Yesterday's Daily Mail had a go at the Human Rights Act, because an immigration panel ruled that a failed asylum seeker - an Iraqi Kurd - cannot be deported.
BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show had an interview with a man whose daughter had been run over and killed by that Iraqi, and London's Metro, page 27, reports the distraught father saying of the decision: "I'm really angry. We should all be angry. It is a ridiculous state of affairs."
The reason for the ridiculous state of affairs is that the Iraqi has married a British woman and has two children. In other words, though being in the country illegally, he now has the "right" to permanent residence.
It is hard to believe that those who drew up the European Convention on Human Rights (in 1952) intended the interpretation put on it by the European Court of Human Rights at the end of May 1985.
The victim (the dead girl's father) was spot on when he pointed out that he has no rights concerning deporting the man.
That was my feeling when the European Commission of Human Rights failed to investigate my 1977 complaints. "... in accordance with Art. 25 of the Convention the Commission may only receive petitions from persons claiming to be the victim of a violation of any of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. The Commission has therefore always refused to recognise as victims those applicants who - like you - have neither directly suffered prejudice by virtue of a decision or act by a public authority concerning them personally, nor indirectly as a result of a violation committed against another person." (15 September 1977.)
I've read (W.H. Prescott's The History of the Conquest of Mexico ?) that following the Spanish conquest of the Americas many Indians didn't want to have children.
It's because of this issue that I don't....
By contrast, foreign and Commonwealth men who come to the UK want children - not only in order to live here permanently but also to strengthen the power of their community.
Rights?
Just?
It's just not right!
Saturday 18 December 2010
Monday 13 December 2010
"Caring and Discrimination"
We were repeatedly told this morning on BBC Radio 4 Today that fashion sense depends on "caring and discrimination".
The Queen flagrantly discriminated ("sabetsu" - please see my blog of 24 November) over the Summer.
Members of the European Parliament were invited to a Garden Party at Buckingham Palace.
But an exception was made for Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, who is an MEP.
The Queen flagrantly discriminated ("sabetsu" - please see my blog of 24 November) over the Summer.
Members of the European Parliament were invited to a Garden Party at Buckingham Palace.
But an exception was made for Nick Griffin, leader of the British National Party, who is an MEP.
Wednesday 8 December 2010
Equality and Merit
Tonight the Moral Debate on BBC Radio 4 is "Equality v. Merit".
There is no equality.
Not while British servicemen are being wounded and killed in combat.
It is strange that the English language has more words than any other, yet the word "discrimination", basically a "good" word, is, for want of another, generally used in a perjorative context.
It used to be, in Britain, that the phrase "class distinction" was common currency. (Please see my letter to "The Japan Times" of 17 March 1962.)
It has gone out of fashion, but the gap between rich and poor nowadays is said to be as great as it was in the 19th century.
It is not foreigners, even those who have acquired British nationality, who need laws to allow them to deprive native British men of work and promotion.
It's the poor English who need laws to protect them.
That's where the true "merit", the guiding star of Buddhists, lies.
There is no equality.
Not while British servicemen are being wounded and killed in combat.
It is strange that the English language has more words than any other, yet the word "discrimination", basically a "good" word, is, for want of another, generally used in a perjorative context.
It used to be, in Britain, that the phrase "class distinction" was common currency. (Please see my letter to "The Japan Times" of 17 March 1962.)
It has gone out of fashion, but the gap between rich and poor nowadays is said to be as great as it was in the 19th century.
It is not foreigners, even those who have acquired British nationality, who need laws to allow them to deprive native British men of work and promotion.
It's the poor English who need laws to protect them.
That's where the true "merit", the guiding star of Buddhists, lies.
Wednesday 24 November 2010
Cultural and Linguistic Relativism
According to the theory of linguistic relativity, language influences thought - the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.
The sole argument used by the Council of Europe - the European Commission of Human Rights (13 May 1982) and the European Court of Human Rights (end May 1985) - to enable foreign men to live in the UK through marriage was that preventing them from doing so was "discrimination against women".
In English as soon as the word "discrimination" is mentioned there's an automatic feeling of wrong-doing.
In Japanese there are two words for "discrimination": "sabetsu" means "unfair treatment"; while "kubetsu" means "distinguishing right from wrong/good from bad".
Judges discriminate. If they can't, they shouldn't be there.
The Queen's Christmas message in 2004 was all about Asians and Africans living in Britain. "Discrimination still exists," said the Queen disapprovingly.
Discrimination ought to exist. The more discrimination the better. It's a normative prerequisite for justice.
I'm afraid I'm old enough to remember Englishmen's complaint in the 1940s: "The Americans are over-paid, over-sexed and over here." To which the Americans' reply was: "The British are under-paid, under-sexed and under Eisenhower!"
If some countries are rich and peaceful, while others are poor and war-torn, then it is obvious who wants to live in which country. Women living in a rich and peaceful country have nothing about which to complain.
British women may be regarded as lucky to live in these islands, but they may also have the privilege in being able to live abroad through marriage. There is nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights about privileging people.
The sole argument used by the Council of Europe - the European Commission of Human Rights (13 May 1982) and the European Court of Human Rights (end May 1985) - to enable foreign men to live in the UK through marriage was that preventing them from doing so was "discrimination against women".
In English as soon as the word "discrimination" is mentioned there's an automatic feeling of wrong-doing.
In Japanese there are two words for "discrimination": "sabetsu" means "unfair treatment"; while "kubetsu" means "distinguishing right from wrong/good from bad".
Judges discriminate. If they can't, they shouldn't be there.
The Queen's Christmas message in 2004 was all about Asians and Africans living in Britain. "Discrimination still exists," said the Queen disapprovingly.
Discrimination ought to exist. The more discrimination the better. It's a normative prerequisite for justice.
I'm afraid I'm old enough to remember Englishmen's complaint in the 1940s: "The Americans are over-paid, over-sexed and over here." To which the Americans' reply was: "The British are under-paid, under-sexed and under Eisenhower!"
If some countries are rich and peaceful, while others are poor and war-torn, then it is obvious who wants to live in which country. Women living in a rich and peaceful country have nothing about which to complain.
British women may be regarded as lucky to live in these islands, but they may also have the privilege in being able to live abroad through marriage. There is nothing in the European Convention on Human Rights about privileging people.
Tuesday 23 November 2010
Fairness - a Good Idea
The Church of England General Synod opens today in London. It'll be opened by the Head of the Church. The Queen. Who sparked modern feminism in Britain with her Christmas message of 1967.
Top of the Synod's agenda is having women bishops.
The Government's solution to curbing immigration to the UK is a cap on Work Visas.
That cap has been announced (BBC Radio 4 Today) as 43,000 (but with exceptions).
Since Work Visas have a time limit the cap is pointless. It is also criminal. (Though, technically, that's up to a judge/jury to say.) Because David Cameron deceived the electorate during the run-up to the May General Election by stressing it was the solution to the problem of migration to the UK.
Every day 1,000 people enter the UK on Student Visas. As with most other visas there is a time constraint.
The reality is that to control immigration effectively, foreigners have to be prevented from taking up permanent residence.
A major solution would be to end the concession to foreign men who currently can obtain permanent residence through marriage.
This was promised by Mrs. Thatcher in 1979.
Britain now has another female in charge - Mrs. May is Home Secretary.
She, too, is letting down the electorate.
The European Court of Human Rights is also partly to blame.
It's pointless having elections.
Today also revealed that any asylum seeker who fails in his claim can appeal to the European Court. Under Rule 39 he cannot be deported.
At the end of May 1985 the European Court ruled in favor of three women whose foreign husbands wanted to live in the UK. That was unfair, because there was nothing to prevent them living together in their husband's country.(Malawi, Egypt and the Philippines.) I can't. And I doubt if many readers can.
The current "buzzword" amongst all British politicians these days is "fairness".
It would be fair if native Britons could make use of the European Court to prevent the occupation of "their" country. But they can't. I tried (10 June 1977).
When Mahatma Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation he famously replied that he thought it would be a "good idea".
Fairness for native Britons would be a good idea.
Top of the Synod's agenda is having women bishops.
The Government's solution to curbing immigration to the UK is a cap on Work Visas.
That cap has been announced (BBC Radio 4 Today) as 43,000 (but with exceptions).
Since Work Visas have a time limit the cap is pointless. It is also criminal. (Though, technically, that's up to a judge/jury to say.) Because David Cameron deceived the electorate during the run-up to the May General Election by stressing it was the solution to the problem of migration to the UK.
Every day 1,000 people enter the UK on Student Visas. As with most other visas there is a time constraint.
The reality is that to control immigration effectively, foreigners have to be prevented from taking up permanent residence.
A major solution would be to end the concession to foreign men who currently can obtain permanent residence through marriage.
This was promised by Mrs. Thatcher in 1979.
Britain now has another female in charge - Mrs. May is Home Secretary.
She, too, is letting down the electorate.
The European Court of Human Rights is also partly to blame.
It's pointless having elections.
Today also revealed that any asylum seeker who fails in his claim can appeal to the European Court. Under Rule 39 he cannot be deported.
At the end of May 1985 the European Court ruled in favor of three women whose foreign husbands wanted to live in the UK. That was unfair, because there was nothing to prevent them living together in their husband's country.(Malawi, Egypt and the Philippines.) I can't. And I doubt if many readers can.
The current "buzzword" amongst all British politicians these days is "fairness".
It would be fair if native Britons could make use of the European Court to prevent the occupation of "their" country. But they can't. I tried (10 June 1977).
When Mahatma Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilisation he famously replied that he thought it would be a "good idea".
Fairness for native Britons would be a good idea.
Wednesday 17 November 2010
Unequal Britain
37% of immigration cases brought before a Tribunal are successful. (BBC Radio 4 Today , today.)
This was used to argue that Immigration officials should be more efficient and not make mistakes.
If they do make mistakes, then equally many foreigners are in the UK when - by rights - they shouldn't be. But they do not complain to Immigration Tribunals!
In other words, there should not be any such Tribunals.
Native Britons have no recourse to Tribunals to correct those mistakes.
Similarly, the legal profession is deeply involved in immigration cases - as reference to the Law Reports in The Times reveal. But it is only those who want to live here who can avail themselves of the law.
If Britons go to other countries and their visa runs out - that's it, they have to leave.
This was used to argue that Immigration officials should be more efficient and not make mistakes.
If they do make mistakes, then equally many foreigners are in the UK when - by rights - they shouldn't be. But they do not complain to Immigration Tribunals!
In other words, there should not be any such Tribunals.
Native Britons have no recourse to Tribunals to correct those mistakes.
Similarly, the legal profession is deeply involved in immigration cases - as reference to the Law Reports in The Times reveal. But it is only those who want to live here who can avail themselves of the law.
If Britons go to other countries and their visa runs out - that's it, they have to leave.
Tuesday 16 November 2010
Warning: Ongoing Deception
Phil Woolas, until recently Britain's Immigration Minister, has been stripped of his parliamentary seat by two High Court judges. (London's Evening Standard, page 1.)
Page 8 of the same paper states that Mrs. Theresa May, Britain's Home Secretary, and Minister for Women and Equality, "promised stricter rules to make it more difficult for temporary migrants to stay in Britain permanently."
The Commons Home Affairs Committee warned that this would be impossible "unless new curbs on student arrivals and the ability of migrants to bring family members with them were introduced."
If foreigners are "migrants" then they already have the right to permanent residence. It's no wonder the Government cannot get a grip on this issue if the very words they use are misleading.
Page 8 of the same paper states that Mrs. Theresa May, Britain's Home Secretary, and Minister for Women and Equality, "promised stricter rules to make it more difficult for temporary migrants to stay in Britain permanently."
The Commons Home Affairs Committee warned that this would be impossible "unless new curbs on student arrivals and the ability of migrants to bring family members with them were introduced."
If foreigners are "migrants" then they already have the right to permanent residence. It's no wonder the Government cannot get a grip on this issue if the very words they use are misleading.
Warning Undertones
The Daily Telegraph of 3 November, page 8: "The Government's planned immigration cap will make 'little difference' and allow more than 400,000 migrants to move to Britain every year, MPs warn today."
The article below states:
"A taxi driver has been ordered to remove the slogan "British by birth, English by the grace of God" from his cab.
Council officials told the Gulf war veteran that two passengers had been offended by the sign's 'racist overtunes'."
The article below states:
"A taxi driver has been ordered to remove the slogan "British by birth, English by the grace of God" from his cab.
Council officials told the Gulf war veteran that two passengers had been offended by the sign's 'racist overtunes'."
Tuesday 9 November 2010
"Rights" Result in Rural Wrongs
Today's Daily Telegraph, page 11, tells of "the mainly Nigerian grooms paying up to £10,000 to marry eastern European women legally living here.
"Clergy have become more vigilant after a series of sham marriages at St Peter's Church in Accrington."
Country vicars are being targeted as being ignorant as to what is happening.
Scope for this "immigration fraud" was provided by the European Court of Human Rights which (wrongly, I believe) ruled in favour of foreign men being allowed to live and work in the UK (end May 1985).
"Clergy have become more vigilant after a series of sham marriages at St Peter's Church in Accrington."
Country vicars are being targeted as being ignorant as to what is happening.
Scope for this "immigration fraud" was provided by the European Court of Human Rights which (wrongly, I believe) ruled in favour of foreign men being allowed to live and work in the UK (end May 1985).
Monday 25 October 2010
"Rights" (?) Racket
No-longer-young unattached British women take holidays in Gambia. Lots of young men fall over themselves to be helpful. (Today's Jeremy Vine Show on BBC Radio 2.)
It's a racket. The young men don't just want money; they want marriage, so as to be able to live and work in the UK.
They can do this through marriage because of the European Court of Human Rights (end of May 1985).
Winston Churchill was partly responsible for setting up the Council of Europe (home to the ECHR). It's hard to believe he would agree with the Court's decision.
One woman followed her husband back to Gambia - and found he was already married.
If these women really want to marry these men they have the privilege to be allowed to live with them in Gambia.
It's a racket. The young men don't just want money; they want marriage, so as to be able to live and work in the UK.
They can do this through marriage because of the European Court of Human Rights (end of May 1985).
Winston Churchill was partly responsible for setting up the Council of Europe (home to the ECHR). It's hard to believe he would agree with the Court's decision.
One woman followed her husband back to Gambia - and found he was already married.
If these women really want to marry these men they have the privilege to be allowed to live with them in Gambia.
Friday 1 October 2010
Equality Act(ion)
Britain's Equality Act comes into force today.
Like its predecessors it obliges foreigners (quaintly described in Orwellian terms - www.equalities.gov.uk - as people who "have passports from different countries") to be employed on an equal basis with native Britons.
Even if native Britons can work on an equal basis with them in their countries, the issue of equality is not addressed. This is (in part) because the Englishman (as an example) who fails to get work or promotion (because it has gone to a foreigner) is not the same man who is fortunate enough to be working abroad.
The new Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, acknowledged in his very first speech that one reason Labour lost the General Election in May was because of immigration to the UK. Does he (or anyone else) think the new Government will get to grips with the issue?
People talk all around the houses on this issue - and have done so for the past 50 years - but the Big Issue, promised by Mrs Thatcher in 1979, is stopping foreign men from using marriage as a means to live and work in the UK.
Until Parliament passes an Act enforcing that... there can be no equality.
Like its predecessors it obliges foreigners (quaintly described in Orwellian terms - www.equalities.gov.uk - as people who "have passports from different countries") to be employed on an equal basis with native Britons.
Even if native Britons can work on an equal basis with them in their countries, the issue of equality is not addressed. This is (in part) because the Englishman (as an example) who fails to get work or promotion (because it has gone to a foreigner) is not the same man who is fortunate enough to be working abroad.
The new Leader of the Labour Party, Ed Miliband, acknowledged in his very first speech that one reason Labour lost the General Election in May was because of immigration to the UK. Does he (or anyone else) think the new Government will get to grips with the issue?
People talk all around the houses on this issue - and have done so for the past 50 years - but the Big Issue, promised by Mrs Thatcher in 1979, is stopping foreign men from using marriage as a means to live and work in the UK.
Until Parliament passes an Act enforcing that... there can be no equality.
Friday 24 September 2010
Litigation on Immigration
The British Government aims to "prune" the public sector by abolishing 180 QUANGOS (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organizations). The News today (BBC Radio 4) also announced that the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants aims to challenge the Government in court over its policy to impose a cap on non-EU migrants.
The taxpayer (mostly Englishmen) funds QUANGOS, the JCWI, and the proposed litigation.
If the Government is really serious about saving public money, it could start by abolishing the JCWI.
The media, meanwhile, could more accurately use the word "foreigners" instead of "migrants", as is its wont. The word "migrants" sells the pass: it gives foreigners a claim to permanent residence which they do not necessarily have; it also promotes a mind-set among the population at large to that effect.
Judges, meanwhile, should note that all litigation on immigration is one-sided.
There has yet to be a judge who acts on behalf of those natives whose welfare is (and has been) harmed by immigration to the UK.
The taxpayer (mostly Englishmen) funds QUANGOS, the JCWI, and the proposed litigation.
If the Government is really serious about saving public money, it could start by abolishing the JCWI.
The media, meanwhile, could more accurately use the word "foreigners" instead of "migrants", as is its wont. The word "migrants" sells the pass: it gives foreigners a claim to permanent residence which they do not necessarily have; it also promotes a mind-set among the population at large to that effect.
Judges, meanwhile, should note that all litigation on immigration is one-sided.
There has yet to be a judge who acts on behalf of those natives whose welfare is (and has been) harmed by immigration to the UK.
Monday 6 September 2010
Selfish and Self-righteous
Of the 185,000 foreigners who were issued with Student Visas 5 years ago 21% are still in the UK, according to research undertaken by the Home Office.(BBC Radio 4"Today".) Two-fifths of those who were issued with Work Visas, which normally have a time limit, are still in the UK.
The native British have only themselves to blame.
Enabling foreigners to extend their residence here (even permanently) is big business. They even work on behalf of those who are here illegally. (See e.g. www.ukvisaexperts.co.uk, which advertises on this very blogsite!) If there is no law against them doing that, then that is remiss of the Government.
By employing notional issues framed by the moral-sounding phrase "human rights" those in the immigration industry are both selfish and self-righteous.
The native British have only themselves to blame.
Enabling foreigners to extend their residence here (even permanently) is big business. They even work on behalf of those who are here illegally. (See e.g. www.ukvisaexperts.co.uk, which advertises on this very blogsite!) If there is no law against them doing that, then that is remiss of the Government.
By employing notional issues framed by the moral-sounding phrase "human rights" those in the immigration industry are both selfish and self-righteous.
Sunday 5 September 2010
Toothache
Britain is this week celebrating the Battle of Britain, which took place 70 years ago.
Professor A.J.P. Taylor, in his Origins of the Second World War, argues that Hitler had no territorial ambitions in Western Europe; he admired Britain; and he wanted to achieve his aims in the East with the threat of war and/or with mini wars.
Britain declared war on Germany (3 September 1939) because Germany attacked Poland. But it begs the question: Why didn't Britain then declare war on the Soviet Union when she also attacked Poland a few days later?
The "miracle of Dunkirk", when 300,000 British soldiers escaped across the Channel, was not due to a blunder by Hitler. He ordered his tank commanders to stop because he wanted to make peace with Britain and France.
Britain's Foreign Secretary, Halifax, wanted to make peace, and with Prime Minister Chamberlain's resignation in May 1940 the choice of Prime Minister lay between him and Churchill. Unfortunately, Halifax had toothache!
What were the Germans supposed to do, with a country that would not make peace? (They weren't requiring Britain's surrender.)
As for the "blitz", the Luftwaffe was destroying the Royal Air Force on the ground, so Churchill ordered some bombers to bomb Berlin. Hitler took the bait, and changed targets from airfields to cities. The Luftwaffe was not pleased.
In 1945 Goering, head of the Luftwaffe, told his British captors that Germany hadn't wanted war with Britain; that though the British thought they had won a great victory they would lose their Empire.
When Britain's colonies became independent they promptly imposed travel restrictions on the British; Britain did not bring in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act until the end of June 1962.
If there are no travel restrictions the question of Marriage and Migration does not arise.
Therefore, as far as Britain and the Commonwealth is concerned, people use marriage to occupy the UK - because of a toothache!
Professor A.J.P. Taylor, in his Origins of the Second World War, argues that Hitler had no territorial ambitions in Western Europe; he admired Britain; and he wanted to achieve his aims in the East with the threat of war and/or with mini wars.
Britain declared war on Germany (3 September 1939) because Germany attacked Poland. But it begs the question: Why didn't Britain then declare war on the Soviet Union when she also attacked Poland a few days later?
The "miracle of Dunkirk", when 300,000 British soldiers escaped across the Channel, was not due to a blunder by Hitler. He ordered his tank commanders to stop because he wanted to make peace with Britain and France.
Britain's Foreign Secretary, Halifax, wanted to make peace, and with Prime Minister Chamberlain's resignation in May 1940 the choice of Prime Minister lay between him and Churchill. Unfortunately, Halifax had toothache!
What were the Germans supposed to do, with a country that would not make peace? (They weren't requiring Britain's surrender.)
As for the "blitz", the Luftwaffe was destroying the Royal Air Force on the ground, so Churchill ordered some bombers to bomb Berlin. Hitler took the bait, and changed targets from airfields to cities. The Luftwaffe was not pleased.
In 1945 Goering, head of the Luftwaffe, told his British captors that Germany hadn't wanted war with Britain; that though the British thought they had won a great victory they would lose their Empire.
When Britain's colonies became independent they promptly imposed travel restrictions on the British; Britain did not bring in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act until the end of June 1962.
If there are no travel restrictions the question of Marriage and Migration does not arise.
Therefore, as far as Britain and the Commonwealth is concerned, people use marriage to occupy the UK - because of a toothache!
Tuesday 31 August 2010
Glasshouses
The UK is signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees and the European Convention on Human Rights.
These are legal documents, but "refugee" and "human rights" are used as catchwords/phrases to promote highly subjective moral agendas.
Having two bites of the cherry is not right.
The definition of a refugee is someone who has a "well-found fear of persecution".
But very many people who aren't being persecuted but don't want to return to their own country are successful in claiming refugee status. They appeal to moral issues.
There should be no bigger "right" than to prevent other people from occupying one's territory. But Englishmen have no such "right". On 10 June 1977 I complained unsuccessfully to the European Commission of Human Rights about foreign and Commonwealth men being able to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Today's Daily Telegraph (page 18) has an article by Britain's Foreign Secretary, William Hague, headed "Human rights are key to our foreign policy".
Mr. Hague does not refer to any specific article in the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr. Hague is being vague.
He states: "We cannot have a foreign policy without a conscience.
"... We have campaigned against forced marriages and lobbied the Government of Iran over death penalty cases, women's rights and religious freedom."
The Rights of Man, advocated by Thomas Paine, has become "human rights" under the influence of Eleanor Roosevelt. "Human rights" have (supposedly) subsumed everyone's "rights". Therefore there is no such thing as "women's rights" any more than there are "men's rights".
Britain doesn't stone anyone to death, but people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.
If there is a problem with Iran it's her potential nuclear weapons capability. Britain's pretensions to moral superiority fool nobody - at least, not in Asia.
These are legal documents, but "refugee" and "human rights" are used as catchwords/phrases to promote highly subjective moral agendas.
Having two bites of the cherry is not right.
The definition of a refugee is someone who has a "well-found fear of persecution".
But very many people who aren't being persecuted but don't want to return to their own country are successful in claiming refugee status. They appeal to moral issues.
There should be no bigger "right" than to prevent other people from occupying one's territory. But Englishmen have no such "right". On 10 June 1977 I complained unsuccessfully to the European Commission of Human Rights about foreign and Commonwealth men being able to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Today's Daily Telegraph (page 18) has an article by Britain's Foreign Secretary, William Hague, headed "Human rights are key to our foreign policy".
Mr. Hague does not refer to any specific article in the European Convention on Human Rights. Mr. Hague is being vague.
He states: "We cannot have a foreign policy without a conscience.
"... We have campaigned against forced marriages and lobbied the Government of Iran over death penalty cases, women's rights and religious freedom."
The Rights of Man, advocated by Thomas Paine, has become "human rights" under the influence of Eleanor Roosevelt. "Human rights" have (supposedly) subsumed everyone's "rights". Therefore there is no such thing as "women's rights" any more than there are "men's rights".
Britain doesn't stone anyone to death, but people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones.
If there is a problem with Iran it's her potential nuclear weapons capability. Britain's pretensions to moral superiority fool nobody - at least, not in Asia.
Friday 27 August 2010
When in Trouble or in Doubt, Always give the Cook a Shout
Yesterday's news is said to be stale buns.
But there was much agonising about the Home Office's figures for 2009.
Net immigration to the UK was 196,000.
Up 35% over the previous year.
362,000 Student Visas were issued.
How many of those students will return to their own countries?
Nothing is done to prevent them staying on.
Instead, all the talk is about a cap for people applying for Working Visas....
But there was much agonising about the Home Office's figures for 2009.
Net immigration to the UK was 196,000.
Up 35% over the previous year.
362,000 Student Visas were issued.
How many of those students will return to their own countries?
Nothing is done to prevent them staying on.
Instead, all the talk is about a cap for people applying for Working Visas....
Wednesday 25 August 2010
"Daft"
Channel 4's "Dispatches" TV programme yesterday reported dreadful scenes of young people in England. They are the offspring of Pakistanis who have married their first cousins. We were told that more than three-quarters of British Pakistanis marry their first cousins. As a result of such practice over generations there is "a one in four chance" of their children being born with abnormalities.
Many of these first cousins are brought to Britain from Pakistan.
Clearly, male cousins would not be able to settle here if the Conservatives' 1979election promise to close that immigration loophole were in force.
Instead, the Conservatives are keeping their 2010 election promise to impose a "cap" on immigration.
This was described as "daft" by the Radio 4 "Today" programme interviewer on 18 August.
A journalist speaking on "Today" on 21 August said that Britain's strict privacy
laws were introduced through the judges (not Parliament).
Parliament cannot control immigration properly. Judges frequently prevent deportations.
Surely judges can introduce a control that is not "daft".
Many of these first cousins are brought to Britain from Pakistan.
Clearly, male cousins would not be able to settle here if the Conservatives' 1979election promise to close that immigration loophole were in force.
Instead, the Conservatives are keeping their 2010 election promise to impose a "cap" on immigration.
This was described as "daft" by the Radio 4 "Today" programme interviewer on 18 August.
A journalist speaking on "Today" on 21 August said that Britain's strict privacy
laws were introduced through the judges (not Parliament).
Parliament cannot control immigration properly. Judges frequently prevent deportations.
Surely judges can introduce a control that is not "daft".
Friday 30 July 2010
Religious Extremist
BBC Radio 4 "Today":-
A vicar in St. Leonards has been found guilty of officiating in 383 marriages. They were to enable people to live in the UK. (A half such marriages - or even more, I believe - would be pointless if the Conservatives had kept their 1979 election promise to end marriage as a means of living in the UK for foreign men.) The vicar's crime? Not publishing the banns of marriage.
Imran Khan, Pakistan's former cricket captain and political leader, believes the threat to the West is not from Pakistan - which has suffered terribly from supporting the West - but from Muslim nationalists in Western countries.
He's not alone.....
By 2050 77 million people are anticipated to live in the UK. (Will such a political entity exist then?) When I was a boy (60 years ago) I asked my Mum why I didn't have any brothers or sisters; she replied that Britain was over-crowded (40 million).
BBC Radio 2 "Jeremy Vine Show":-
A woman justified providing papers for a Gambian through marriage by citing his many good qualities. If she wants to be married to him there's nothing to prevent her from living with him in The Gambia. If he does work that's important to the UK he could get a work visa. (Good qualities do not qualify for work visa status - if they did, why bother with marriage? I've been told I have good qualities - but no one has told me that entitles me to live in someone else's country.)
Jeremy Vine interviewed the Reverend Rose Hudson, Chaplain to the House of Commons.
She was chosen by the Speaker of the House of Commons because as well as being a woman she is also black. Where is the Judge to say the Speaker broke the law (made in the House of Commons)?
A vicar in St. Leonards has been found guilty of officiating in 383 marriages. They were to enable people to live in the UK. (A half such marriages - or even more, I believe - would be pointless if the Conservatives had kept their 1979 election promise to end marriage as a means of living in the UK for foreign men.) The vicar's crime? Not publishing the banns of marriage.
Imran Khan, Pakistan's former cricket captain and political leader, believes the threat to the West is not from Pakistan - which has suffered terribly from supporting the West - but from Muslim nationalists in Western countries.
He's not alone.....
By 2050 77 million people are anticipated to live in the UK. (Will such a political entity exist then?) When I was a boy (60 years ago) I asked my Mum why I didn't have any brothers or sisters; she replied that Britain was over-crowded (40 million).
BBC Radio 2 "Jeremy Vine Show":-
A woman justified providing papers for a Gambian through marriage by citing his many good qualities. If she wants to be married to him there's nothing to prevent her from living with him in The Gambia. If he does work that's important to the UK he could get a work visa. (Good qualities do not qualify for work visa status - if they did, why bother with marriage? I've been told I have good qualities - but no one has told me that entitles me to live in someone else's country.)
Jeremy Vine interviewed the Reverend Rose Hudson, Chaplain to the House of Commons.
She was chosen by the Speaker of the House of Commons because as well as being a woman she is also black. Where is the Judge to say the Speaker broke the law (made in the House of Commons)?
Wednesday 28 July 2010
Flexible Cap
Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron, on a visit to India, was questioned on BBC Radio 4 "Today" about his immigration cap being "flexible" (and also subject to consultation with the Indian Government).
He soon resorted to expressing the need to clamp down on bogus students!
That is a clear admission that his cap is not the answer to the UK's immigration problems (or "issues", as they are called).
Having been issued visas and allowed entry, foreign and Commonwealth people like it so much here they don't want to return to their own countries......
What they do is find someone to marry......
In the run-up to the General Election in May 2010 there was a debate on Channel 4 between the 3 MPs primarily concerned with immigration, in which the then Immigration Minister Phil Woolas claimed that 60,000 people had been deported over the past year. The Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne (now Energy Minister) revealed this to be misleading - since 30,000 hadn't been deported; they had been denied entry.
Maybe most who had been denied entry would concede it was "a fair cop", but there were surely others (like my pen friend in 1965 and my girl friend in 1978) who felt (and maybe still feel) shocked and depressed by the miserable experience of making a long and expensive (return) journey all for nothing.
P.S. At about 1235 Emma rang in to BBC Radio 2's "Jeremy Vine Show" to say how hard it was to get a work visa for India. She works in Goa (which was a Portuguese colony until 1960). "They don't want us there," she said. "It's extremely hard to live there."
He soon resorted to expressing the need to clamp down on bogus students!
That is a clear admission that his cap is not the answer to the UK's immigration problems (or "issues", as they are called).
Having been issued visas and allowed entry, foreign and Commonwealth people like it so much here they don't want to return to their own countries......
What they do is find someone to marry......
In the run-up to the General Election in May 2010 there was a debate on Channel 4 between the 3 MPs primarily concerned with immigration, in which the then Immigration Minister Phil Woolas claimed that 60,000 people had been deported over the past year. The Liberal Democrat Chris Huhne (now Energy Minister) revealed this to be misleading - since 30,000 hadn't been deported; they had been denied entry.
Maybe most who had been denied entry would concede it was "a fair cop", but there were surely others (like my pen friend in 1965 and my girl friend in 1978) who felt (and maybe still feel) shocked and depressed by the miserable experience of making a long and expensive (return) journey all for nothing.
P.S. At about 1235 Emma rang in to BBC Radio 2's "Jeremy Vine Show" to say how hard it was to get a work visa for India. She works in Goa (which was a Portuguese colony until 1960). "They don't want us there," she said. "It's extremely hard to live there."
Tuesday 20 July 2010
Exposing Rights
An international conference opens today in Kabul.
It provoked much discussion - including an interview with Britain's Foreign Secretary, William Hague - on BBC Radio 4's "Today".
But there was no mention of Al-Qaeda! Whose presence was the reason for NATO's intervention.
Britain wants to talk to the Taliban. But Hilary Clinton doesn't - because of "women's rights".
322 British troops have died in Afghanistan. (And many more wounded.)
"Everyone's right to life" is protected under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It provoked much discussion - including an interview with Britain's Foreign Secretary, William Hague - on BBC Radio 4's "Today".
But there was no mention of Al-Qaeda! Whose presence was the reason for NATO's intervention.
Britain wants to talk to the Taliban. But Hilary Clinton doesn't - because of "women's rights".
322 British troops have died in Afghanistan. (And many more wounded.)
"Everyone's right to life" is protected under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Sunday 18 July 2010
Cultural Relativism
Sunday. The Church of England has just voted in favour of women bishops. The Pope is strongly against the ordination of women. He is vexed by Cultural Relativism; according to which, what is thought to be good in one society does not necessarily hold true in another.
This blogsite argues that irrespective of whether British men can live in other countries through marriage - they can't in Indonesia, for example - that is no good reason why men (from outside the European Union) can use marriage as a means to live and work in the UK.
Comparing China with the UK is like comparing chalk and cheese.
Even suppose 9,000 British students went to China this year - and stayed there permanently - they would be insignificant in comparison with China's overall population.
The Sunday Express reportedly has an article about wreaths for British war victims being made in China.
Today's radio News reports that four British servicemen have just been killed in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, every working day, women with a right to permanent residence in the UK are enabling foreign and Commonwealth men to occupy the UK.
Some Englishwomen are proud that England is the home of feminism, and derive inspiration from struggles of 100 years ago.
But History and Cultural Relativism are also natural bedfellows.........
This blogsite argues that irrespective of whether British men can live in other countries through marriage - they can't in Indonesia, for example - that is no good reason why men (from outside the European Union) can use marriage as a means to live and work in the UK.
Comparing China with the UK is like comparing chalk and cheese.
Even suppose 9,000 British students went to China this year - and stayed there permanently - they would be insignificant in comparison with China's overall population.
The Sunday Express reportedly has an article about wreaths for British war victims being made in China.
Today's radio News reports that four British servicemen have just been killed in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, every working day, women with a right to permanent residence in the UK are enabling foreign and Commonwealth men to occupy the UK.
Some Englishwomen are proud that England is the home of feminism, and derive inspiration from struggles of 100 years ago.
But History and Cultural Relativism are also natural bedfellows.........
Friday 16 July 2010
Students on a Roll
9,000 Chinese students have applied for university places in the UK. (BBC Radio 4 "Today".) A record number of applications to enter UK universities have been made.
There is nothing to prevent students from outside the EU from taking up permanent residence in the UK.
The obvious method is by finding someone to marry.
It is natural that most foreign students are male.
The last time I was at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London the women's toilet had been moved to the Ground Floor and the men's to the First Floor. Though the Bar, occupied mostly by men, was still on the Ground Floor.
The only Member of Parliament to oppose women-only short-lists for parliamentary candidates was Ann Widdecombe. She asked: "Why do you men roll over?"
If Parliament won't end the concession to foreign men whereby they can live and work in the UK through marriage, then, in the interests of fairness, it should not be beyond the remit of a (female) Judge......
There is nothing to prevent students from outside the EU from taking up permanent residence in the UK.
The obvious method is by finding someone to marry.
It is natural that most foreign students are male.
The last time I was at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London the women's toilet had been moved to the Ground Floor and the men's to the First Floor. Though the Bar, occupied mostly by men, was still on the Ground Floor.
The only Member of Parliament to oppose women-only short-lists for parliamentary candidates was Ann Widdecombe. She asked: "Why do you men roll over?"
If Parliament won't end the concession to foreign men whereby they can live and work in the UK through marriage, then, in the interests of fairness, it should not be beyond the remit of a (female) Judge......
Monday 12 July 2010
Up (Down?) to the judges
BBC Radio 4 yesterday had a programme ("File on Four") that exposed the ease with which foreigners can obtain false papers and National Insurance numbers to enable illegals to work in the UK.
People working illegally feel that since they pay taxes they're not doing anything wrong.
More than one-third of the Chinese in London's Chinatown are thought to be working there illegally.
Immigration control was (next to the economy) the most important concern for voters at the May 2010 General Election.
Now the election's over............
........So it's up to the judges......
After all, balance is a symbol of justice.
So it's long overdue for them to act on behalf of the exploited indigenous population.
People working illegally feel that since they pay taxes they're not doing anything wrong.
More than one-third of the Chinese in London's Chinatown are thought to be working there illegally.
Immigration control was (next to the economy) the most important concern for voters at the May 2010 General Election.
Now the election's over............
........So it's up to the judges......
After all, balance is a symbol of justice.
So it's long overdue for them to act on behalf of the exploited indigenous population.
Friday 9 July 2010
Conflict Reports
BBC Radio 2 News reports that the previous (Labor) Government's attempt to prevent foreigners from coming to the UK on bogus student visas has been declared to be unlawful by a judge.
This means that one man (whose decision may depend on what side of the bed he got out of) can defeat democracy.
Why bother with elections?
Who paid the judge?
What a way to earn a living!
(It doesn't bear singing about.)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Where's the judicial process that prosecutes a Government for issuing visas for false purposes?
(The News also said that yet another British serviceman has just been killed in Afghanistan.)
This means that one man (whose decision may depend on what side of the bed he got out of) can defeat democracy.
Why bother with elections?
Who paid the judge?
What a way to earn a living!
(It doesn't bear singing about.)
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Where's the judicial process that prosecutes a Government for issuing visas for false purposes?
(The News also said that yet another British serviceman has just been killed in Afghanistan.)
Saturday 26 June 2010
Dunce's Cap
The details have been announced today (BBC Radio 4 News) of the Government's cap to immigration from non-EU countries. Work visas will be restricted to a little more than 24,000 between now and next April. This will reduce the number of work visas issued by 5%.
Either the visas are necessary or they're not.
If they're necessary there shouldn't be any cap.
If they're not, they shouldn't be issued.
What happens if the Americans take over BP after the cap is imposed? They don't get visas?
If the issue of immigration to the UK is to be taken seriously, the obvious loophole to close is the one by which foreign men can live here through marriage even though they don't have a job.
Foreign husbands could still live here if they have a necessary job.
Either the visas are necessary or they're not.
If they're necessary there shouldn't be any cap.
If they're not, they shouldn't be issued.
What happens if the Americans take over BP after the cap is imposed? They don't get visas?
If the issue of immigration to the UK is to be taken seriously, the obvious loophole to close is the one by which foreign men can live here through marriage even though they don't have a job.
Foreign husbands could still live here if they have a necessary job.
Thursday 17 June 2010
The State of Britain - Hands, Feet, Chickens, Roll Over & (Cream)
100 years ago some women in Britain were enjoying (as Mrs. Pankhurst said) the fight for the parliamentary vote.
When the other war came, Mrs. Humphry Ward opposed the proposed transfer of power from one sex to the other (letter in The Times 23 May 1917). She believed it would result in the collapse of the British Empire and bring women into conflict with men - the final outcome of which was in doubt.
With the collapse of the British Empire, the boot of power is on the other foot globally and in the hands of women domestically.
Chickens are coming home to roost.
Following the Second World War these (mostly) took the form of young men from the Indian sub-Continent and the Caribbean coming to these islands.
In May 1979 Mrs. Thatcher was elected to control the controls. Specifically, to end the concession to men through marriage.
This was vigorously opposed by the National Council for Civil Liberties whose General Secretary, Patricia Hewitt (Minister for Women in the last Government), ascribed her success as inevitable as women winning the right to vote and described it as her "most satisfying achievement".
Yesterday the Director of Liberty, as the NCCL is now called, Shami Chakrabarti, won a debate organised by BBC Radio 4's "Woman's Hour". She had proposed Mrs. Pankhurst as the woman who had done most for women in politics.
Back in 1979 I had thought there's not much point in men having the vote.
There can be no doubt about the outcome if native British men roll over.
(The cream are wasted in Afghanistan. [And were in France and Belgium.])
When the other war came, Mrs. Humphry Ward opposed the proposed transfer of power from one sex to the other (letter in The Times 23 May 1917). She believed it would result in the collapse of the British Empire and bring women into conflict with men - the final outcome of which was in doubt.
With the collapse of the British Empire, the boot of power is on the other foot globally and in the hands of women domestically.
Chickens are coming home to roost.
Following the Second World War these (mostly) took the form of young men from the Indian sub-Continent and the Caribbean coming to these islands.
In May 1979 Mrs. Thatcher was elected to control the controls. Specifically, to end the concession to men through marriage.
This was vigorously opposed by the National Council for Civil Liberties whose General Secretary, Patricia Hewitt (Minister for Women in the last Government), ascribed her success as inevitable as women winning the right to vote and described it as her "most satisfying achievement".
Yesterday the Director of Liberty, as the NCCL is now called, Shami Chakrabarti, won a debate organised by BBC Radio 4's "Woman's Hour". She had proposed Mrs. Pankhurst as the woman who had done most for women in politics.
Back in 1979 I had thought there's not much point in men having the vote.
There can be no doubt about the outcome if native British men roll over.
(The cream are wasted in Afghanistan. [And were in France and Belgium.])
Wednesday 9 June 2010
Relationships
BBC Radio 4's "Today" reports that the Government will introduce English language tests for people applying for visas to marry someone in Britain.
38,000 such visas were issued last year.
The language tests are expected to reduce that by 10%.
A reduction of 50% (or more) could be achieved at a stroke by implementing the Conservatives' 1979 General Election promise (subsequently broken) to prevent foreign and Commonwealth men from using marriage as a means of taking up permanent residence in the UK.
Naturally, that 38,000 is not the end of the matter. They will have children........
Also, The Daily Telegraph reported (3 June, page 11) that 273,445 foreign students were given visas in 2009, a rise of 30% over the previous year. Those students are entitled to work, and they can acquire permanent residence in the UK through marriage. And, by law, like those who have come here for marriage, they are entitled to compete on "equal" terms with native Britons for work and promotion. This, despite the UK having 2.47 million unemployed.
In a separate item on "Today" Lord Prescott argued forcefully that gardens should be built on to provide homes - because of shortage of space...... (So much for "England's green and pleasant land".)
Meanwhile, British soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan with increasing frequency. Today's was with the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment......
38,000 such visas were issued last year.
The language tests are expected to reduce that by 10%.
A reduction of 50% (or more) could be achieved at a stroke by implementing the Conservatives' 1979 General Election promise (subsequently broken) to prevent foreign and Commonwealth men from using marriage as a means of taking up permanent residence in the UK.
Naturally, that 38,000 is not the end of the matter. They will have children........
Also, The Daily Telegraph reported (3 June, page 11) that 273,445 foreign students were given visas in 2009, a rise of 30% over the previous year. Those students are entitled to work, and they can acquire permanent residence in the UK through marriage. And, by law, like those who have come here for marriage, they are entitled to compete on "equal" terms with native Britons for work and promotion. This, despite the UK having 2.47 million unemployed.
In a separate item on "Today" Lord Prescott argued forcefully that gardens should be built on to provide homes - because of shortage of space...... (So much for "England's green and pleasant land".)
Meanwhile, British soldiers are being killed in Afghanistan with increasing frequency. Today's was with the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment......
Tuesday 1 June 2010
Tale of Two Tragedies
The British Government cannot cap non-European Union migration to the UK any more than BP can cap that wretched leak in the Gulf of Mexico.
What it could do - if it had the will - is restrict foreigners who come to the UK on a temporary basis from becoming permanent residents.
The obvious means by which single people achieve this is by finding someone to marry.
It is primarily young men who have the urge to explore and to occupy other peoples' territory.
For years people from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe (and elsewhere) have been flocking to Calais (sans papiers but with much determination) and other Channel ports so as to live in Britain. They are all young men and boys.....
Women's role is vital - men and women are "Each useless without the other" ("Hiawatha") - but it is natural for women to be homemakers, rather than enablers of young men's predatory ambitions.
England and Wales were occupied by the Romans for 367 years. The Roman legions withdrew 1,600 years ago, in 410 AD.
The present occupation of these islands by young men from outside the EU is a cause of much unhappiness.
Forget that particular cap.
Plug the leaks.
Both of 'em.
What it could do - if it had the will - is restrict foreigners who come to the UK on a temporary basis from becoming permanent residents.
The obvious means by which single people achieve this is by finding someone to marry.
It is primarily young men who have the urge to explore and to occupy other peoples' territory.
For years people from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe (and elsewhere) have been flocking to Calais (sans papiers but with much determination) and other Channel ports so as to live in Britain. They are all young men and boys.....
Women's role is vital - men and women are "Each useless without the other" ("Hiawatha") - but it is natural for women to be homemakers, rather than enablers of young men's predatory ambitions.
England and Wales were occupied by the Romans for 367 years. The Roman legions withdrew 1,600 years ago, in 410 AD.
The present occupation of these islands by young men from outside the EU is a cause of much unhappiness.
Forget that particular cap.
Plug the leaks.
Both of 'em.
Friday 28 May 2010
Thursday 27 May 2010
Queen's English
The Queen opened Parliament on 25 May with a speech on the new Government's policies:
"In the long term we should up-skill British workers so that we do not need as many economic migrants to fill jobs."
"up-skill" = improve the skills of
"migrants" = foreigners
If people go to another country to work, the usual procedure is for them to have work visas which have a time limit.
That does not make them migrants.
To call them migrants up-steps their potential claim to permanent residence.
"In the long term we should up-skill British workers so that we do not need as many economic migrants to fill jobs."
"up-skill" = improve the skills of
"migrants" = foreigners
If people go to another country to work, the usual procedure is for them to have work visas which have a time limit.
That does not make them migrants.
To call them migrants up-steps their potential claim to permanent residence.
Wednesday 12 May 2010
Equality for All (not a Sop of a Cap)
Britain has a new Home Secretary, Theresa May. She is also Minister for Women and Equality.
For there to be Equality, there has to be a Minister for Men.
If only there was one, doubtless he would oppose the present law that allows foreign men to take up permanent residence in the UK through the simple expedience of marriage. The law also allows him to compete with native British men for work and promotion on equal terms.
Naturally for every foreign man who benefits, there is a native British man who loses out.
It is pointless the new Government talking about caps on immigration (as a sop to fool the electorate) while this long-standing systemic inequality continues.
For there to be Equality, there has to be a Minister for Men.
If only there was one, doubtless he would oppose the present law that allows foreign men to take up permanent residence in the UK through the simple expedience of marriage. The law also allows him to compete with native British men for work and promotion on equal terms.
Naturally for every foreign man who benefits, there is a native British man who loses out.
It is pointless the new Government talking about caps on immigration (as a sop to fool the electorate) while this long-standing systemic inequality continues.
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Illogical
"You cannot stop illegal immigration."
Thus the justification by a prominent Liberal Democrat supporter for her party's policy to have an amnesty for people who are in the UK illegally. (BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show, today.)
But you need not have a policy that encourages it. You can try to discourage it and prevent it.
There is no need to give greater consideration to those who break the law than those who abide by it. Which is what an amnesty means.
Besides, it contravenes one of the three pillars of the European Union - which are democracy, human rights and the rule of law. If one pillar goes, the other two are worthless.
Thus the justification by a prominent Liberal Democrat supporter for her party's policy to have an amnesty for people who are in the UK illegally. (BBC Radio 2 Jeremy Vine Show, today.)
But you need not have a policy that encourages it. You can try to discourage it and prevent it.
There is no need to give greater consideration to those who break the law than those who abide by it. Which is what an amnesty means.
Besides, it contravenes one of the three pillars of the European Union - which are democracy, human rights and the rule of law. If one pillar goes, the other two are worthless.
Tuesday 4 May 2010
"Dishonest" (As if we didn't know)
"... Labour and the Conservatives are being dishonest with you. They've been running secret amnesties...."
That being so, it's for sure foreigners know it.
The Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg was speaking on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show today about his party's policy to give an amnesty to people who are in the UK illegally.
Nothing (except perhaps control) is more important than the occupation of territory.
The Leaders of all three main parties (and Mrs. Thatcher) deserve to be in the Tower of London.
(Labour gave amnesties in 1975.)
That being so, it's for sure foreigners know it.
The Liberal Democrat Leader Nick Clegg was speaking on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine Show today about his party's policy to give an amnesty to people who are in the UK illegally.
Nothing (except perhaps control) is more important than the occupation of territory.
The Leaders of all three main parties (and Mrs. Thatcher) deserve to be in the Tower of London.
(Labour gave amnesties in 1975.)
Monday 3 May 2010
Shanghaied!
All three Leaders in the Leaders Debates on TV prior to Britain's General Election on 6 May were in agreement that the UK's immigration controls need to be tightened.
The Liberal Democrat Leader used the words "chaos" and "shambolic" to describe the situation. He also wants illegals to become legitimised as British citizens. (!)
The Conservative Leader wants a cap. But he won't give a figure or explain how it would work.
The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said a points system has recently been installed. His party's Government has been in power for 13 years. If a points system is the answer, why wasn't it done earlier?
All three studiously ignored the ongoing practice of people coming to the UK for limited periods and subsequently being entitled to permanent residence. Marriage is the obvious and major example. Then they have children....
Professor Fred Halliday of the London School of Economics has just died. In one of his books he states categorically that the entire population of China is legally entitled to residence in the Home Counties. This, he states, is because their human rights are infringed because China is not a democracy. (!)
The chaos and shambles that are the result of Britain's democracy are self-inflicted and (partly) due to deceit by politicians. In particular, Mrs. Thatcher did not keep her 1979 election promise to end the "concession" to foreign men that enables them to live in the UK through marriage.
So all British citizens should have the "right" to live in China.
The Liberal Democrat Leader used the words "chaos" and "shambolic" to describe the situation. He also wants illegals to become legitimised as British citizens. (!)
The Conservative Leader wants a cap. But he won't give a figure or explain how it would work.
The Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, said a points system has recently been installed. His party's Government has been in power for 13 years. If a points system is the answer, why wasn't it done earlier?
All three studiously ignored the ongoing practice of people coming to the UK for limited periods and subsequently being entitled to permanent residence. Marriage is the obvious and major example. Then they have children....
Professor Fred Halliday of the London School of Economics has just died. In one of his books he states categorically that the entire population of China is legally entitled to residence in the Home Counties. This, he states, is because their human rights are infringed because China is not a democracy. (!)
The chaos and shambles that are the result of Britain's democracy are self-inflicted and (partly) due to deceit by politicians. In particular, Mrs. Thatcher did not keep her 1979 election promise to end the "concession" to foreign men that enables them to live in the UK through marriage.
So all British citizens should have the "right" to live in China.
Thursday 1 April 2010
That says it all!
"The right to a family life is not the same as the right to a family life in the United Kingdom."
So said the Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, refering to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (BBC Radio 4 "Today", yesterday.
That's what I've been saying all along.
Mr. Woolas was talking about a convicted Congolese rapist who was planning to marry in order to avoid deportation. Mr. Woolas evaded the question: Why was it he wasn't immediately deported on being released from prison?
Now on that point the Home Office really does lack wisdom, as E.T. said (see previous blog). In other words, April Fools.
So said the Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, refering to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (BBC Radio 4 "Today", yesterday.
That's what I've been saying all along.
Mr. Woolas was talking about a convicted Congolese rapist who was planning to marry in order to avoid deportation. Mr. Woolas evaded the question: Why was it he wasn't immediately deported on being released from prison?
Now on that point the Home Office really does lack wisdom, as E.T. said (see previous blog). In other words, April Fools.
Sunday 28 March 2010
"No Man is an Island"
The actress Emma Thompson supports the Refugee Council, and considers the Home Office stupid. (BBC Radio 4, Desert Island Discs, today.)
She is grateful to a judge who overrode a Home Office decision to return a "refugee" to his own country.
The Home Office is not stupid for wanting to return to their own countries people who exploit a (Cold War) Convention concerning political persecution to enable them to circumvent normal immigration controls.
Immigration officials are in an impossible position if controls are out of control. And they are not in control when there is a thriving industry (lawyers, NGOs, etc.) in opposition to them.
This confused and selfish situation is exacerbated by marriage. We are told it is in decline in the UK, but is increasingly used for immigration purposes. It is one thing for women to be able to live abroad through marriage; that is no normative reason for men to be able to occupy other peoples' territory through marriage.
These are not just academic issues. Much unhappiness ensues.
She is grateful to a judge who overrode a Home Office decision to return a "refugee" to his own country.
The Home Office is not stupid for wanting to return to their own countries people who exploit a (Cold War) Convention concerning political persecution to enable them to circumvent normal immigration controls.
Immigration officials are in an impossible position if controls are out of control. And they are not in control when there is a thriving industry (lawyers, NGOs, etc.) in opposition to them.
This confused and selfish situation is exacerbated by marriage. We are told it is in decline in the UK, but is increasingly used for immigration purposes. It is one thing for women to be able to live abroad through marriage; that is no normative reason for men to be able to occupy other peoples' territory through marriage.
These are not just academic issues. Much unhappiness ensues.
Wednesday 10 March 2010
Renegades
Migration Watch (http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/BriefingPaper/document/128) gives the number of men from India, Pakistan and Bangla Desh who came to Britain for marriage in 2003 as 5,534.
The reason they were able to do this is because Mrs. Thatcher reneged on her election promise of 1979 to restrict immigration to the UK: "We shall end the concession introduced by the Labour government in 1974 to husbands and male fiances."
One reason she reneged is because the European Commission of Human Rights declared
(13 May 1982) the case of 3 women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK to be admissible.
There is no mention of migration in the European Convention of Human Rights. So there is no legal reason for the EHCR's decision.
I had earlier (10 June 1977) attempted to pre-empt the issue by complaining to the ECHR that the British Government allows foreign and Commonwealth men to live in the UK through marriage even though I (and other Englishmen) often cannot live in their countries through marriage.
The ECHR's justification was "discrimination". But, by taking this stance, the ECHR supports inequality . One reason is that, through this stance, people in transnational marriages have the facility to live in two countries, whereas people in uni-national marriages (outside the European Union), as well as single people, do not have this option.
Furthermore, 255 British servicemen died in and around the Falkland Islands in 1982, and a similar number have recently died in Iraq and Afghanistan. While they were endangering themselves (and their parents grieving), foreign and Commonwealth men were (and are) taking advantage of the Conservative Government's failure to keep their promise of some 30 years ago.
Equality?.......
The reason they were able to do this is because Mrs. Thatcher reneged on her election promise of 1979 to restrict immigration to the UK: "We shall end the concession introduced by the Labour government in 1974 to husbands and male fiances."
One reason she reneged is because the European Commission of Human Rights declared
(13 May 1982) the case of 3 women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK to be admissible.
There is no mention of migration in the European Convention of Human Rights. So there is no legal reason for the EHCR's decision.
I had earlier (10 June 1977) attempted to pre-empt the issue by complaining to the ECHR that the British Government allows foreign and Commonwealth men to live in the UK through marriage even though I (and other Englishmen) often cannot live in their countries through marriage.
The ECHR's justification was "discrimination". But, by taking this stance, the ECHR supports inequality . One reason is that, through this stance, people in transnational marriages have the facility to live in two countries, whereas people in uni-national marriages (outside the European Union), as well as single people, do not have this option.
Furthermore, 255 British servicemen died in and around the Falkland Islands in 1982, and a similar number have recently died in Iraq and Afghanistan. While they were endangering themselves (and their parents grieving), foreign and Commonwealth men were (and are) taking advantage of the Conservative Government's failure to keep their promise of some 30 years ago.
Equality?.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
