Public Opinion

Goering told his British captors in 1945 something like: "We never wanted war with you. It's true we wanted war. But with the Bolsheviks. You'll find they're now your enemy. And they are stronger now than before. You think you've gained a great victory. But you will lose your great empire." The historian A.J.P. Taylor argued back in 1961 that Britain made a big mistake in declaring war on Germany on 3 September 1939. Hitler had no territorial designs on Western Europe; and he admired Britain. Taylor tells us Britain's Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was a man of peace but he was under pressure from members of his own Cabinet and from public opinion. If there was such concern about Germany invading Poland it begs the question: Why not also declare war on the Soviet Union which a couple of weeks later also invaded Poland?

British Enterprise

In 1942 no ship did more to win the war in the Pacific than the American aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (at Midway and Guadalcanal). In 2016 there is much anxiety that Southern England is wide open to illegal migration because of a shortage of ships to patrol the coastline. So what is HMS Enterprise doing? She is in the Med., officially combatting people traffickers but in fact helping them by bringing more people (mainly young men) illegally to Europe.

Ever Been Had?!

A quarter of a million people are in Libya waiting to come to Europe. 10,000 have been picked up by warships and coastguard vessels in the past 3 days and taken to Italy. But we're told the purpose of these ships is to defeat the people traffickers! Instead, they are doing their work for them! And, of course, this encourages others who want to come to Europe to head for Libyan ports. Col. Gaddafi had an arrangement with the Italians to take back illegals. Britain and France helped depose Gaddafi and kill him. People traffickers provide a service. Just as immigration lawyers do. Politicians denounce the traffickers. So why don't they denounce the lawyers? Unlike people traffickers, immigration advisory services are directly funded by the poor British taxpayer! While traffickers are ... well, in part, they're indirectly funded by the poor British taxpayer (who funds the Royal Navy).

France, home to the Sorbonne & rational thought

Britain's new Home Secretary Amber Rudd is in Paris tomorrow to discuss the jungle at Calais where 9,000 people, almost all young men, are trying to enter England illegally. If they succeed, they are never sent back to France. If, on arrival, they were immediately deported the jungle would soon close. Every year 30,000 people are refused entry to the UK. (Chris Huhne's 2010 figure.) My Japanese girl friend and I were sent back to France on 12 August 1979. Please see this blog's "Inhuman Wrongs" in 2008. If the people at Calais were granted asylum in France they would then be able to buy a ticket and come to the UK. Anyway, what's wrong with France? England's King Henry V liked it so much he wanted all of it (according to Shakespeare).

What we need is Will

Nothing is more important than the occupation of territory. But a judge dismissed my case about not being able to live in Hong Kong as "frivolous", and he didn't give me the chance to refute it. Please see "Sauce for the Gander" in 2013, my Comments at the end. And the European Commission of Human Rights dismissed my 1977 complaint about foreign men being able to live in the UK through marriage even though I (and other British men) often cannot live in their countries through marriage. The reason given was that I hadn't been the victim of a decision by a Government body. Today (BBC Radio 4 "World at One") we are told that a foreign criminal used the European Convention on Human Rights to prevent his deportation from the UK because he has a girl friend here; another was also prevented from being deported because he once had a cat. (!) The legal expert said that the Prime Minister, who had 6 years of experience as Home Secretary, could see no way to prevent such rulings in the future. As Shakespeare said, Where there's a Will there's a Way.

Corollary (a challenging word for Japanese to say)

One reason Prime Minister Lloyd George changed his mind in 1917 about extending the parliamentary vote to women was that because of the slaughter taking place among young men it would be impossible for many young British women to get married. That is no longer the case. What it would have been impossible for him or anyone else to imagine is that empowering women has brought about a surplus of young men in the UK. But that is what has happened. This is because of the successful feminist campaign to defeat the Conservatives' 1979 election manifesto policy to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. The corollary of "rights" is responsibilities. I am grateful to the many women who have expressed support for my epetition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/129594

An Abnormal British Muddle (incl. lavatory humour)

The Council of Europe (home to European human rights) stated in its literature that the international community has long-recognised the privileged position of women in transnational (non-EU) marriages. This is because they can live in their husband's country as well as their own. Patricia Hewitt, long before becoming Tony Blair's Equality Minister, wrote that just as women had won the struggle for the parliamentary vote so they would defeat the Conservatives' 1979 election manifesto policy to stop foreign men using marriage to live in the UK. The comparison is just, though the result isn't. An energetic and determined campaign led to Mrs. Thatcher's Government not keeping its promise. Instead a policy was adopted of making it harder for foreign wives to live in the UK ("The Times", 29 May 1985, page 1.) For example, an income of at least £18,600 a year is required; and if the wife lives abroad for a certain time she loses her "Indefinite Leave to Remain". This latter is a disincentive to leave the UK, bearing in mind that if the husband dies she can only be in the UK as a tourist even if her only home is here. While it is normal for a woman to live in her husband's country, the UK is abnormal in preventing them from doing so. The UK is also abnormal in that, because of "equality" laws, foreign wives are entitled to deprive British men of work and promotion both because they are foreign and female. It would make more sense if foreign wives who leave their husbands lost their "Indefinite Leave to Remain" status. But to do that requires ID cards. And Britain's experiment with ID cards was that they should be voluntary (!) not compulsory. No wonder David Cameron abandoned the scheme. Besides, if children are involved the wives can shelter behind them. In c.1970 I knew an Englishman with a Japanese wife. They were not speaking to each other. And were in a battle for the house. She had just had a baby. I don't know the outcome. But it can be imagined. The introduction of the Commonwealth Immigration Act was deliberately delayed till June 1962 to enable as many people who wanted to to come here. The result was a rush of young men. In November 1962 the Japanese were no longer required to have visas to come to the UK. I thought: Britain is going in two different directions at once; making it harder for Commonwealth citizens to come here and making it easier for the Japanese. In 1967 I lobbied my Conservative MP about immigration. "But they fought for us during the war," he said with a smile. "Times have changed since then." He became hostile. A few years later he was made a lord. In 1975 on Radio 4s "Any Questions?" the first question was "This being International Women's Year what would the panel like to see?" The Presenter turned first to Germaine Greer. After much thought she replied: "I'd like to see a man clean the lavatory." (Much laughter ensued.) Greer, like Hewitt, is Australian. The novelist Mrs. Humphry Ward, also Australian, wrote in a Letter to "The Times", 23 May 1917, that it was an outrage that a rump Parliament extend the vote to women at such a time. 1975 was the year of the Sex Discrimination Act which governed the Equal Opportunities Commission. The EOC was a major campaigner in the struggle against the Conservatives' 1979 policy to stop foreign men living in the UK through marriage. But on 7 July 1983 the House of Lords determined the SDA did not apply to immigration control. Therefore the EOC spent public money illegally. Please see "How we got here" in this blog on 17 April 2016. Thanks!