The vast immigration this country has suffered recently has been certainly undemocratic in the way it was foisted upon us….if it was undemocratic there must be a good case to make that it is also illegal with politicians implementing their pet policies without a mandate to do so….not just undemocratic by default but by design, the politicians deliberately keeping the public out of the debate and hiding what they intended to do, openly lying to them about the consequences….remember when Labour told us that only 13,000 immigrants were going to come here?

Many immigrant communities have grown up around the country, becoming more isolated and ghettoised year on year as more and more immigrants flock to the same areas to be with their ‘countrymen’ making integration ever more difficult and unlikely.

 

The Telegraph in 2011 looked at the damage the BBC’s censorship has done to Britain:

How the BBC’s silence on immigration damaged the country

Mark Thompson’s confession that the BBC shied away from subjects like immigration shows how an insidious culture of the unsayable took hold under Labour, says Jenny McCartney.

The topic of immigration today is no longer primarily bound up with racism, but with resources and economics: the views of the children and grandchildren of the Windrush generation are just as varied on the subject as anyone else’s. All of this should have led to a vigorous discussion, on the BBC and elsewhere, which would have helped considerably to detoxify the debate.

Yet for far too long, the corporation simply bottled it, preferring to leave any mention of the i-word to the BNP. As a result, the notion of the “unsayable” was perpetuated, an official omertà that let government policy proceed unchallenged – in a chaotic style that even Labour now admits was a mistake – while popular concern mounted.

As the BBC has now realised, difficult topics do not evaporate because one ignores them: the unsayable has a way of becoming the unavoidable.

 

That was said in 2011.

 

Now in 2014 it seems people have come to recognise that certain thngs are unavoidable:

We can’t avoid the threat of Islamism

The truth about how the Home Office views Islamic extremism – by Theresa May’s former speech-writer

 

Alasdair Palmer in the Telegraph looks at the consequences of immigration starting with terrosim and how governemtn treats that threat, moving on to the effects on society as a whole.

The advocates of the narrow concentration on terrorists insisted that “we can only beat back the crocodiles who come close to the boat”. Those who disagreed felt that, in the long term, the only way to deal with the crocodiles was to drain the swamp – and that meant, they said, targeting extremist ideology.

The argument between Mr Gove and Mrs May – which resurrected talk about “beating back the crocodiles” and “draining the swamp” – is a continuation of that long-standing debate.

 

Here Palmer looks at the disastrous effects that mass, uncontrolled immigration and failed integration brings…….

The debate on how best to ensure that religious extremism does not generate terrorism takes place in the context of another one: how to integrate immigrants into British society, and to ensure that they adopt values that are not actively hostile to the central ideals of our society – secular democracy, freedom of conscience, tolerance and the equality of everyone before the law.

The number of immigrants coming to this country increased enormously when Tony Blair relaxed the rules restricting entry. Many of the new immigrants were from Pakistan and Bangladesh. They went to the communities in Britain that had been settled and shaped by people who came from the same area, sometimes even the same village, as they did.

It is perfectly reasonable that immigrants, arriving in a strange land whose values and even language they do not fully understand, should prefer to be with people who are similar to them and who share their own language and values. But the effect of that preference is to create “diaspora” communities that do not integrate or adapt to the values of the new society.

Sir Paul Collier, a professor of development economics at Oxford University, has produced a model that shows that it inevitably becomes a self-reinforcing process: each diaspora community gets ever more entrenched in reproducing the values of the society from which the migrants to it come, which in turn attracts more migrants from that society to it, which then ensures that it is less integrated with the host society – and more attractive to the immigrants from the traditional society in Pakistan, India or wherever.

Professor Collier thinks that unless the state takes very definite steps to stop this process happening, it will continue more or less indefinitely, with the result that migrant communities become ever more alienated and remote from the society to which they are supposed to adapt.

That leads directly to the nightmare scenario: a Britain made up of mutually antagonistic “monocultures” that do not trust each other, do not work together and do not share the values of secular democracy, freedom of conscience and the equality of both sexes before the law.

State policy in Britain over the last two decades has fostered the formation of unintegrated diaspora communities: multiculturalism, which was for many years the dominant approach, encouraged communities to hold on to their own values – with the inevitable result that they have become more entrenched.

White racism is not the biggest obstacle to integration: the highest levels of segregation anywhere in Britain are those recorded between Indians and Pakistanis in towns in the north of England. The segregation between

African-Caribbeans and Asians is markedly higher than the degree of segregation between whites and African-Caribbeans. And it seems to be getting worse, not better. Immigrant communities are getting more isolated, less integrated and more locked into their own traditional values.

What can be done to reverse this depressing trend?

The Home Office nurtures the hope that integration is going to happen naturally without any active intervention from the Government. The children of migrants, or their children’s children, will come to realise that our way of life – based around freedom of choice and material prosperity – is better than the poverty, bigotry and intolerance that characterise religious extremism. But officials at the Home Office insist that immigrants can only come to that conclusion by themselves.

At Michael Gove’s Department for Education, there is a more pessimistic conviction, that if we do not intervene to stop religious extremism, it will flourish and create communities that reproduce values utterly inimical to British ideas of toleration and individual freedom. Mr Gove’s supporters note that radically conservative Muslims already see themselves as locked in a battle with secular culture, one they have to win if their own religion is not to wither away.

It is of critical significance to all our futures: what kind of society the next generation will inherit depends on who is right – and who wins the battle in Cabinet and in Parliament.

 

Despite such a debate being critical to all our futures it is something the BBC has long sought to suppress and even now it continues to promote immigration and attack those who oppose it…see their reaction to UKIP in the run up to the election. The BBC has a similar approach to Islam…it will certainly discuss issues surrounding some aspects of Islam but still seeks to censor the debate in the interests of ‘community cohesion’…..the paradox being such censorship only serves to increase the likelihood of conflict and allows the extremists to operate unchecked in society.  As you can see from the BBC’s reaction to the Trojan Horse affair where it has attempted to downplay its significance, excuse the extremist’s actions and instead uses the opportunity to turn it into a story about politics in Westminster the BBC still wants to control the debate and the narrative.

What damage will history reveal is now being done to Britain and its society by the BBC’s censorship and promotion of multi-culturalism and mass immigration?