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.
Monday, 25 October 2010
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....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
