Renewed plea

BBC Radio 4's "Crossing Continents" programme this morning said that for every 100 girls born in China there are 118 boys, and that by 2020 there will be 24 million young men in China unable to marry. If I were one of those young men I'd come to Britain and find someone to marry. To help prevent that, and for the welfare of these islands, please sign my epetition to the Home Office at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/54412. Many thanks to anyone who does ....

Reborn!

My third e-petition to the Home Office has been published today. Please sign "Close Immigration Loophole" at http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/54412. Many thanks to anyone who does.

Expired!

My epetition to the Home Office "No to 10,000" expired today. It read: "About 10,000 foreign and Commonwealth men anually were using marriage as a means to live and work in the UK in 1979, when the newly-elected Conservative Government promised to end this concession. It did not. As a result, some 300,000 men live in these islands through having found someone to marry. The e-petition calls on the present Coalition Government to close this loophole." My epetition totalled 76 signatures. Meanwhile the epetition about keeping out Romanians and Bulgarians continues to grow apace. It now has 150,379 signatures.

Peculiar People

Migration Watch's epetition to Britain's Home Office last year - "No to 70 Million" - was signed by 145,533 people. It had no specific suggestion as to what could and should be done to curb migration to these islands. So it achieved absolutely nothing! My epetition "No to 10,000" - which absolutely is specific - has only 65 signatures. Why do great numbers of people sign when there is no specific action that politicians are required to take? There is currently an epetition "Stop mass migration from Bulgarian and Romanians in 2014, when EU restrictions are relaxed". It has 149,138 signatures. It acquired the necessary 100,000 signatures months ago. It elicited an official response on 22 April 2013: "Continuing the controls beyond the end of this year is not possible because of the terms of the Accession Treaties agreed under the previous Government". Even so, many people continue to sign it! Most peculiar. I have frequently drawn attention to my epetition through comments on Huffington Post. As a result, some people have signed it. One criticised me for not giving it enough publicity. (I sent more than 100 Letters to the Editor drawing attention to my epetition; not one, as far as I know, was ever published.) Two gave the following reason for not signing: it has no chance of getting the required 100,000 signatures. One wouldn't sign because of the unfairness whereby he is required to have an annual income of at least £18,600 in order for him to live in the UK with a foreign (non-EU) wife, while men from other EU countries do not have to prove they have an income in order to live here with their foreign (non-EU) wives! I wrote back that it is a scandal, and informed him that constraints on British men having foreign (non-EU) wives is a direct result of the European Court of Human Rights' decision that foreign men be allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage ("The Times, 29 May 1985, page 1).

Small Island has "Bought the Farm" (Self-inflicted)

BBC Radio 4's "Farming Today This Week" tells of 2,500 houses to be built on farm land near Yeovil. This is despite strong local opposition, and much of Somerset being flooded. The Housing Minister says it is necessary. We all know why it is "necessary" - over-population. Please sign my epetition to the Home Office that addresses this: http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/37853 Thanks!

Sauce for the Gander

The President of the Supreme Court, Lord Neuberger, is currently at odds with the Home Secretary. (BBC Radio 4 "Law in Action", 7 March.) The latter wants to deport foreign criminals. Judges prevent this, citing the European Convention on Human Rights. I am firmly convinced that, if judges rather than politicians can determine who lives in the UK, a judge could, and should, support my case - my epetition to the Home Office - that (non-EU) foreign men should not be able to use marriage as a means to live and work in the UK. It is clearly unjust that: 1) People in such transnational marriages are privileged compared with people who are not - because they have a choice of two countries in which to live; 2) These foreign husbands are entitled - because of "equality" laws - to compete with, and deprive, British men of work and promotion; 3) Foreign men can occupy the UK while British men cannot occupy their countries. Human rights as promulgated following the Second World War was intended to protect minority communities, not enable people to become minorities. (Native English are now a minority in London.) Besides, there is nothing in the European Convention about immigration control. Therefore the judges are acting neither in accordance with the spirit nor the letter of the Convention. The Equal Opportunities Commission campaigned vigorously and successfully against the Conservative Party's 1979 election promise to end this concession about foreign men being allowed to live in the UK through marriage. However, the House of Lords determined on 7 July 1983 that the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 did not apply to immigration control. That Act set up the EOC, which, it can be concluded, acted illegally. 1975 was International Women's Year. There has never been an International Men's Year. Today is International Women's Day. There is no International Men's Day....