Several of you have pointed out that the BBC hasn’t much to say about the Andrew Neather story. It’s a pity because it’s regarded as explosive.
The Nick Griffin furore inspired Mr. Neather to admit that mass immigration was deliberately engineered by the labour government who wanted to:
a) rub the right’s nose in diversity, and b) to fill skills shortages.
Now that things have gone awry Andrew Neather still wishes to make a case for immigration, and a very good case it might have been, if no-one existed outside London. What he doesn’t know is that people live in far-flung places like Luton, Dewsbury and other outer-reaches of the stratosphere.
He is all in favour of Londoners having easy access to nannies, gardeners and cleaners, perhaps drawn from the pool of immigrants whose good English and previous earning capacity earned requisite points for easier entry.
The Neather children are enriched by the cosmopolitan make-up the south London primary school they attend, and he shudders to think how parochial London might be without its diversity.
The government knew that white working class voters, now known as the indigenous British, wouldn’t understand, so speeches were constructed to obfuscate rather than elucidate.
The article was spotted by the right wing press but it was too late to undo the damage. Even his backtracking attempt entitled ‘How I became the story and why the Right is wrong’ couldn’t put the genie back in the bottle.
Some commenters pointed out that if we had a decent skills education all this would have been unnecessary, Melanie Phillips and the Telegraph took it by the scruff of the neck.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the Migrationwatch think tank, said: “Now at least the truth is out, and it’s dynamite.”
All of this, and hardly anyone dares mention the thing that really scares people. It’s not really Poles, eastern Europeans, Chinese, Indians, or black immigrants that are worrying indigenous whitey, although when any of these work in the health service without a good grasp of colloquial English, that is a disgrace.
It’s the immigrants who don’t like us; who “see us – but don’t wanna be us” that we could do without. That’s why Nick Griffin is where he is.
Hat Tips: Ian, George R, David Jones, etc.
Forthright American blogger, Lawrence Auster, is scathing about what all this says about British politics:
[Opening extract] –
“How many times have I said that the British left hates Britain and has been deliberately seeking to destroy it via large scale immigration? And how many times have I pointed out that the left’s claim that immigration was needed for Britain’s economy was a transparent ploy designed to cover their real motive which was cultural destruction? ”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014586.html
Forthright blogger Lawrence Auster is talking rubbish, too. So what?
what’s an american right-wing blogger got to do with it? Can’t you find any people with a valid opinion on this who can vote here?
The devious BBC ignores the original report about how its devious Labour chums have been pursuing a policy of mass immigration for ulterior political motives to usurp traditional British indigenous working class people and replace them with third world people , notably from Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Somalia and Afghanistan.
Now, in typical underhand BBC journalistic methods, it refers to the original damning critique only by way of the Labour ineffectual denial. Pathetic, BBC:
Even this BBC headline is misleading:
“Migrants boom claim dismissed”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8326501.stm
The BBC is steadfastly using British licencepayers’ funds to propagandise for a future Britain which involves the continuing mass immigration of millions more third world immigrants (not migrants).
The BBC deviously avoids the specific connection between its ‘multicultural’ propaganda and its commitment to unspecified extra millions of immigrants it supports in their exodus from Islamic and other third world countries to enter Britain and set their economic and cultural demands on the British indigenous people.
The BBC shows no specific commitment to the actual interests of the British people, either as citizens or as licencepayers.
The BBC sees itself as a global (and political) organisation which has as much interest in what it sees as the equally valid cultural relativist views of Islamic Pakistan, as of Christian Britain. The BBC’s global audience is not a British one at all, and so the BBC has no priority political commitment to Britain as concerns its news and political slant.
This is one reason why the BBC is so opposed to ‘Fox News’. ‘Fox News’ is explicitly patriotic; and unlike the BBC, it is inclined to look at world issue from the interest of the mother country. In contrast, whether it’s a British teacher being arrested over a teddy bear in Islamic Sudan, or a British navy patrol being arrested by Islamic Iran, the BBC sits on the fence.
Story finally put up at 16:54 today.
George has said just about everything I was going to add but the loathsome Mr Woolas also trots out the usual disengenous platitudes about the new UK Border Agency (who were on a jolly playing rugby last week according to Guido).
The UKBA are completely unaffective because the reality is our borders now stretch from the Atlantic to the Black Sea and are open to anyone from this area who are free to come and go as they please.
Also Hat Tip to James Caine who first posted this story Saturday morning.
Sue
Unusually reticent of you: Who are those who “see us – but don’t wanna be us”
Ooh I dunno. The Asian Invasion?
A gang of high-school thugs? That’s the big threat?
The usual OMTE Reductio ad absurdum.
You ask the stupidest questions Mr BBC.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_V5jYS8eezmU/SuRI0agufTI/AAAAAAAABsY/8AsY1dVVYxQ/s1600-h/racistcrimestats2005.jpg
Now a speech writer for the Labor government has admitted it all. The frankness of the admission is surprising, but not the truth that is being admitted. See, for example, my numerous references to Tony Blair’s 1999 Jacobinist statement that his aim was to “sweep aside those forces of conservatism,” a phrase that clearly included historical Britain itself. Why would anyone imagine that Blair’s immigration policy was not one of his weapons—or rather his primary weapon—for sweeping aside historical Britain? Meanwhile, during all these years of the left’s engineered demolition of their country, what have British “conservatives” done to protest it or demand that it be stopped? NOTHING. At most, a tiny handful of conservative leaning columnists have periodically emitted little impotent bleeps and whines.
Fact: there is not a single man in all of British politics. Not one. There’s not even a single half man. Even the best of them are pathetic clowns tripping over themselves so as not to seem intolerant. Liberalism—the belief in openness and non-discrimination as the highest value of society—doesn’t just destroy a people’s cultural and national identity; it deprives them of their honor, their manhood, their honesty, their everything.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/014586.html
Where are the Conservatives in all of this?? They should be outraged and screaming from the rooftops.
No wonder that Blair and co got rid of the death penalty for treason so quickly, because this amounts to that.
This story doesn’t appeal to the BBC’s target demographic (i.e. themselves). That’ll be why they ‘didn’t notice’ it.
Maybe the BBC could do a bit of investigative journalism into a question my Labour MP refuses to even acknowledge…
If we had to go the length and breadth of the country calling up all young men to fight for Queen and Country against, say, a Talibanised Pakistan, how far would we go before we found ourselves fighting a civil war we could barely win?
Very well put, sue. That episode of QT was partly about drumming up dismal BBC viewing figures; partly a political lynching to make the mainstream parties look good: MPs might not be perfect, but at least they’re not HIM.
MPs have provided huge opportunities for the BNP by being at best indifferent and at worst contemptuous towards the British public. It does not surprise me that the engineering of unrestrained immigration was partly motivated by spite: that is part-and-parcel of the leftist mindset. Their evil is incalculable.
The BBCs mistake was to make the show all about Griffin instead of debating Lisbon, Afghanistan, the postal strike and bankers’ bonuses. Where does Griffin stand on the economy? Nobody is any the wiser.
I am convinced the BBC must be silently rooting for Griffin. Otherwise they would not have made the whole set up so hostile as to make him look like the underdog. Bonnie Greer was pisspoor; Chris ‘seven homes’ Who was pointless. Lady Warsi was kind of OK. Jack Straw started well, but floundered on immigration and was clobbered by Griffin over the World War 2 thing. Griffin is no Mosley. He looked nervous and and weak.
If any good has come out of this, it is that people now realise more than ever that honest debate is fenced in by phony political correctness. There was a time we would have been given debate from a range of opinions, from Arthur Scargill to Enoch Powell. MPs today are vain, inane and pig-ignorant. Television debate is superficial, run by complete amateurs like Paxman. The only ones fielded on BBC QT are safe dull careerists, toeing their respective party lines.
Question Time doesn’t need fascists, over-the-hill pop stars, comedians, or even Jo Brand, to make the show interesting again. Just decent free-thinking people with the balls to tell it like it is.
If this claim by Neather is true then it is describing a policy unprecedented in our history. Immigration as a tool for social engineering by the left. It is almost beyond belief.
Caldwell’s book – ‘Reflections on the revolution in Europe” seems to be hinting at this as he demolishes the economic argument for large scale immigration as flawed. OMTE and assorted fellow travellers before you start screaming racist read his book then get back to us.
I would like to see a serious programme on say Leicester which looks set to be less than 50% indigenous English in a very few years.
Ask the real questions
Where have the English gone and why did they go?
Who has replaced them and where did they come from?
Compare birthrates.
Look at the numbers of indigenous and ethnic children under say 10
and the projected mix in schools in 2020.
Be honest for once about white flight. I live in an area, I always have, where in private people are very blunt as to why they have left London and other cities.
Stop pretending that there is no problem. Because there is and it is getting worse. London is not Britain and certainly not England. It never really was just believed it was.
The delusions of the liberal left and their guilt driven policies of social engineering are about to be smashed by reality. The tragedy is that for all of us, immigrants and those whose families have lived here for untold generations, these delusions by a over educated class of chancers, threaten the harmony of our land.
A true conservative tries to govern with regard for the defects and frailties of human nature not in accordance with some idealised view of a world which has never existed or will ever exist.
It is almost beyond belief.
You’re right. It’s not believable that immigration was a tool for social engineering. Rest easy in your white-flight neighbourhood.
“But the earlier draft I saw also included a driving political purpose that mass immigration was the way the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”
Andrew Neather. 23.10 .2009. Evening Standard.
Your second sentence is simply insolent . I have always lived where I live as have my ancestors. The incomers, particularly those with children, are fleeing the cities.
It is not a white flight neigbourhood. It is England.
Something you would not understand
Neather also says this in his second piece:
The Right see plots everywhere and will hyperventilate at the drop of a chapati: to judge by some of the rubbish published in the past few days, it’s frankly not hard to see why ministers were nervous.
Apologies for describing your manor as a white-flight neighbourhood. I fully understand that you wanted to portray it as something very different – as a neighbourhood where white people flee from the cities.
I’m sure you’re right about England. Help me to understand what it is…
My ”manor’?
Is this an attempt at some ancient cockney patois?
Quaint.
But not ever used round here.
The fish in the river here know more about England and what it is than you ever will.
You really don’t like the English country people do you.? Are you really afraid of us?
You may be right that your local fish know more than I do.
But you may be wrong, too…
Possibly. I notice on an earlier post you mention a smallish town north of Birmingham. Stafford perhaps? or Lichfield or Burton or Tamworth or even Crewe?
Surely not Shrewsbury and heaven forfend it cannot be Telford.
Anywhere but Telford.
So enlighten us. What was the addition of 3m extra immigrants over 12 years for, then? Opinion please.
Not sure much needs saying when the forthright blogger George quotes talks of left-wing politicians hating Britain. They may have a different vision of the country, but to say they hate it is the kind of cheap abuse which demeans such partisan blogging. Ditto the idea of cultural destruction. To enjoy a wider range of cultural experiences – the ideas which Andrew Heather discusses in his much-maligned article – is not at all the same thing as destroying any particular culture.
Enjoy a wider range of cultures? OMTE you could work For Minitru!
The ‘wider range of cultures’ you allude to is being foisted on us whether we like it or not, to the tune of up to three million extra people on our small, somewhat cramped island since ’97.
New Labour had no popular mandate to do this – it certainly wasn’t on Tone’s pledge card. That’s the kind of ‘enjoyment’ experienced by fois gras geese.
Your viewpoint is far too metropolitan and middle class to have an ounce of understanding of how the majority of Brits see this.
Philip
I apologise if my viewpoint from a small-ish town a long way north of Birmingham is too metropolitan for you. I will work hard at imagining the life you lead.
Whether you enjoy having different folks around is not necessarily the same thing as claiming cultural destruction.
I travel a fair bit. England looks remarkably resilient to me. Which bits are you missing?
Yes, that’s what Labour thinks too.. easily stuff a few million more in. it’s not about ‘different folks’, it’s about numbers and selectivity.
“enjoy a wider range of cultures” ?
Yes certainly, that is a very good idea OMTE obviously those cultures should be abe to enjoy a nation of their own within secure borders and able to decide their own fate and future so we can visit them and they can visit us and we can all respect each others cultural heritage and history.
I would love to be able to see visitors come see,enjoy and leave, I would like nothing better than to see other nations and then come home to my own nation secure in the knowledge that my nation will be my nation and not someone elses.
Its called tourism OMTE, we have giant aricraft that can take us to different nations where we can see and enjoy other and different cultures so we may learn and come together as equals.
Nations are like families within houses OMTE, we live in seperate houses in family units for a good reason and we live in seperate nations for a good reason, my culture is not Somalian/Nigerian/islamic/Indian culture.
The world is big and the UK is small, we dont have enough land to give away to the millions who wish to take it from us or even integrate, we can only take in a fraction and they should be the very finest quality and determined to integrate fully into our culture.
Their is a great way to experience other cultures OMTE its called a super jumbo and they can carry us to wherever we wish!
I have a great deal of respect for your undoubted intelligence, if you can see the flaws in my logic please let me know.
Ooops, should be there not their!
See the future:
All this does is reinforce Griffin’s point of view to many white working class people.
Labour are well and truly stuffed come the next election.
Perhaps, but nothing will change.
And , of course, immigrants are more likely to vote Labour. Just as Labour have dumbed down the education system, because less well educated people are more likely to vote Labour.
It is pure, cynical gerrymandering.
I wonder if Labour and the BBC think that other countries should be more “multi-cultural ” or is it only Britain ?
“Trying to stuff the cat back into the bag”
(Melanie Phillips)
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5475511/trying-to-stuff-the-cat-back-into-the-bag.thtml
For BBC:
“Labour think-tank ‘airbrushed link between migrants and crime in immigration report for Blair'”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223296/Labour-think-tank-airbrushed-link-migrants-crime-immigration-report-Blair.html#ixzz0V9w0OKLt
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223296/Labour-think-tank-airbrushed-link-migrants-crime-immigration-report-Blair.html