THE EXCUSE OF THE WAR ON TERROR

26 February 2005

As Charles Clarke continues to battle to get his house arrest proposals into British law, it should not be forgotten how this has come about. The proposals are being presented as a part of the war on terror.

This is tripe.

The proposals have been made in response to the judiciary ruling that the government’s detention of a handful of so-called asylum seekers, who are believed to have terrorist connections, is a breach of their human rights and that their treatment should be no different to that of British people. It is that ruling which has provoked the attempt to change the law.

Being able to differentiate between your own and foreign nationals is an integral part of nationhood, although such concepts are beyond the judiciary, and also the government it would seem.

So, instead of deporting the suspect terrorist asylum seekers, our rights and liberties are to be sacrificed in order to pander to the judiciary’s liberal tendencies. The house arrest proposals are an attempt to avoid deporting those believed to be linked to terrorism.

It is reported that the number of asylum seekers deported has dropped to its lowest level for 2 years. The number of deportations has fallen by 21%. This means that the failed asylum seekers are simply staying on in the country illegally.

Meanwhile, it is reported that Abu Qatada, who is linked to Al Qaeda, is to be freed from jail and allowed to resume his previous lifestyle. Qatada was sentenced to life imprisonment in Jordan for his alleged involvement in a series of explosions. But the UK will not deport him because Jordan has the death penalty.

Meanwhile, it is reported that the Dutch will deport 3 imams who had been promoting radical Islam.

BRITAIN'S IMMORAL ASYLUM POLICY

24 February 2005


Below is a copy of a document which has recently been circulated by email. For the sake of an informed debate, then this document has been posted below.

For the avoidance of any doubt, there is no relationship between the ERC and Futurus.



BRITAIN’S IMMORAL ASYLUM POLICY

WHY BRITAIN’S ASYLUM POLICY IS DEEPLY IMMORAL:
HOW BRITAIN COULD HELP THE WORLD’S REFUGEES, INSTEAD OF WEALTHY LAWYERS AND THE IMMIGRATION INDUSTRY

by Anthony Scholefield, Director, FUTURUS


It is time to think radically regarding the bankruptcy of our asylum policy. (This summary paper only refers to asylum - not to other immigration issues.)

Previously, I have believed that it would be a good idea for Britain to take a proportion of U.N.-nominated refugees (say, 10,000 to 20,000 a year). I now believe this would be morally wrong and that our prime duty to the world’’s refugees is not to take any asylum seekers in the U.K. at all.

The current thinking of the government is that it is following a moral course by setting up an elaborate legal machine for vetting asylum seekers, rejecting those who have no reason to be here (but not removing them effectively) and supporting them with welfare and legal payments. Incredibly, the remainder of the world’’s refugees are virtually ignored.

One has to ask why and whether this is moral or efficient? Clearly, what has happened is the application of the 1951 U.N. Geneva Convention on Refugees to the modern world, regardless of changed circumstances. Many of those who support this policy are well motivated, but they have not stopped to consider what has evolved.

What are the facts?

The UK spends (2003/4), via DFID (Department for International Development), £3,965 million a year on overseas aid, of which £1,972 million is bilateral, and £1,805 million is given to other parties, nearly all to the European Union and the World Bank. A further £187 million is spent on administration.

How much of this enormous sum goes to refugees? It is merely US$46,863,520 in 2003 (roughly £25 million), according to the U.N. High Commission for Refugees. The total number of the refugees in the world, according to the U.N. in 2004, was 9.7 million refugees, plus 985,000 identified as asylum-seekers (let us talk roundly of ten million).

So, we have established that the British government spends just £25 million on the UNHCR. By simple arithmetic, that is £2.50 per refugee.

When we turn to the position in the U.K. we find the following statistics. The government spends approximately £2 billion a year on the asylum system in 2003 (£1.8 billion plus £176 million on Legal Aid). Michael Howard says this is now running at £3 billion. Of course, many asylum-seekers’’ costs are not included in this, such as policing crimes, grants to refugee support groups etc., together with all the massive indirect costs to British society. Much of this does not go into an asylum-seeker’’s pocket but into the pockets of lawyers, immigration groups, high-priced landlords, tribunals, bureaucracy and other people we might term: ““rent seekers””. In 2003, 50,000 people claimed asylum in the U.K. and it is thought that about 33% should be added to these figures to cover dependants, so we are looking at around 67,000 people.

The rate of success for asylum claimants between 1997 and 2002 was about 21%. A further 16% were granted ‘‘exceptional leave to remain’’ or allowed to remain on other grounds.

So, if we divide the £2 billion annual expenditure by the number of successful asylum-seekers, which are 21% of 67,000, or around 14,000, it costs the British taxpayer 14,000 divided by £2,000,000,000 per successful asylum-seeker. That equates to £143,000 per refugee who is successful. If we include rejected asylum-seekers, who are nearly another 53,000, the amount spent drops to £30,000 per head.

So, the proposition we are invited to applaud, both by the government and the political class, including the Refugee Council, the Churches Commission for Racial Justice, the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and, amazingly, the U.N. High Commissioners’’ Refugees’’ Office itself, is that, once a refugee reaches British shores, it is right and proper that - on average - £143,000 of British taxpayers’’ money should be spent on him, while it is also right and proper that, simultaneously, the British government, or taxpayer, should spend £2.50 (or fifty thousand times less) on each of the ten million (less 14,000) refugees in the rest of the world.

Supposing a quite different policy was pursued? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that all asylum-seekers were immediately flown out to Rwanda or Pakistan. Let us suppose that the £2 billion-a-year asylum spend by the Home Office (Michael Howard says it is £3 billion a year) was stopped - and all that money given to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. Let us spread this among the ten million refugees world-wide. We would then be able to spend £200 on each refugee instead of £2.50.

The GDP per head for Pakistan was US$429 in 2002 –– around £240. The figure for Rwanda appears to be about the same. So, in effect, the British taxpayer could equip every refugee in the world with the average (not minimum) income of a Pakistani or a Rwandan - a more than adequate income if you are in a Third World country. Let us note that this is the British government only and ignore all the present (and potential) contributions by other Western governments. If these Western governments also abolished their asylum systems, and put the money direct to refugees, the world’’s refugees would be well looked after indeed.

What stands in the way of replacing a deeply immoral, corrupt and inefficient policy, which spends £143,000 on a refugee in Britain and £2.50 on a refugee not in Britain?

While misguided policy has evolved from historical circumstances, and from those who are generally idealistic, there are, of course, huge ““rent seekers”” involved in the asylum system:
the judges who preside over the Human Rights Act and who are, of course, provided with the legal fodder of innumerable immigration cases;
the lawyers;
those running ‘‘immigrationist groups’’, often on government money;
church spokesmen and activists who make a living out of ‘‘supporting’’ refugees (actually only the minute proportion who get to Britain);
high-priced landlords, and
the ‘‘asylum bureaucracy’’.

As for the U.N. High Commission for Refugees, is it really going to tell its ten million refugees that they must only get £2.50 per head, instead of £200 per head, (80 times as much from the British government alone) because it is determined to keep up the asylum rights of those who manage - illegally of course - to get into the U.K.?


Anthony Scholefield 31 January 2005

Anthony Scholefield is Director of the think tank, FUTURUS
Suite 414
1 Olympic Way
WEMBLEY
HA9 0NP Tel: 0208 782 1135

Other publications written by Anthony Scholefield for FUTURUS include:
“The Death of Europe”
“Why Mr Blair will lose the Euro Referendum”
“Why Britain will not join the Single Currency

SOCIALIST SNOBBERY

23 February 2005

These are exciting days for the Metropolitan Police. Ian Blair, their new politically-correct police chief, has soon stamped his mark on the Met. Not only has he altered Scotland Yard’s logo, in case it discriminated against short-sighted people, but now he can be seen in the press grinning like a Cheshire cat and surrounded by 18 non-British police staff.

How exciting for Ian Blair, and the Islington dinner party circuit.

One presumes that being in the presence of foreigners demonstrates how chic Ian Blair is in Labour’s Britain. One of the foreigners is even in a wheelchair!

Ian Blair is using people as if they were pieces of jewellery, and he should be ashamed of himself.

SPANISH PRACTICES

22 February

‘Immigration for a socialist government is not just a policy of public order or border controls’, so said Consuelo Rumi, the Spanish Immigration Minister, as his government announced that they were legalising up to 1.5million illegal immigrants in Spain.

There had been no consultation with the other member governments of the EU, despite the fact that these immigrants will automatically be allowed to travel to and immigrate into all the other EU countries, including the UK, as a result of EU rules.

Both the Dutch and German governments expressed their alarm at the unilateral move. The UK was silent.

This move once again exposes the uselessness of the proposed Conservative immigration policy. It is all very well for Michael Howard to be talking about handing over immigration controls to UN officials (who will almost certainly be offered bribes, as they have been at senior levels regarding Iraq which have led to calls for Kofi Anan’s resignation), but the Conservative commitment to keeping the UK in the EU allows any other EU government to decide to increase immigration into the UK whether we like it or not.

But that is not all our EU partner has been getting up to. Not only has Spain ratified the draft EU constitution, in a referendum on Sunday (with a low turnout), but the Spanish Premier, Jose Zapatero, could scarcely wait to announce what the future held for the EU. He has pronounced that national foreign embassies will be closed and replaced by an EU foreign service.

‘We will undoubtedly see European embassies in the world, not ones from each country, with European diplomats and a European foreign service’, he said.

VERITAS IMMIGRATION SHAMBLES

16 February 2005

On Monday, in the Daily Mail, it was reported that Robert Kilroy-Silk (RKS), the leader of Veritas, would be promising ‘a total ban on asylum seekers if his party wins the election’ in an announcement on the Veritas immigration policy.

It was reported that this was because asylum seekers inevitably pass through many other safe countries before they reach the UK, and they should have claimed asylum in those countries. The Daily Mail even quoted a source who said that RKS was prepared for a ‘lot of flak’, but would not be deterred from ‘addressing issues that concern the British people’.

However, RKS intended to try to appease the race war industry (as if such a thing were possible), by proposing an amnesty for all the illegal immigrants already in the UK who had children. Those who did not have children would be deported. Veritas would then refuse all future asylum claims - reportedly.

There are currently estimated to be up to 1million illegal immigrants in the UK.

To tell illegal immigrants that they could stay if they could impregnate someone, or get impregnated, (if they do not already have children) is a novel means of addressing the immigration issue. Presumably, no one in Veritas had considered the inevitable consequence of such a policy.

There is no mention of this new policy on the Veritas website. The existing policy as earlier reported by the ERC remains. However, the website does now link to 3 news sites which do report the RKS policy announcement.

RKS is reported as saying that only the rich benefitted from mass immigration, and that British people were being forced out of work. The websites do record the announcement as including a refusal to include those asylum seekers who had passed through other safe countries. But it also included a commitment to accept a ‘fair share’ of asylum seekers allocated by the United Nations - which is a crib from the Conservative Party policy, despite the fact that the UN have stated that they will not cooperate.

The ‘fair share’ was not quantified.

This is not a commitment to end the concept of asylum seeking at all, and the policy suffers from all the flaws which render it unworkable (as the ERC has already pointed out). On the epolitix link, RKS is even reported as saying that Veritas ‘would allow an unlimited number of people to move to the UK if there was evidence that they would help Britain prosper’!

But there was no mention of the impregnation issue.

Meanwhile, a Veritas policy document has been doing the rounds on the internet. This document sets out a number of criticisms of mass immigration, many of which are good ones, but it avoids the issue of Veritas allowing the UN to decide a number of asylum seekers that the UK will accept (if Veritas gets its way) and makes no mention of the impregnation issue.

There seem to be several versions of the Veritas immigration policy. It would seem the straight talking party, which tells the truth, has yet to live up to its rhetoric.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

14 February 2005

With a budget of £172m per annum, and now run by Lord Kinnock, one of the most recent of Labour’s Nouveau Toffs, the British Council is funding the Common Ground exhibition, which has already been shown in Bangladesh, Malaysia and Indonesia. It is expected to be shown in Middle Eastern countries including Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates in the near future.

The exhibition involves pictures of Muslim youngsters under a hoarding scrawled with racist graffiti, and other grim urban settings. The British Council alleges that the exhibition represents life in Britain for many Muslims.

An introductory essay by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (a Marxist who recently returned her OBE) alleges: ‘Too many young Muslims are emotionally homeless. Racism makes them believe they cannot belong in Britain’.

The photographer, Anthony Lam, who supplied many of the photographs, said that he wanted to criticise Britain’s asylum system and undermine traditional images of Britain.

The purpose of the British Council, which was set up in 1934, was to promote Britain to overseas countries. It has, as have so many other government institutions, been hijacked by the politically correct communist left as a means of attacking Britain and the English in particular.

As we are supposed to be fighting a war on terror, this exhibition, which can do nothing other than encourage anti-British hatred amongst Muslims, can only be helpful to Al Qaeda and other anti-Western terrorist groups and their supporters.

The exhibition was, thankfully, condemned by the Muslim Council of Britain.

IMMIGRATION

1968 - Birmingham

‘Those whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancees whom they have never seen’.

Enoch Powell.

UKIP IMMIGRATION POLICY

14 February 2005

Not to be outdone in the bidding for the immigration issue vote, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has made its own announcement on the issue.

UKIP’s stance on immigration has always been very adaptable, although the party went into the June EU elections last year with a reputation as being tough on immigration. But that has definitely not always been the case.

Back in July 2000, the UKIP NEC unanimously passed the Ivan Winters motion. That motion, wrongly presented as being supported by the Yorkshire regional committee when in fact that committee had firmly rejected it, made a series of politically correct assertions and recommendations: that leaflets be circulated in a ‘community language’ such as Urdu; that ‘travel to and from the UK and immigration are very difficult for Commonwealth citizens whilst persons from other EU countries have no restrictions at all’; that ‘most UKIP members if they had any politics at all before joining UKIP were probably Thatcherite Tories’ (note the analytical rigour); that UKIP should be ‘carrying out positive actions in the above areas’ (the term ‘positive actions’ is a hybrid between positive discrimination and affirmative action); that ‘the party should try to encourage ethnic candidates to stand for elections’; and that ‘the Asian community is a very close community and a breakthrough in this area and promoting stronger ties with the Commonwealth would serve the party well’.

As can be seen, UKIP has always had a complex about race and immigration, as well as a fear of being seen as right wing. The Ivan Winters motion was reflected in UKIP’s 2001 election manifesto: ‘UKIP will also redress the injustice that EU nationals can bring their families to Britain automatically, while Commonwealth immigrants have to wait years to unify theirs. UKIP supports an inclusive concept of British nationality, with common citizenship and share values’ and that ‘we could accept skilled immigrants, many of them from countries with closer historical ties to Britain than the EU’.

It has always been amazing that no one ever properly tackled UKIP about the implications of these nice sounding commitments. If the inhabitants of Commonwealth countries such as India had the same right of entry into the UK as EU citizens have, then annual immigration into the UK would be measured in millions and not hundreds of thousands, as it currently is.

After the 2001 general election, UKIP remained paralysed about the immigration issue, despite the mounting furore over the abuse of the asylum system and the massive numbers of asylum seekers. The next development was the posting of an item on the website entitled ‘Biting the Bullet on Immigration’. This item unambiguously attacked the whole rationale for mass immigration and so-called asylum seeking. However, it was removed after aggressive complaints from senior UKIP officials and was replaced by ‘Space, Not Race’, which was much weaker and considerably less popular with ordinary members (it was so weak that it had to be amended more than once after it had been put on the website).

Also during this time, Ashley Mote had been tasked by the NEC to prepare a report into immigration policy. This he duly did, and the NEC duly rejected it as being too robust. The document was condemned as having the ‘wrong tone’.

However, for the June 2004 EU elections, Ashley Mote’s views were put up on the UKIP website alongside Space, Not Race. Once again, UKIP was trying to have it both ways. UKIP wanted to get votes for being tough on immigration, but lacked the nerve to actually be so.

Now, Roger Knapman, nominally the UKIP leader, has set out UKIP’s latest immigration stance. He had previously written about immigration in UKIP’s ‘Independence News’ magazine in December 2002. He himself had then pointed out that 200,000 immigrants were entering the UK each year, excluding illegal immigration, which equated to ‘a city the size of Cambridge every six months, or, if current rates continue, some two million people over the next ten years!’

He further pointed out that the Huguenots and other refugees from Germany and Russia who Britain had admitted in previous centuries, were far fewer in number than one year’s worth of immigration at current levels.

The new UKIP policy is summed up thus: ‘The UK Independence Party would aim to approach zero net immigration both by imposing far stricter limits on legal immigrants and by taking control, at last, of the vexed problem of illegal immigration’. As both the Conservatives and Labour now are, UKIP is in favour of a points system, similar to Australia, for selecting immigrants. UKIP ‘may’ reinstate some form of primary purpose rule as well.

Whatever UKIP ‘may’ do, its ‘aim’ is that ‘net immigration’ should ‘approach zero’. The key word is ‘net’.

UKIP is not advocating an end to mass immigration, it merely believes that it will ‘aim’ to keep the level of mass immigration to the same as that for emigration.

Why?

There are approximately 7.85million people of working age who are designated as being ‘economically inactive’. 2.1million of these people say that they want a job.

There are 2.7million people claiming incapacity benefit (1million of whom are doing so citing depression or stress). A government minister has said that two thirds of these could be brought back into the labour market, one third immediately.

The fact is that there is a large reservoir of potential employees who are available to fill any shortage in employment without the need for immigration. The problem is one of training and retraining. There is no justification for these British people to be pushed out of the labour market.

There is no economic justification for mass immigration into the UK.

In 2003, the Office of National Statistics has reported that total emigration was in excess of 361,000, of which 190,000 were British and 171,000 were non-British. There was a total of 105,000 British citizens returning from abroad. Assuming that UKIP would not disbar these British returnees, then UKIP’s ‘aim’ is to allow 256,000 non-British immigrants into the UK each year. By any stretch of the imagination, this is mass immigration at a level 5 times that which compelled Enoch Powell to make his Birmingham speech in 1968.

Far from dealing with the immigration problem, UKIP aims to legitimise it. UKIP is, once again, advocating a nuance of Labour policy. UKIP has reverted to type and is, once again, advocating mass immigration on an epic scale.

VERITAS IMMIGRATION POLICY

11 February 2005

Fresh from their very recent launch, Veritas has now published a manifesto section on its website. Included is the party’s policy on immigration.

Despite the emotive language concerning immigration from Robert Kilroy-Silk on the day of the launch, the actual policy is very establishment in outlook. Regarding asylum seekers, the party says that: ‘We will only take our fair share of refugees’, which of course sounds very nice and responsible. But what does it mean?

The commitment is very similar to the Conservative Party policy. Far from the Conservatives cribbing policies from RKS, now it seems it is RKS cribbing policies from the Conservatives.

Assuming that ‘our fair share’ amounts to 20,000 per annum, which is the figure the Conservatives cite as a maximum, this would cost around £400million per annum (at £20,000 per asylum seeker). This £400million would provide an average income for roughly 1.2million Ethiopians, where the average income is only £333 per annum (or thereabouts). The income for genuine refugees is obviously much lower.

A policy which was determined to maximise the benefit to refugees and the poor, would not involve transporting asylum seekers across several countries and even entire continents in order to waste money on keeping them where they are not wanted. The best and most effective policy is to help them where they are. The Veritas policy on asylum seekers is a cop out, and designed more to seek approval from the race war industry rather than to maximise the assistance to genuine refugees.

Regarding immigration in general, Veritas attacks the concept of mass immigration, and then commits to withdrawing the UK from the EU and says that they will only ‘admit only those (immigrants) that are needed because of their skills’.

It does not say whether there will be a limit on their numbers, nor how it will deal with arranged and bogus marriages or family reunification.

Presently, there are more than 1million people claiming incapacity benefit as a result of depression or stress. If there is any skills shortage, then that is as a result of a lack of training/retraining and not an immigration problem.

QUANGOCRACY AND RED TAPE

11 February 2005

Since coming to power in 1997, Labour has created 111 new quangos at an annual cost of £6.5billion a report from the Centre for Policy Studies has revealed.

£6.5billion! Each year in extra spending and taxation! Each year!

Has anyone noticed a dramatic surge in their quality of life as a result of this extra £6.5billion of annual expenditure?

A large part of this gravy train is accounted for by the regional assemblies and their hangers on. Yorkshire Forward gets £326million, North West Development Agency £400million, South East England Development Agency £140million, East Midlands Development Agency £120million, London Development Agency £351million, Advantage West Midlands £263million, and the South West of England Regional Development Agency £100million.

Needless to say there are also hefty grants for the Scottish Further Education Funding Council, which gets £500million, and also another £500million for the National Council for Education and Training in Wales.

Yet another example of “I’m all right, Jock”, as Labour moves the UK into a post-democratic era of a quangocracy.

IMMIGRATION

10 February 2005

More than 1 million East Europeans entered the UK last year, following the EU expansion giving them unrestricted access to the UK. 90,000 of these admitted that they would be staying for more than 3 months. A further 41,000 were already in the UK working illegally.

These figures far outstrip the ludicrous government estimate that only 13,000 East Europeans would come to the UK.

Meanwhile, Britain is now experiencing ‘white flight’ from the major cities such as London. The areas most affected are those with high numbers of ethnic minorities.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION/THE LOONY LEFT

10 February 2005

The politically correct industry (PCI) demonstrated its ability to regenerate recently.

The outgoing discredited National Lottery Community Fund has been replaced by the Big Lottery Fund. The Community Fund was run by a collection of the liberal/left and the out and out communists (although they may have preferred a more aesthetic term). It was ultra politically correct and advanced a race war agenda. After a whole series of handouts to its political fellow travellers and a public outcry, the decision was taken to close it down.

The Big Lottery Fund, however, seems to have continued from where the Community Fund left off. Recently it has turned down a request for funding from the Samaritans, while at the same time handing out £360,000 to a pressure group for ‘sex workers’.

The Samaritans were criticised for not meeting the needs of ‘target groups’ (ie asylum seekers and ethnic minorities).

What the UK Network for Sex Work Projects have promised to do to meet the needs of ‘target groups’ is unknown.

The Big Lottery Fund allocates £700million per annum. This shows how much power the PCI has and how much money is at its disposal.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

8 February 2005

The race war zealots have scored a victory with their demands that guided walks in the Lake District should have funding withdrawn, as the walkers were allegedly ‘too white and too middle class’.

However, the clothing firm Hawkeshead has saved the walks by stepping in to offer £38,000, which will provide 12 months funding. The news was good news for the walkers and the guides - mainly 100 volunteers. One enthusiast said that: ‘We are absolutely delighted. This offer has certainly saved the national park authority from a very, very embarrassing decision’.

Even after the announcement of the sponsorship, one member of the park authority still did not vote to accept Hawkeshead’s generosity and to save the walks.

IMMIGRATION

8 February 2005

Charles Clarke admitted that the government’s latest immigration proposals will not reduce immigration at all, and might even lead to an increase. This is despite the Labour intentions to introduce a points system similar to that operated by Australia.

The Conservatives have also committed themselves to such a system, although they have pledged to allow parliament to set an annual quota to determine the maximum number to be allowed in.

Charles Clarke made it plain that he would not halt the tide of mass immigration pouring into the UK.

Moreover, there is to be no change in the asylum rules and no quotas for the number of so-called asylum seekers.

It also emerged today that it takes the Immigration and Nationality Directorate 2 months to complete no more than the 9 hours work necessary to make an initial decision on an asylum application. Is it any wonder that the system has collapsed?

TO THE GRAVE

5 February 2005

When the NHS and the Welfare State were created, the promise was that people would be cared for from the cradle to the grave. What they did not imagine, having paid a lifetime’s worth of tax and national insurance contributions, is that if they got old and lingered a bit, that they might be pushed into the grave in order to save money.

Yet this is increasingly the line being taken by Labour.

Not satisfied with advocating living wills, they are now arguing in the Court of Appeal that the government should be allowed to withhold medical attention as the costs of keeping patients alive is too high. This view is set out in papers filed on behalf of John Reid, the Health Secretary.

Of course, John Reid, being Scottish, is only pronouncing on what is fit for the English. Scotland controls its own Health Service and has far better funding.

It is a case of “I’m all right, Jock”.

John Reid’s papers set out the government’s view that there are economic arguments for allowing people to die.

Can one imagine the uproar that there would have been had a Conservative government advocated such a policy? The ex-communist John Reid would have been up in arms over such proposals, along with the rest of phoney Tony’s jamboree.

This episode only reinforces the view that the only way for ordinary people to safeguard themselves is to denationalise the NHS, and to denationalise the family.

IMMIGRATION

4 February 2005

In the latest example of the British disease, another former penniless asylum seeker, Victor Solomka, was convicted of conspiracy to facilitate breaches of immigration law and money laundering after making millions from illegal immigration - this time by supplying illegal immigrants for casual work in the UK.

He had originally entered this country illegally in the back of a lorry, but had then claimed asylum.

Those illegal immigrants working for him were paid a pittance and were kept in line by the use of violence.

VERITAS

2 February 2005

With a name described as ‘posh’ in one BBC report, Veritas launched itself onto an unsuspecting world today. One presumes that the name will appeal to the more upmarket and discerning voter.

The leader, Robert Kilroy-Silk (RKS), who had recently quit the UK Independence Party, began the party’s claim to fame by stating that Britain was being ‘stolen’ by mass immigration and further attacked the concept of multi-culturalism.

In a television interview, he replied that he did not know whether or not there were too many immigrants entering the country, and pointed out that 50,000 might be enough for this year and that for next year it might be none.

When he was in UKIP guise, he was happy to concede that perhaps 100,000 immigrants per annum was OK. Although he clearly had to toe the UKIP line a few weeks ago.

The straight talking party, which tells the truth, has yet to decide what the truth is regarding immigration. The Veritas immigration policy will be revealed in a few weeks time - or so they said.

THE WAR ON TERROR

2 February 2005

Having detained an Egyptian terrorist suspect for 3 years, Labour released him yesterday into the UK without any explanation. C, as he was known, left prison a completely free man.

Either this individual was a terrorist suspect, or he was not. If not, then why was he detained, and if he was, then why was he let free? Why was he not deported?

C was believed to be a senior activist for the Egyptian Islamic Jihad movement, which is linked to Al Qaeda and is blamed for a series of bombings.

The Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal chairman, Justice Ouseley, ruled as recently as last July that there were ‘reasonable grounds’ to believe that C was linked with the terrorist group and that ‘he would still have the will, commitment and ability to resume his activities in the UK were he to be released’.

THE WAR ON TERROR

29 January 2005

As the judiciary have ruled that it is a breach of human rights for foreign terrorists to be kept in detention, rather than deporting the foreigners, Labour intend to put the suspects into house arrest.

Since many of the foreigners do not have properties in this country, the government will have to provide the them with free homes. To this freebie must be added the cost of around the clock surveillance.

With measures such as this, Al Qaeda is clearly on the brink of defeat.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

28 January 2005

A class of 8 year old schoolchildren, at the Penmorfa primary school in Wales, were reduced to tears as a result of bullying which had been organised and encouraged by teachers as a part of ‘prejudice day’.

The children were split into 2 groups, one of which wore white T-shirts and the other wore yellow. Those in yellow, who outnumbered those in white by 2 to 1, were given special privileges. Those in white were picked on and called names.

The purpose of this was to teach children what it feels like to be discriminated against.

Using primary schoolchildren to act out the politically correct (ie communist) theories of teachers is typical of the zealotry and intolerance of those who dare to lecture us on morality. This kind of zealotry needs to be stamped out if the UK is to return into being a free country.

THE BALKANISATION OF ENGLAND

28 January 2005

Although the people of the North East region of England voted to reject Labour’s regionalisation proposals, this has not stopped Prescott from pushing forward with his discredited proposals.

He has now given the unelected regional assemblies (which still remain) the power to impose gipsies and travellers’ camps over the heads of the elected local councillors, onto an area, whether the councillors or local people like it or not. Local authorities will have to meet targets as to the provision of such camps.

Not only does Labour care not one jot for local democracy, but it intends to ram the concept of regionalisation down the throats of the English whether we like it or not.

IMMIGRATION

28 January 2005

The Conservatives continue to warm to their theme on immigration. They have now discovered that the annual cost of asylum seeking is £3billion. This is of course a complete waste of money. The true cost is also likely to be far higher when the impact of immigration on public services and the environment are taken into account.

The Conservatives have yet to come up with a convincing argument as to how they will end this waste. Their current proposals will not work and do not fully address the problem.

MUSLIM CENSORSHIP

27 January 2005

The Muslim Council of Britain has attacked the television programme ‘24' for depicting Muslims as terrorists. The members of the council had been allowed a special preview of the first few episodes of the most recent series.

A spokesman said: ‘At a time when negative stereotypes of Muslims are on the increase we feel that Sky - as a major UK broadcaster - has a responsibility to challenge these insidious views, not help to reinforce them’.

This attack comes closely after the recent Sikh violence about a play, and after the recent murders in the Netherlands of those deemed to be hostile to Islam.

IMMIGRATION

26 January 2005

One of the good things to emerge out of the recent Conservative proposals on immigration, is that the extent of the surrender of border controls to the EU has been exposed. Labour are now claiming that they have signed away so much of our sovereignty that we can no longer unilaterally introduce tougher immigration controls.

Last October, the Labour surrendered the UK’s veto on asylum and immigration policy to the EU.

Michael Howard has reacted by promising to wrestle back control of immigration from the EU. This all sounds very well, but he does not explain how this will be achieved when he knows very well that the EU never gives up power.

This will be compounded if the new EU constitution is adopted, as it includes the concept of the right to asylum as set out in the 1951 UN Convention.

Meanwhile, Steven Pilkington, the retiring chief constable of Avon and Somerset, has complained that it is too easy for foreign gangsters and criminals to re-enter the UK even after they have been deported. He said: ‘Once they have entered our country, abused our hospitality and they are convicted and deported, that should be it. They should simply not be able to get back into the country’.

THE WAR ON TERROR

26 January 2005

Amidst a great fanfare from the so-called ‘human rights’ industry, 4 ‘Britons’ have been released from Gauntanamo Bay. Only one of these ‘Britons’ was born in the UK, none are ethnic English, and all were involved with those with whom this country is at war.

There is no reason why these people should be let back into the UK, and they should be returned to whichever state they were involved with when they were detained.

This release coincides with that of those so-called asylum seekers who have been detained due to concerns as to their terrorist contacts and activities. There is no reason why these people should also not be deported back from whence they came.

If this country is supposed to be fighting a war on terror, then it is time we started to fight it. If the great and the good believe that the whole world is impressed with the British sense of fair play, then they are deluding themselves. Their willingness to sacrifice our interests in their own self-righteous self-indulgence breeds nothing but contempt amongst our enemies.

IMMIGRATION

24 January 2005

As the general election looms, it is time for the Tories to put on a show of getting tough on immigration - especially when they are behind in the polls. This performance has been repeated over the last 40 years.

The latest promises from the Tories are that they will: put round the clock security on ports; curb work permits with the introduction of a points system for immigration; give the UNHCR the role of deciding which asylum seekers enter the UK; and arrange for other countries to hold asylum seekers wanting to come to the UK.

The Tories further committed to withdrawing the UK from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees, and also amending the Human Rights Act. The Tories further believe that parliament would annually set quotas for the number of immigrants let into the country.

The proposals sound good, but within hours it was all unraveling. The Tories were unable to identify a single country which was likely to agree to allow asylum seekers to be held and processed in their countries. The UNHCR condemned the proposals and said that they would refuse to co-operate.

This is what comes of trying to manoeuvre others into taking responsibility for immigration. Why ever should the UNHCR decide who enters the UK? And the commitment to allow parliament to set an annual total for the number of immigrants is meaningless and not a commitment to end mass immigration at all. Parliament might well set the total at 200,000 each year for all Michael Howard knows - especially near election time, as he should know from when he was Home Secretary and had a tendency to grant more asylum claims (in the name of compassion, of course).

Nor did the Tories take any account of the fact that since both they and Labour have conceded so much power to the EU, then the EU would prevent the Tories making their new policy effective. Quite apart from an EU official stating that the Tory proposals would breach EU law, the fact is that EU citizens have full unrestricted access into the UK. Consequently, anyone granted asylum in any other EU country can automatically come and settle in the UK. UK immigration controls are only as strong as the weakest EU country’s border controls.

The only way of dealing with that, is to leave the EU. The Tories have not the slightest intention of taking the UK out of the EU, and instead are making it clear that they support the admission of Turkey, a relatively poor Muslim country (which borders with Iraq and Iran) with a very high population growth, into the EU as well. The impact of Turkish admission on UK immigration should not take too much puzzling out - even for a Tory.

The Tory policy is an unworkable sham. The Tories are still trying to whitewash over the problem rather than deal with it decisively.

There is no good reason why the UK should accept any asylum seekers and the whole multi cultural experiment should be abolished. We need to see a clear end to mass immigration into the UK and the deportation, without exception, of all illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

22 January 2005

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

Dr Hazlewood, the headmaster of St John’s School and Community College, has abolished homework for all 12 year olds, dismissing it as an outdated ‘dinosaur’ which generated more work for teachers. Instead he is carrying out an experiment designed by the Royal Society of Arts (RSA), which has received a £40,000 government grant towards its ‘curriculum network’ project.

The experiment aims to encourage pupils to understand the ‘importance of managing their own time’. It is hoped that pupils will have ‘learned to learn’ and will acquire ‘a sense of ownership over their own learning journey’.

Dr Hazlewood said: ‘We are rebranding homework for the 21 century. We are trying to show children that homework is not an imposition, but a free-thinking learning process’, and that there is ‘no such thing as wrong’ on the learning journey.

The RSA said that 50 schools were participating in the experiment.

SOCIAL ENGINEERING

21 January 2005

A report by Dr Paetchter, a reader in education at the University of London, has condemned the current school curriculum was too male-dominated and that cookery lessons should be reintroduced and made compulsory for boys as well as girls.

The report also called for the need to break down the traditional gender barriers by for example, forcing boys to take dancing lessons and girls being forced to play football.

The report’s views have been supported by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, which published the report.

The decline in cookery started under the Thatcher government when home economics was absorbed into design and technology classes and became known as food technology.

The report stated that ‘we need to find ways of demonstrating that this gender marking is not necessary, that everyone can take part in all aspects of the curriculum’.

In other words, that our children will be forced to behave in a way consistent with Marxist/feminist ideology.

NATIONALISATION OF THE FAMILY

21 January 2005

NATIONALISATION OF THE FAMILY

The effect of the nationalisation of the family was further highlighted by a report from the Centre for Policy Studies. The report showed that a single parent on welfare was better off financially than a single wage family on average earnings with a £90,000 mortgage. The weekly income per household member is £54.06 for a single parent and £55.71 for a single wage earning family.

Labour policies have consistently reinforced the attack on the family, by undermining the concept of marriage and by skewering welfare benefits towards single mothers.

The number of single parent families in the UK is higher than any other country in Western Europe.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

18 January 2005

A mountain rescue team has been refused a grant as it does not rescue enough asylum seekers, elderly, disabled, or ethnic minorities.

The volunteers had applied for a £200,000 grant to build an emergency response base. But they were told that they did not meet ‘the needs of those at greatest disadvantage in society’. They were then told who constituted disadvantaged in modern Britain.

The grant was refused by a regional committee of the Community Fund, which stated that the application did not fulfil the criteria for he large grants programme, which was meeting the needs of those at most disadvantage.

The Community Fund is being wound up due to its past obsession with asylum seekers and a whole host of politically correct nonsense. It is now being replaced with the Big Lottery Fund, which insisted that the rescue team’s application had been turned down on its merits.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION/THE LOONY LEFT

17 January 2005

THE BRITISH INQUISITION/THE LOONY LEFT

Schoolchildren are to be taught about the alleged gay tendencies of famous historical figures in February, which has been designated ‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transperson History Month. The initiative will be launched in the House of Commons. It has government backing and a grant from the Department of Education.

Schools will be encouraged to have discussions about the alleged bisexuality of William Shakespeare and the alleged lesbian tendencies of Florence Nighinggale. Schools will also be encouraged to hold themed assemblies and write up ‘a timeline of LGBT history in Britain’. Colleges and universities are also expected to be involved, with seminars, conferences and gay fashion shows.

The initiative has been organised by Schools Out, a gay teachers group, which is also encouraging gay Valentines diners.

Stephen Twigg said that he did not know how many schools would be involved, but ‘we will be encouraging them to take part’.

IMMIGRATION

12 January 2005

Once again a report has highlighted that up to 1million illegal immigrants are living in the UK. The latest report is based on the practice in other countries where a comparison is made between the numbers who come forward in amnesties with the numbers shown on official records.

If the same ratio applies to the UK as that of Spain and Italy, then the number of illegal immigrants in the UK could be as many as 1million. The estimate of 1million is consistent with other estimates based on other criteria.

A senior immigration officer has admitted that there could be 2 million immigrants working for gangmasters.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

11 January 2005

When Rebecca Miles, a care worker for battered Asian women, was unable to remember an interpreter’s name and said ‘it was Pamala, Popalam or Popadom - something like that’ the full force of the race war industry descended upon her. The fact that she had only been in the job for less than a month counted for nothing.

She was summonsed to a disciplinary hearing where she was told that unless she attended anti-racism classes and wrote an essay on the Stephen Lawrence case, then she could not keep her job. In the event, Rebecca Miles resigned.

However the race war zealots did not find much favour from the Muslim community. Anas Altikriti of the Muslim Association of Britain said ‘it is immensely important that we demonstrate a high level of common sense and tolerance towards one another, otherwise we will turn into a society where every utterance is skewed to fit a political agenda’.

Mrs Miles said: ‘During the (disciplinary) meeting I was reminded about the Macpherson report into the Stephen Lawrence case. I was appalled they could make a parallel with the handling of the investigation into the murder of a child’. She said that her remark had been ‘flippant, not racist’. She also said: ‘I was told it was a credit to my colleagues that they were prepared to carry on working with me. When I got home I was in floods of tears’.

Mrs Miles had been employed by Victim Support, a government funded charity, and had been seconded to Alert which specialised in victims of race crimes and domestic violence.

What Mr Altikriti has failed to understand, is that the whole purpose of the race war industry is to skew ‘every utterance’ to fit the Marxist agenda. That is what so-called political correctness is all about. To control the way people think and talk.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION/RACE WAR POLITICS

7 January 2005

Mike O’Brian has been boasting of the government’s pro-Muslim and race war policies, in an attempt to woo the Muslim vote in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. He pointed out in an article in Muslim Weekly that a ban on religious discrimination came 2 weeks after a demand for it from the Muslim Council of Britain. He also highlighted that Tony Blair has read the Koran (reportedly keeping it by his bedside table).

Mike O’Brian even has the gall to play the victim by claiming to sympathise with Muslims because of his Irish Catholic background and the anti-terrorism measures which came in the wake of IRA terrorism.

But the most risible attack is reserved for Michael Howard, who is castigated for being less likely to support Turkish accession into the EU, being a Jew: ‘Ask yourself what will Michael Howard do for British Muslims? Will his foreign policy aim to help Palestine? Will he promote legislation to protect you from religious hatred and discrimination? Will he give you the choice of sending your children to a faith school? Will he stand up for the right of Muslim women to wear the hijab? Will he really fight for Turkey, a Muslim country, to join the EU? These are not academic questions. Remember the last thing we want is to vote in anger and repent at leisure as Michael Howard, with a big smile on his face, walks through the door of Number 10'.

Mike O’Brian then goes on to point out that Labour scrapped the Primary Purpose Rule which he claimed discriminated against Muslim immigration. Also that Labour had insisted in giving Muslims a prominent role in the Remembrance Day ceremonies and that Labour had also given recognition and funding to Muslim schools.

Mike O’Brian also makes an attack on Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP and, like Michael Howard, Jewish. Evan Harris hit back: ‘I am appalled by the way the Labour Minister went out of his way to name me specifically when misrepresenting the LibDem position on incitement to religious hatred - is it because I am the only Jewish LibDem MP? Mr O’Brian’s attack is the kind of unpleasant religious divisiveness and personalisation of religion, which the government is going to feed in its new law. Labour is fighting dirty because it knows that it has lost credibility with many ethnic minority voters’.

This furore coincides with the criticism by Kenan Malik, a Muslim writer and film-maker, that so-called Islamaphobia was largely a ‘myth’, and that Muslim leaders were ‘exaggerating’ the alleged harassment they were encountering. He cited an EU report which stated that there had only been a dozen serious physical attacks on Muslims in the UK in the 4 months after the 9/11. He also said that allegations of Islamaphobia ‘creates a climate of censorship in which any criticism of Islam can be dismissed as Islamaphobia’.

This storm in a teacup merely highlights, once again, that the purpose of the race war agenda is to ferment hatred and antagonism between different communities and to portray the English as being the enemy. The purpose of any British government is to protect British interests, not to pander to demands from any ethnic minority. If it is against British interests for Turkey to be allowed to join the EU, for whatever reason, then the government should oppose Turkey’s accession.

NHS

6 January 2005

Despite the doubling of the NHS budget, up from £33billion in 1996-97 to £67.4billion this current year, hospitals are being forced to cut services in order to meet a £500 million funding black hole. The cuts include redundancies, a freezing of recruitment, the closure of operating theatres and the closure of wards.

The Tory health spokesman, Andrew Langsley said that a Conservative government would cut the costs of bureaucracy and regulations.

The problem is that the NHS is a nationalised industry and is failing as has every nationalised industry. Until such time as the NHS is fundamentally reformed, along the lines of the health insurance schemes on the continent, then it will continue to fail.

It is a pity that the Tories, once again, demonstrate that they are too gutless to govern.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

5 January 2005

The race-war zealots have suffered a setback in their attempts to abolish free guided walks in the Lake District National Park. The decision to abolish the walks had originally been taken as the walks were condemned ‘because they only attract the white middle classes’.

However, widespread protests have led to the Lake District National Park Authority to postpone its final decision. The authority is under pressure to conform to government targets for visitors from ethnic minorities, inner-city children and the disabled. The original decision had been made by the authority’s corporate and financial services committee.

Volunteers, who only claim expenses, organise up to 470 walks each year which are attended by thousands of enthusiasts and tourists. The cost of the walks is only £40,000 out of their £9million budget.

Mr Turnstall, a former chairman of the Lake District Voluntary Rangers said: ‘Twenty-three of the 25 members present voted to reconsider so we have got a good number on our side, but this is not the end by any means’.

No doubt once the general election is out of the way, this matter will be revisited.

IMMIGRATION

31 December 2004

IMMIGRATION

Tony Blair has described the concept of immigration control as ‘utterly futile’.

He said that ‘We must now accept the utter futility of trying to shut our borders to problems abroad. Famine in Africa will affect our countries because it will be a trigger for mass migration. Conflict, too, drives millions to flee. Both create the conditions for terrorism and fanaticism to take root and spread directly to Europe, to North America and to Asia’.

This is hogwash. The overwhelming majority of so-called asylum seekers are fit young men. It is not the case that famine only affects young men. The old, women and children can also be affected.

The idea that we in England have no alternative but to put up with mass immigration that we do not want, and also have to tolerate terrorism and fanaticism brought into this country is completely unacceptable. If Tony Blair has no solution to this crisis, then he should resign and make way for someone who does have a solution.

Mass immigration must be ended.

THE GREAT AND THE GOOD

31 December 2004

The honours system was abused again as those civil servants who were responsible for incompetence and substandard behaviour were honoured. John Geave was knighted notwithstanding his amnesia in the nannygate and the waving of immigration rules for David Blunkett’s mistress’s nanny.

Doug Smith, the sacked chief executive of the shambolic Child Support Agency, was made a Commander of the Order of Bath. And Richard Bowker, the former head of the Strategic Rail Authority which had to be disbanded it was so ineffective, was made a CBE.

The honours system has been debased and abused by both Conservative and Labour governments for very many years. Those who were responsible for the ERM disaster were given their grand titles regardless, so it is hardly surprising that the Labour government merely continues in the same vain.

This is in stark contrast tot he USA, where those responsible for the wrong intelligence on WMD have been removed rather than rewarded.

IMMIGRATION v REFUGEE ASSISTANCE

31 December 2004

The recent Tsunami tragedy has exposed the futility of immigration as a means of helping refugees, although one EU bureaucrat has tried to justify some Tsunami refugees being brought into the EU.

It has been estimated that the annual cost of one so-called asylum seeker is £20,000. The real cost, once the impact on public services is taken into account, is certainly much higher.

By comparison, £5 will provide 100 litres of purified water to a refugee family. £12 will vaccinate a child for life against six killer diseases. £15 will buy a hot meal for 125 people in an emergency feeding centre. £25 buys plastic shelter and food parcels for 2 families for 2 weeks. £30 buys enough water purification tablets to give 320 children a litre each. £59 buys tarpaulin shelters for 10 families. £100 buys a tent for one refugee family, or food parcels to feed 60 families for one month. £250 provides emergency food and shelter for 100 people.

That £20,000 would go a long way if it was used to help genuine refugees rather than help fund organised crime rackets to smuggle so-called asylum seekers (ie illegal immigrants) into the UK.

IMMIGRATION

30 December 2004

Thousands of immigrants are staying in the UK by extending their visas year after year in a major immigration scam. Posing as a student has become a major back door entry into the UK, official figures reveal.

Tens of thousands of tourists are arriving in the UK, and then enrolling at bogus colleges in order to get a student visa to remain here. An investigation this year exposed 250 fake colleges which were operating as highly profitable immigration scams.

The figures were compiled in a report by MigrationWatch.

For example, 425 Jamaicans applied to enter the UK as students and government figures showed that there were 780 Jamaican students in the UK in total. Yet the number of Jamaicans given visa extensions totaled 13,220. The figures for Zimbabwe are 790, 2,850 and 10,535 respectively.

The number of student visa extensions increased by 50% last year to 190,000.

THE BRITISH INQUISITION

24 December 2004

Government guidelines urge teachers to promote gay pride and advertise gay lifestyles to children. Staff are expected to put up flyers for Gay Pride marches and Gay Mardi Gras festivals.

If a teacher is overheard to refer to boys as sissies or make references such as ‘like a mothers’ meeting’, then he is to be reported. Teachers are expected to promote a ‘positive stance’ on homosexuality and lesbianism.

Teachers are further expected to: invite gay speakers to act as ‘sexual minority role models’; keep written records of every ‘homophobic’ phrase used by either staff or pupils; form ‘homophobia working parties’; teach children about homosexual public figures; and avoid language which indicates that people have partners of the opposite sex.

The guidelines are to be applied to children of all ages from the nursery upwards.
Booklets will be sent out to all education authorities, who are expected to make the guidance known to all schools in their area.

There is also a government website called ‘Stand Up For Us: Challenging Homophobia in Schools’.