No, I don’t mean the UK’s treatment of asylum seekers but rather the State Broadcaster which seems never happier than when impugning the reputation of our country. The BBC has been leading its news channels today with the allegation that the UK’s treatment of asylum seekers falls “seriously below” the standards of a civilised society.
Who says so? Well, it’s a group called The Independent Asylum Commission. This group is described as being “a body of legal and professional experts on refugees”. Well now, therein lies the rub, because it’s nothing of the sort. Yes it has a co-chair in the form of Ifath Nawaz who is the President of the Association of Muslim lawyers (Do Muslims need their own association? Is there an association of Evangelical lawyers?) Maybe they do since Nawaz and her colleagues have campaigned for UK laws to be changed to become compatible with the Sharia – arguing that failure to do so will breach the human rights of Muslims. In addition, the group’s members have said that they also wish for Sharia to become the dominant law-code in the UK. So, Nawaz is clearly a woman whose opinion is magisterially impartial, a shill for sharia. The IAS also has Nicholas Sagovsky as a self-appointed Commissioner. He has a long record of opposing efforts by the British government to impose controls over immigration. Last but not least is the frontman for the group, former Chief Inspector of Prisons Lord Ramsbotham. Now Lord Ramsbotham is a busy chap. When he’s not advocating greater support for the families of convicts, he’s the kinda guy that urges the release from prison for killers such as those who murdered young Jamie Bulger, in other words he is a sopping wet liberal. This is a professional whinge-fest and not the group of sober balanced intellects the BBC pretends
I do believe the UK has an issue on asylum but it is the opposite to which this group suggests. We are far too open to asylum seekers and our traditional British hospitality has been outrageously abused by numerous bogus “asylum seekers.” We also fail to promply deport those who have no right to be here, and of course the fundamental lure of coming to Britain in the first place – the Welfare bonanza – is also in need of drastic reform. None of these points are discussed by the BBC because it empathises with the IAS loathing of the United Kingdom that unites all on the left. Just some of the balance you won’t be hearing today.
Whoops – I see Laban has also blogged this at the same time as me! So, two for the price of one today!
They treat asylum seekers better than they do NI women.
Some women opt for jail rather than pay TV fines By Diana Rusk
27/03/08
SIXTY-EIGHT women have been sent to prison in the last two years for failing to pay their TV licence, the prison service has said.
Technically, failure to pay a TV licence is not a crime punishable by a prison sentence but the courts can impose one if the person then fails to pay associated court fines.
The same number were imprisoned for refusing to pay the TV tax as were sentenced for assault offences….
TV licence dodgers spend only a few days in prison and therefore do not make up a high percentage of the overall prison population.
As a whole, the percentage of fine defaulters is much higher in Northern Ireland than in England and Wales combined…..
Deborah King, spokeswoman for TV licensing, said it was important to stress people were being imprisoned for not paying their court fines rather than the TV licence.
“You cannot be imprisoned for not paying your TV licence.
“A custodial sentence can be imposed as a result of non-payment of court fines including fines for failure of not having a TV licence,” she said.
“However this is a matter strictly for the courts.”
http://www.irishnews.com/irishnews/540/5860/2008/3/27/583652_340649656105Somewomen.html
“So, Mr Nawaz is clearly a man…”
Actually David, Ifath Nawaz is a woman.
DB,
Thanks, I will amend but in these days of sexual liberation surely is it her right to be a man! 🙂
The beeb and its fellow enablers are I admit a very busy bunch.Barely a day goes by without a number of articles and reports that further seek to destroy our society and institutions..if only they could work hard for the common good..or maybe even get a productive job…hmmmm!..probably not.
“The BBC has been leading its news channels today with the allegation that the UK’s treatment of asylum seekers falls “seriously below” the standards of a civilised society.”
That’s it? That’s the token mention of the BBC in your six-inch rant? Seriously Fury, leave the difficult stuff to Laban.
Expanding from asylum issues to immigration issues, Sarkozy and Brown are discussing issues of immigration numbers and control; but, of course, EU immigration is moving out of national control to EU diktat.
Both France and the UK have problems of rapidly increasing mass immigration, which their political leaders seem not to recognise nor to be able to control.
While the BBC is very concerned about the rights and treatment of asylum seekers to the UK, the impact of mass immigration is largely treated as positive, and that the economic, social and cultural interests of the indigenous people are of secondary interest.
Compare the BBC’s long presumption of the ‘benign’ effects of mass immigration with these two reports:
1.) UK; 2.) France:
1.) UK
“Never have we seen immigration on this scale: we just can’t cope”
(by Prof. Robert Rowthorn) –
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/07/02/do0202.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/07/02/ixop.html
2.) France
” France: The Cost of Immigration ”
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3129
Alex,
Here’s a suggestion. If you can’t address me by my name, I suggest you find another site that tolerates such ad hominem. You’ll not be told again -behave civilly or I’ll give you cause to be anger. My name is David, please use it. Or else. Got it?
If you don’t want a cool nickname like “The Fury” then David Vance it is.
Don’t be too hard or poor ickle Alex. Back at his blog, the last 16 entries have attracted 9 comments, and some of them are from the blogger himself. So forgive him if he has to come here for some interaction.
Of course in the TV tax were abolished then no one would ever be criminalised for simply wanting to watch a television.
“in other words he is a sopping wet liberal”
Except Ramsbotham isn’t, as anyone who has met the guy even briefly would know. He’s a former Army General appointed to HM Chief Inspector of Prisons by Michael Howard. He’s now a crossbench peer whose line of thinking and voting record is more in line with the Conservatives, and who has talked at Conservative Association events.
He’s only a sopping wet liberal when compared against a hard right headbanger. Whether or not you agree with his views on prison and sentencing, he has spent 6 odd years going round them and he’s considerably more qualified to comment on whether the justice system is working than most of us.
“Don’t be too hard or poor ickle Alex. Back at his blog, the last 16 entries have attracted 9 comments, and some of them are from the blogger himself. So forgive him if he has to come here for some interaction.
Chuffer | 27.03.08 – 5:00 pm”
Though let’s not be biased that’s still far better than hillhunt’s blog manages…
My name is David:
If you can’t address me by my name, I suggest you find another site that tolerates such ad hominem. You’ll not be told again
Quite right. While you’re at it, would you care to address the behaviour of the author of the following ad hominem remarks:
Ramsbotham…he is a sopping wet liberal. (No, he’s not: See above)
There was smug SNP leader Alex Salmond who increasingly resembles a fat toad;
wee Georgie Osbourne, the wetter than a wet lettuce Shadow Chancellor.
Or possibly the great wordsmith Atlas Shrugged who suggested that a fellow poster was a dick head…a dishonest or brainwashed cunt. (Me, since you asked)
(Personally I’d prefer a DC Comics moniker like The Fury or a Tarantino-esque Mr Orange, any day)
So, action time My Name Is David: Or are some hominems more easily offended than others?
Biased BBC: The Name Of The Rose. Is Not Fury. Or Orange. Just David.
hillhunt
you really think your constantly giving people stupid and insulting names is on a par?
you really think constantly abusing the moderator of the blog, who has the power to moderate or ban you, is an equivalence?
you honestly believe the abuse you have received has not been in response to this abuse?
you genuinely think that coming on to a blog that is not yours and then continually insulting ALL of the people on that blog is acceptable?
No wonder absolutely no one goes to your own blog…
Hillhunt,
Remind me when wee Georgie, the sopping liberal Ramsbotham, or toad look-a-like Salmond come onto this blog, and I will extend my normal courtesies to them.
I am pleased you have become more civilised in how you address me, and hyou ave almost succeeded in doing so without your little caveats, proof that even the worst sinners can repent. I also would prefer others did NOT call you names since that is also discourteous. I know your style is of course to provoke such response, not surew why since it all goes nowhere. Like your arguments.
Finally, I never cared for DC, much prefer Marvel.
P and a tale etc,
Ramsbotham DEEP concern for the Bulger killers is not only sopping wet liberalism, it’s cringing moral relativism. I can understand why you so admire him. I don’t.
Hillhunt,
As you are quite aware, those examples were used just the once whereas you use the term orange (with variants) in every post you make!
Are you able to to see the difference Hillhunt or is that you dont wish to?
Your posts have become a little more fact heavy which is to be appreciated so our training is having some effect on your behaviour and if you could lay off the urge to to bait DV then I feel you would be better able to integrate into the wonderful online community that is B-BBC.
We all get the urge to call people names but perhaps a little more engagement and acceptance of cases of obvious bias and genuine proofs might get you a much more sympathetic ear when you have good points to bring up.
When you deny any and all cases, even those with merit you will not get a positive response when you have a good point to make.
Remember that you catch more flies with honey than vineger!
“Ramsbotham DEEP concern for the Bulger killers is not only sopping wet liberalism, it’s cringing moral relativism. I can understand why you so admire him. I don’t.”
Is this following your famous doctrine of avoiding ad hominems? Nice work.
Ramsbotham’s “concern” for current and former prisoners is about preventing recidivism. Which is basic pragmatism borne of actually having studied the effectiveness of the prison service from within. It’s a no bullshit approach he’s carried over from his time in the Army and his dislike of civil service bureaucracy. But I’m sure you know that because you think he’s a wet liberal, which is, frankly, hilarious.
It doesn’t surprise me that you choose – as with most issues – to view the world in black and white, claim the moral high ground and simply view things in your normal I-am-right-and-the-world-is-wrong terms.
I’d genuinely like to see you tell Ramsbotham to his face he was a wet liberal and a cringing moral relativist. It would make for highly amusing viewing.
‘Remind me when wee Georgie, the sopping liberal Ramsbotham, or toad look-a-like Salmond come onto this blog, and I will extend my normal courtesies to them. ‘
Yes David but it should still extend to people not here to defend themselves – and indeed even to people we don’t know. Or both.
Glad to see Hillhunt taking the advice and using peoples names. After all hillhunt the guy posts openly under his own name and is pretty open in standing over his views, even if you take issue with them. Credit and a little respect where its due eh. It’s ruining perfectly good threads.
P and a chip,
I’d love to tell him. Please arrange it.
“Finally, I never cared for DC, much prefer Marvel.”
Glad we agree on something. But unfortunately “The Human Torch” doesn’t quite reflect your written style quite like “The Fury”.
DV…you seem to be outnumbered by the sneaks again…lefties always seem to think we will not face anybody who we disagree with in person…the lefties do like to project…faceless,anonymous criticism is their game.
David Vance
You are good at asking questions and recording the strange to say the least efforts and obvious propaganda that daily spouts from the BBC.
But you very rarely bother to work out what the real reason and therefore answer is.
You ask “why do we have bodies like The AML and not an AEL?” Which is a, interesting question, which deserves a logical well documented and highly researched answer.
You could also ask why we have feminist groups, revolutionary groups, Marxist groups, CND, a Lib/Dem Party any socialist parties at all and many other things that don’t seem to have a logical or an at all nice purpose.
Remember Political organizations of any size cost money and take up a lot of peoples valuable time. Large effective ones however cost £ millions just to get started, and countless tax free millions every year to continue to exists. They also need a cheap way to get coverage and exposure, which is where the establishments BBC comes in so handy.
There are many causes one can join but only limited time and very limited finance available to common people to run them and protest on there behalf.
That is unless, a divide and rule, chaos out of order, Hegalian, political establishment, like the one that runs our world, desperately desires to control the political grouping or organization.
Then millions can and often are secretly payed to these radical unrepresentative groups by mega large banking and industrial corporations, so they can establish full time workers and representatives. Very much like the Mafia controlled the Teamsters Unions in 1920s-30s America.
Groups like The Association of Muslim Lawyers is a perfect example of a constructed New World Order subsidized disruptor of the status Quo. Maybe just maybe Bias BBC is also. Designed to confuse and irritate the general public into fascist thinking. In the same way Michael More, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, The BBC, The Labour Party and The Muslim Council of GB are.
They are subsidized indirectly, set up, or simply controlled by the very people they all claim to be against. Which is the British establishment and its international corporate capitalist system.
This way it is the establishment that sets the agenda and continue to have hold of virtually all radical political thinking. Not the ordinary people. Who are not radical to any great extent. They are all but a very few indeed, very small C conservatives when not being very small L liberals or straight forward libertarians.
Conservatism does not need to be subsidized to exist, by the very definition of conservatism it is populist and reactionary.
Without radical politics creating cyclical economic chaos and public discontent, the ruling class, would not be able to control the resultant free, prosperous, well educated, independent minded, peaceful, united people, that would quickly emerge. Still less make easy money in the markets from the disorder they control the timing, place and direction of.
“BUT,” I can hear you all say. “THESE PEOPLES MONEY COMES FROM THE SAUDI ROYAL FAMILY not the British or worlds establishment.”
I answer by stating this. IMHO the British and worlds establishment and The Saudi Royal Family are brothers and sisters in crime. Their common enemy, are the fundamentalist religious people of the world, Muslim, Jew, and Christian. The Saudis train their own people to become terrorists to deliberately lose and die pointless deaths, not to directly win anything whatsoever. The Saudis thirst for the capitulation of the Iranian revolution, as they are a direct threat to the world establishments plans for complete world domination and Saudi Royal family power.
I am as far as that matter is concerned on the establishments side. But lets at least base our thinking on the realities of the world. Not on what we might wish them to be.
Could anyone out there work out with any form of reasoned logical argument as to why these last stated opinions of mine are not obvious fact?
John Galt, you’re Atlas Shrugged aren’t you?
My Name Is David:
it has a co-chair in the form of Ifath Nawaz who is the President of the Association of Muslim lawyers (Do Muslims need their own association? Is there an association of Evangelical lawyers?)
A good point, spoiled only by the existence of :
The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship…
http://www.lawcf.org/index.asp?page=About+Us
The startup of the International Catholic Lawyers Society
http://www.catholiclawyers.net/
And the well-established United Kingdom Association
Of Jewish Lawyers And Jurists.
http://www.jewishlawyers.co.uk/home.htm
Could it be that what you’d really like is to restrict the rights of Muslims to speak up for themselves? And how well would that serve the challenge of keeping young Muslims out of the hands of extremist preachers?
Troll called Hillhunt,
Please explain which of the organisations you mention seek the installation of an alternative legal system in the UK? Do you understand the term DHIMMI? (If not, take a break from the DC comics and educate yourself.) Sharia may seem a reasonable request for you, but not, I suggest, for most other people.
“Glad to see Hillhunt taking the advice and using peoples names. Typhoo | Homepage | 27.03.08 – 8:15 pm”
“My Name Is David: Hillhunt | 28.03.08 – 8:45 am”
You see even now he just cannot resist it, abysmal doesn’t begin to cover it.
Anonymous,
I know. He’s a monumental bore who has skated through thin ice.
Mr Vance:
Please explain which of the organisations you mention seek the installation of an alternative legal system in the UK?
Hardly likely as none of them are Muslim.
Any reason why a Muslim cannot ask to have the law amended? It doesn’t mean it will be.
Nice use of the word sharia, by the way raising spectres of hand-chopping and gay-stoning. You know that’s not what they’d like.
Do you understand the term DHIMMI?
It’s Jimi.
Mr Hendrix to you…
.
Hillhunt,
You proven you are either incapable or unwilling to accept the nature of Shar’ia. I am sure readers will have noted this. Dhimmi it is.