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.
Friday, 24 September 2010
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)?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
