work in the UK. This odd for a couple of reasons. Employers face a civil fine of up to £10,000 per illegal worker and up to two years' jail for the most serious breaches. We should point out that these are "normal" people alas not part of the elite - they can do what they like. More astounding however, these rules were brought in 2006 by the Home Office and you would have thought that their employers ought to know them. But hey one rule for them and one for us. Whatever she does she wont resign be quite sure on this prediction.

"The attorney general is Nu-labour, female and black makes her pretty untouchable don't you think?" - Guardian comment

Again this blog will talk about all those toxic subjects like immigration, social cohesion, Islamism, Europe and Britishness. Why? No one else will.

Radical Islam? No, Furious Britons

More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot.

Those were the words of one 'V' in the movie V for Vendetta which has now become synonymous with people taking on the government in the UK - those who are truly fed up with the whole shenanigans of this office. Naturally Guy Fawkes held this position long before Ms. Evy Hammond a.k.a. Natalie Portman shaved her head.

The movie did something else it gave birth to another form of resistance, the one we are fighting today albeit online. How many bloggers own a Guy Fawkes mask as sported in the motion picture? Quite a few I would guess, some have even taken it upon themselves to epitomise this great citizen notably Old Holborn. More significantly however is that the battle for the future is not waged in the streets nor in Whitehall it is waged online - everyone seems to know this except the 5th column placemen who are now firmly entrenched in every level of our local and national government. Cameron, as said many times before, will need to wage war against these people to whom the object of destroying the UK far outweighs the object of improving it.

This leads us to the main topic of this entry namely not that Labour has radicalised Muslims but they have severely pissed of the nation and I do not mean that in a Thatcher pissed-of way, that was bad enough, but this is something wildly different as will be shown.

We all know that this regime, we are a democracy trapped in a swastika, is taking a silk glove approach to Muslim Extremism in the UK. Lets get a few things very straight before we launch ourselves into this debate. Commonly we say that there are only a minority of people who are really involved in Muslims Extremism - the kind where they plot to blow us up or themselves for that matter. However there is something else which I think must be given a grouping for itself a second tier sort to speak. These are the very large number of young men who comport themselves as defenders of Islam shouting "Allahu Akbar" in front of, well everything they see which looks like a microphone or a police officer.

These are people which will need a hard push or a really hard kick to really slide them into the warm hug of extremism. But they are angry no doubt (and seem to have little understanding for free speech) and they are directing that anger towards the UK for some inexplicable reason (that was sarcasm, we invaded 'Muslim' countries so we are thus baddies, no really we are at least for the Iraq war, I fully agree with the Afghan war). But even more so what we are doing is pandering to their differences. We allow them to come here and set up camp but not take part in Britain's way of doing things. Some argue that this is because we have lost our identity as a nation - and really we are not being greatly helped by our educators either. Others argue it is because we are British and imposing our values on immigrants well that would just be racist now would it not? Some think it is because media is severely twisting the facts (this is really a non-issue for we all know that it is true but for distinctness sake). Remember those three handsome young men who thought it a jolly idea to blow up some more planes, well here is how the media covered the story (you will notice of course which ones are the mouthpiece of the government)

The Times: Islamic extremists guilty of airline bomb plot.
The Daily Mail: Islamic extremist guilty of liquid bomb plot to blow up transatlantic jets.
The Daily Telegraph: Britain is at war with Islamist militants.

BBC: Three guilty of airline bomb plot.
The Guardian: Three guilty of transatlantic bomb plot.

I argue, however that our identity is hidden beneath a coat of 13 years of New Labour hegemony and a bit of Major government thrown in there for good measure. Believe in coincidences if you wilt but it is not so when suddenly the fundamental cornerstones of the glue that binds a nation together suddenly disappear. This is everything ranging from teaching British history in schools to the character of Parliament and the people who supposedly are in it to serve us as they rule on our behalf. Moreover Britain is or rather was a truly fantastic country in all its little peculiarities which made her stand out amongst the great nations of the world. All countries have their culture even though some larger entities are actively seeking to abolish them. But we have always done things in some very strange but yet adoring ways. You will note that in the 90s and in this decade there have been not one but 11 acts which have changed face of Britain forever. I have only included the ones under New Labour but even so this is an astonishing amount of acts filed under 'Constitutional Matters' (on this blog we have talked a lot about the new Supreme Court which we do not agree with at all) for any government to propose and pass. And of course they were all done under the dubious aegis of reform. As such following the slew of constitutional changes introduced after Labour came to power in 1997, the constitution analysed by Bagehot and Dicey no longer exists at all. For the records...

• House of Lords Act 1999
• Human Rights Act 1998
• Freedom of Information Act 2000
• Civil Contingencies Act 2004
• Constitutional Reform Act 2005
• Scotland Act 1998
• Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999
• Government of Wales Act 2006
• Government of Wales Act 1998
• Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000
• Registration of Political Parties Act 1998

No doubt this will end up as a disaster, a bit like the man who thought it up, Blair, a poor QC in his time, who never really did very much in the field of law. Most of the most important reforms that have been undertaken were said to have been thought up over a glass of whiskey or on the back of a letter. I might be overzealous on this issue but have shot of about 6 mails to the Mr. Dominic Grieve, if the Conservatives intend to repeal most of them or create new ones of their own so as to mark their opportunism as a progressive party, something which seems to be in vogue these days. After all they are Conservatives but what precisely are they Conserving?

You see dear reader radical Islam is not only getting fuel to flame from our own self-serving educators but from the very essence of Parliament from the executive to the legislature. We are not dying as a nation nor is British culture, not in the least, but our constitutional way of pouring a bottle of Port will never look the same again.

Where does this leave ordinary Britons then? Those who just want to live happily as before, having a pint down at the local pub (before they were all shut down) or watching the footy. Well some thing is a foot, something which has not really happened before in the UK at least not on this scale. The British people are really pissed of. But as is one of our trade marks; we do not do revolutions over here, it is not our thing. We would rather have a cup of tea than rally outside parliament (though a few die-hard very commendable souls are doing just that at this very minute, and have been doing so for the past few years) and vent and express our anger. Who can for example cannot recall the now infamous words of Lord Ahmed when he said that 10,000 Muslims would rally outside Parliament if a private House of Lords committee viewed Fitna produced by Gert Wilders. Lo and Behold not a single person showed up, neither did the democratically elected Gert Wilders.

What of far right then and all that immigration business? I think Leg-Iron produced a very succinct and astute observation as to this end

Shouting 'Racist' at anyone who disagrees, on any subject, for the last decade has immunised the general population against the word. People are called 'racist' for any disagreement on any subject, whether race is involved or not. So the word has lost all power. You might as well call them 'poltroons' and 'bounders' now.

Now, the new tag applied to anyone who objects to anything is 'far right'. In the eyes of the Socialists, anyone 'far right' wants oppression and absolute control and violent suppression of anyone who disagrees. Socialists don't understand irony.

Privately of course people will say that they have had quite enough of mass immigration, draconian laws, 'soft' touch approach to Muslim Extremism, a failed state etcetera. But now it seems a few group (EDL and Casuals United among others) are taking action, albeit in a form which is not very nice admittedly, but nonetheless it is some form of action - agree or disagree protesting against Islam is as much a cause as protesting (?) for the implementation of Sharia law in the UK. Note though these are groups protesting against radical Islam and not the religion itself. Most religions can be quite lovely when you do not take them literally which is precisely what fundamentalism is all about be it in America or in Saudi Arabia. The media and main parties of course are trying to victimise the shouting young men who not only heckled returning soldiers and nearly had their heads ripped of by the Luton crowd, but were also labeled 'anti-fascist' by the MSM. As Leg-Iron noted

The press struggle to spin news of the riots to make the Muslims the victim. Nobody is falling for it any more. They throw around the 'far-right' label and nobody knows what it is. Especially when applied to groups that espouse no political views at all. Far-right football fans? Far-right bald men? Is every bald white man far-right now? Should we expect to see football crowds goose-stepping to the stadium?

Do the media even know what a fascist is anymore? It is a very dangerous word to throw around seemingly unchecked and most importantly unchallenged. It is just taken as fact when a media outlet claims that this and that is fascist for we have come to, rightly, fear fascism. But somewhere a long the line the MSM got the notion that they had the carte blanche to label anyone a fascist for the way he dressed, drank, ate, read, walked, ran or any other arbitrary attribute they dreamt up as being sensationalist enough to render a spot in the paper or website.

This is all very well, you cannot expect the media to actually produce quality journalism these days, they are struggling to stay alive and keep sales up. 'Quantity over quality' is the maxim for papers now and you cannot really blame them for that. But one would have thought that journalists at least had some integrity and independence. However when councils are actively seeking to abolish one form of protest (though they failed) and favouring another then we really are bordering on true fascism on behalf of the state - I cannot be frank enough about the severity of these actions. 'Double standards' and 'freedom of speech' the latter must always take precedence if we are to lay any claims of being a "democratic island".

'Get to the bloody point' I imagine some of you are thinking at this stage. We are getting there now for we are to tackle the issue of the BNP. I said that Britons were furious and I meant it. The BNP is the outlet of this anger but it seems as if the MSM are expecting it to die down for reason come the election. This is a very odd approach, people only turned to the BNP for they felt they were being betrayed by the main three. The main three have failed Britain miserably. Few can contend this I imagine. The BNP is at the fringe and really the only alternative left for normal working class people who were being overwhelmed by the disastrous failure in every policy area under the New Labour tenure.

Consider past European Elections results for the BNP

2009: 943,598 (6.4% of total) - First Two MEPs
2004: 808,200 (4.2%)
1999: 102,647

A worrying trend, consider now past General Elections results for the BNP

1983: (0.0% of total) 14,621
1987: 0.0 553
1992: 0.1 7,631
1997: 0.1 35,832
2001: 0.2 47,129
2005: 0.7 192,746

Not as worrying perhaps but we still have a general election next year and things are looking very good for the BNP sadly.

Here it is, the conclusion you have been waiting for. Basically, there are two parties to choose the next government from and neither of them is allowed under EU diktat to mess with immigration rules. That is one of the biggest problems right there 'neither of them is allowed under EU diktat to mess with immigration rules' - most people know that now and, I believe, are sick to the bone of it. Being unable to influence the big three they must turn elsewhere. I have nothing else to go by but polls so you will excuse my utilization of them, but if they are true then the 'other' parties now make up 15% of the parliament were there an election tomorrow. Yes, the BNP is only represented by 1-2% But that is still 1-2 MPs and that is an outrage in itself - not because they were elected but that fascism has made it way to the Palace and we just sat by and did nothing, thinking that our 'multiculturalism' approach to immigration would save the day.

(Blimey! That was a long post).

Immigration

I was very affected by the article written by Max Hastings in the Mail. This is of course the purpose of the Mail to stir up irrational emotions in the reader disregarding fact but regarding fervour. However having established this about the Mail I am not sure about this piece, it is very well written I must concede (if you have not read it yet). Which is why I now have taken it upon myself to talk about some of the issues it raises. This being an article about immigration you must now assume that I am racist if you are still hooked in the smoldering Britain created by New Labour, where political correctness is law. Thankfully I believe people are starting to catch onto to the lie and normal conversation is slowly starting to reappear. We can only assume that when the Tories reach government they will abolish at least some of the PC.

The article describes how, in fact, we have been mislead by the ONS (Office for National Statistics) and that 'Mohammed' (in all its forms) is really the third most popular name in the UK, disloging 'Thomas' from that spot. There are two theories about this revelation (which was revealed back in 2007 as well...) either Muslims breed a lot more than normal people in conjunction with extremely high levels of immigration or all Muslim families name their male children 'Mohammed' as a homage to the Prophet. The former is not a theory as much as a fact. The latter however we must discuss.

Muslims do like their Prophet-a lot-so it is appropriate for them to name their sons 'Mohammed' to pay their respects sort to speak. While the statistics show that 'Mohammed' is the third most popular name it is partially because, well, every single Muslim boy is called 'Mohammed' but has a couple of other names so to not confuse the rest of us. Observe:

'Hi there could I pay with my card please?' says customer.

'Sure thing just sign here' says waiter.

'M-o-h-a-m-m-e-d S-h-a-k-i-l C-o-s-b-y'

Waiter walks away with the machine, gets stabbed and subsequently a new waiter has to give the card back to our Mohammed. The new waiter having no clue as to who the customer is exclaims, loudly, in the middle of the dining room, 'I am looking for a Mohammed Shakil Cosby - is he here?'

'Here!' ejaculate fifteen different people. Had she said only 'Shakil Cosby' the issue would have been quickly resolved but she fell into a particular Muslims trap whereby most Muslim boys are called 'Mohammed' in some form or another in their name.

However this is only half the truth. The name 'Mohammed' has not but one spelling but 14. Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non-Muslim one. While they like to call their boys 'Mohammed' they do have a very much higher birth rate than to non-Muslims and as such we are indeed seeing an explosion in babies born to Muslims parents - who themselves can expect to be raised as Muslims. Is this a new phenomenon? Well yes quite frankly it is. The name Mohammed only made it into The 30 Names in the UK, in 2000. Which you will agree is very recently. Moreover in 2001, the average size of a Muslim household was 3.8 people while a third contained more than five people.

Simply put we wont be seeing Shari law in the UK anytime soon (well there are already 60 Shari courts with "laws" that are legally enforceable) but it is very inaccurate to claim that the Muslim population is growing alarmingly fast. Why "alarmingly"? Because they are the least likely to integrate into the British society. And if you somehow manage to link that to racism please please please, I beg you, say so in the comment section and then back it up.

A poll found that 63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting that the London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France.

Less than a third of British non-Muslims said they viewed Muslims as violent, significantly fewer than non-Muslims in Spain (60%), Germany (52%), the US (45%) and France (41%).

By contrast, the poll found that British Muslims represented a "notable exception" in Europe, with far more negative views of westerners than Islamic minorities elsewhere on the continent. A significant majority viewed western populations as selfish, arrogant, greedy and immoral. Just over half said westerners were violent (the last one 'violent' is interesting since the police records of the last decade show "domestic violence" (man beating a woman) as 45-65% higher in Muslim homes than in any other communities, including the notoriously violent-towards-women African ones). While the overwhelming majority of European Muslims said westerners were respectful of women, fewer than half British Muslims agreed. Another startling result found that only 32% of Muslims in Britain had a favourable opinion of Jews, compared with 71% of French Muslims. Safe to say we are doing something very very wrong over here and I think it is quite simple; we are pandering to their differences and make it seem as if being British is a bad thing. While simply not saying 'no' when they overstep the mark and insult our culture (yes we actually do have one despite what the government says).

Moving on in 2007, 28 per cent of children born in England and Wales, rising to 54 per cent in London, had at least one foreign-born parent. In 2008, 14.4 per cent of primary school children claimed some other tongue than English as their first language.

But this is where we need to stop and think. How does this compare to other nations?

These are figures taken from here. They show the total number of immigrants in the country respectively.

# 1 United States: 38,355,000
# 2 Russia: 12,080,000
# 3 Germany: 10,144,000
# 4 Ukraine: 6,833,000
# 5 France: 6,471,000
# 6 Saudi Arabia: 6,361,000
# 7 Canada: 6,106,000
# 8 India: 5,700,000
# 9 United Kingdom: 5,408,000
# 10 Spain: 4,790,000

Those are raw numbers but if we look instead as percentage of the total population we might get something useful to play around with.

# 1 Holy See (Vatican City): 100
# 2 Andorra: 77.25
# 3 Qatar: 75.9
# 4 United Arab Emirates: 71.4
# 5 Monaco: 70.11
.
.
.
# 40 United States: 12.81
# 41 Germany: 12.31
# 42 Sweden: 12.3
# 43 Belarus: 12.21
# 44 Spain: 10.79
# 45 Grenada: 10.68
# 46 Libya: 10.56
# 47 Costa Rica: 10.19
# 48 France: 10.18
# 49 Netherlands: 10.05
# 50 Bahamas, The: 9.907
# 51 Saint Kitts and Nevis: 9.369
# 52 Barbados: 9.311
# 53 United Kingdom: 8.982

Presumably then all the other big western European countries must be in the same boat, n'est pas? Well perhaps and perhaps not, consider the net migration instead and then suddenly something interesting is revealed.

# 1 United States 26.8%
# 2 Afghanistan 9.9%
# 3 Spain 9.4%
# 4 Germany 5.1%
# 5 Canada 4.9%
# 6 United Arab Emirates 4.4%
# 7 United Kingdom 3.2%
Italy 2.8%
Australia 2.3%
Sierra Leone 2%
Russia 1.8%
France 1.4%
Hong Kong 1.4%
Eritrea 1.3%
Chad 1.3%
Japan 1.2%
Saudi Arabia 1.2%
Portugal 1.2%
Iraq 1.1%
Kuwait 1.1%

We have a very high net migration which in raw data becomes 686,400. And herein lies the real problem, for this is a problem, in 2008 the average number of people per square kilometre in Britain was 253, rising to 395 in England. Latest figures from Holland show that its population density was 395 a square kilometre in 2002 and 393 in 2005. It is estimated that English population density will rise to 464 people for every square kilometre by 2031.We are alas the most densely populated country in Europe and we have very high net migration. Germany has a much larger percentage of net migration but Germany is also a much larger country. If you bunch people together who have no inclination at all to be this 'friendly' it is a receipe for disaster. This is also, most likely, why the government sought to make the subject of immigration a 'non-mentionable' and label people who disobey them, racists. Furthermore why we cannot have a meaningful debate, yet, on the subject for it is assumed that anyone who does is just that; a racist.

Now Max Hastings said this very sensible line "No government massage of the numbers can blunt the fact that a host of migrants is here, most of whom espouse an entirely different cultural tradition from our own". You will all remember the series Star Trek and what is more the Borgs. They sought to 'assimilate' their enemies into the collective a sort of high-tech New Labourism/Socialism. Being the antagonists of the series the Borgs got a lot of crap but they got that one thing right, assimilation for it made them stronger. Now we do not have any fancy laser guns and we are no big fans of socialism either since it has ruined Britain, but 'integration' however is not too shabby at all. In fact it is quite beautiful when it works. But now we are really hitting the head of the issue.

The amount of people coming to Britain is overwhelming, there is no buffer capacity left to deal with the unheard of flow of immigrants. There are no social services, no schools, no hospitals no nothing which can properly take care of all these people. If there is no care then they turn to their own devices and turn away from Britain and lead their own little lives in, but not part of, these isles. When they come in small trickles they are easy to deal with, to share our values (yes we do have values even though the government will tell you otherwise) with and to show them 'This is Britain - enjoy!' But if you overwhelm a nation you create fear, fear of the new, because they have not been integrated, they are just foreigners and nothing else in the eyes of the public. That public, as the European elections showed us, seems to have had enough (1,000,000 out of 15,000,000 voted for the BNP...)

The British are not racist, not at all, probably the least racist nation in Europe and possibly the world. But, and this is a very big but, if you create the kind of conditions that New Labour has there is nothing but despair left to feed the masses. Whether or not "the immigrants are stealing the jobs" is true or not (more than seven in 10 jobs created under the Labour government have been taken by foreign workers, according to a report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), it becomes true for they along with the government are the scapegoats. "Because we know this, because we have lost confidence in our own cultural identity, we flail and blather about how to respond to the unprecedented ethnic and demographic turmoil which our politicians have unleashed upon us".

Do not expect any miracles from New Labour before they are assassinated. According to Migration Watch UK net immigration has quadrupled since 1997 to 237,000 a year and to keep the population of the UK below 70 million, immigration must be reduced by 75%. Government measures so far may reduce it by 5%.

Enter Cameron and friends who will do two things:

1. Put a cap on the number of immigrants entering the UK from outside the EU.
2. Not face up to the EU - that is to say they will not represent the wishes of the electorate.

In fact if the man plays his cards as he has done thus far you can be quite sure that #1 is nothing but plain rhetoric. Yes, there is global recession going on and yes Britain is by far the most screwed. But with increasing unemployment he cannot allow this level of immigration. If people start drawing parallels between unemployment and immigrants he will have riots and that is not scaremongering that is the simple truth.