You have to smile at the way in which the BBC moves to get the first strike in ANYTIME that Cameron starts to act in the national interest. There was this item on Today that made me laugh at the sheer inherent anti Conservative BIAS of it. God forbid we seek to place the interests of British people ahead of those of immigrants;
Speaking on the Today programme Jonathan Portes, director of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, who has produced work for the migration advisory committee of the UK Border Agency, told presenter James Naughtie that “people outside the UK are significantly less likely than British nationals, or people born here, to claim benefits.” “People who come here from within the EU make a substantial net contribution to the public finances… they pay in far more than they take out,” he added.
Hey, let’s get more Romanians and Bulgarians, those hard working salt of the earth types that also add to the multicultural gaiety of the nation.
He’s right. Immigrants to the UK claim significantly fewer benefits than the homegrown working age population. Immigrants from the A8 EU accessions countries have been net contributors to public finances.
http://timharford.com/2013/03/a-simple-rule-about-migrants-and-benefits/
http://www.voxeu.org/article/fiscal-effects-a8-migration-uk
Now, you can try and caricature this as saying “Hey, let’s more immigrants” if you want, but don’t blame anyone but yourself if people think you’re ignoring facts in order to promote your own prejudices.
This may all be true. EU citizens have a right to enter the UK, work here and receive benefits etc etc. But the majority of immigrants are from outside the EU and they have no right to stay here, so why are they allowed to?
I think UKIP is right in proposing that for non EU immigrants there should be no easy way in, and if they are allowed in, then no benefits until they have paid tax and NI for 5 years.
Interested to see how the BBC handle the brewing immigration storm. I expect that they will try to keep the issue on EU immigration to protect their Asian and African clients. EU folks are too like us for the BBC taste , they are European and from a basically Christian culture. This doesn’t add much to our diversity and for the BBC, who are much more at home with folks from non European cultures, allowing discussion about European migrants is just about OK.
Any talk about non European immigration is of course taboo and racist in the extreme.It may damage social cohesion and allow the British to say what they really think about multiculturalism , mass immigration and all it damaging effects. The BBC couldn’t allow us to say what we thought could they, which, of course, is why so many people despise the BBC and feel it has robbed us of our voice in our country.
Disingenuous to say the least Scott and so is Jonathan Portes: looking at the direct contribution in isolation doesn’t give anywhere near the full picture.
““people outside the UK are significantly less likely than British nationals, or people born here, to claim benefits.”
Because most of them come to jobs made available to them…at what cost and to the detriment of who?…the very people you are saying contribute less!
The last Labour government also forbade the cost of children to be included in the ‘worth’ of an immigrant to this country – so the cost of educating an immigrant’s children, the child benefit, the children’s dentistry, health etc is not included in the calculations.
Is that right I often? wondered how they came up with such obviously manufactured figures.
Is that children brought With them?What about children born to immigrants and elderly dependants is the cost of those counted in anyway I wonder
And what of the uncounted millions of non-eu migrants what they contribute?
That EU immigrants claim fewer benefits is (a) doubtful given the government doesn’t record nationality/immigration status in relation to many of those benefits, and (b) irrelevant in that migrants should only come to work. The figure should be zero.
The EU allows, indeed expects those who cannot maintain themselves to return, or be returned.
The UK government ignores this provision as potentially racist. 40% of rough sleepers in London are EU immigrants, who should by definition be returned.
Instead the government has created a £400m extra fund to find them places to stay. When I say created I mean borrowed another £400m.
‘“Hey, let’s more immigrants”
Lucky Capital Idea isn’t lurking at the moment.
As you are well aware Scott statistics can be used to ‘prove’ many things.
You are right in that there are those on this board who start to foam at the mouth at the very idea of immigrants. I mentioned Muslims once but I think I got away with it etc. But you have to ask yourself why these subjects wind people up so much – and before you say so it’s not simply that they are knuckle dragging racists.
Take for example the simple case of Italian workers. Who could object to skilled workers from Italy coming to the UK? Well maybe the skilled UK workers who lost their jobs because the Italians were paid less money. And guess what they managed to pay less than the minimum wage to the unskilled Italians they brought in because they were employed by an Italian sub-contractor – a company that paid Italian not UK taxes – and so did the workers. So nil benefit to anyone but the Italians. And that’s before we get into any discussion on the quality of their work.
Does that make me racist? Or does it make me someone who had a good job stolen from them and isn’t best please? Have a guess.
Replace “Italian” with “Indian” and you’ve got it about right in terms of the IT industry.
Agreed. I was once interviewing candidates for a developer job alongside an Indian manager. His last set of questions were aimed at finding how low he could start rate negotiations at. Once he had found a level he stopped interviewing locals (including local Indians) and re-advertised the job in India – for considerably a lower rate than the lowest rate for locals.
I don’t blame the Indians for taking the jobs – its the firms and politicians that are at fault.
IME IT rates of pay are no higher now than they were in 2000. And there is supposed to be a skill shortage …
Excellent article on mass-immigration in The Commentator –
Who Is Immigration For?
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2953/who_is_immigration_for
We are told that we desperately need 3 million more new homes: mainly in England. They never say in the same breath that the 5 million immigrants into this country over the past 10 years needs them.
So the “statistics” state that immigrants claim less benefits and are better contributors to the economy.
Than who?
Ah yes, us indigenous folks.
The indigenous folks that have been brought up on benefits and don’t see the point in working.
Well I wonder who suggested that to us lazy indigenous folks?
Who put the systems in place that have allowed such laziness?
Who is anti-free market I wonder?
Who has the support of the world’s biggest propaganda machine?
This is a mystery to me, but then I always worked for my keep and supported my family and paid my taxes, so I don’t really understand economics.
In fact most immigrant groups have HIGHER rates of unemployment and benefit claiming than the indigenous ethnic British!
This is why their ‘communities’ are ‘deprived’!
The only reason foreigners on average contribute a little bit more to the overall GDP is because avery disproportionate number of them are young adults of working age, NOT because they are less ‘lazy’ or more ‘skilled’ (many are totally uneducated Third World peasants), but because there are few older retired people among them. Of course this will change with time as they age too, so an injection of young people isnt a ‘benefit’ either!
Far higher in fact:
From February’s ONS ‘Labour market status by ethnic group’ report:
Whites of working age in the UK have the highest employment rate (73.4%), whereas ethnically Bangladeshi and Pakistani people have the lowest, 49.2% and 48.6% respectively.
Chinese – 50.3%
‘Other’ category – (58.4%),
mixed race – (62.7%)
blacks (62.9%) and Indians (71.5%).
Only 30.1% of Bangladeshi women in the UK are classed as employed, followed by 30.7% of Pakistani women.
Thanks for the figures. I was amazed that such data are collected, let alone actually published, but a bit of searching found them in table A09 at http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/search/index.html?newquery=A09
Another snippet is that during 2012, the employment rate went up by 1.3% amongst ‘whites’ but down by 3.2% amongst Pakistanis and down by 1.5% amongst Bangladeshis.
I would love to know how these so called ‘contributions’ are calculated? how can any statistician POSSIBLy work out the total cost of an immigrant? The cost of their taking housing, the cost of educating their children, the cost of their using our roads and public transport, the cost of their using our maternity services, the cost of keeping them in gaol, the cost of their (large scale) criminality, insurance cheating, unpaid mobile phone bills?
Then there are the indirect costs, the damage to our environment, the extra imports required to bring in their Tylskie beer, Polish tomato ketchup, giant bags of lentils and dried salt fish?
These claims that they take less benefit even if they were true are as NOTHINg compared to all they take from us.
This IS after all why they come here, to enjoy a better life, to use, and sometimes abuse, everything Britain offers its citizens.
Its amazing how the BBC feels it needs to defend immigration in the face of all 3 main political parties (spinning) that they are tightening up. A Bishop is wheeled out over the weekend, the usual suspects in academia coming into the studios today are able to reveal that all their in-depth studies show all immigrants are model citizens who 100% tax and never claim anything whilst all English people are devils working on cattle trucks in their garden sheds when their not falsely signing on to blow their ill-gotten gains getting outrageously drunk on local high streets, and worse getting old and busting the British state with their pension and health care needs.
Scott
That’s great news and I am now relaxed that tens if not hundreds of thousands of Romanian and Bulgarians lining up to come here will now make such a great impact on our economy.
Who Is Immigration For?
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2953/who_is_immigration_for
David Goodhart’s famous essay, The Discomfort of Strangers is worth reading too:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/feb/24/race.eu
The Guardian wouldnt print such an article today!
The point is they didn’t give much thought to us the voting masses when one government after another decided, and be very sure it was a very positive decision, to let in many millions of “other folk” into our country.
Was it because of economics?
Was it to keep labour costs down?
Was it to because they felt guilty because of our empire’s history of perceived oppression?
Well whatever it was the majority of people in this country did not vote for it did they? That is the point. Even now it is not what the majority wants, and that includes the millions of new folks, who can see for themselves that we are now overcrowded. Health and benefit systems at breaking point and not enough housing. It is nothing to do with colour or creed, we have always been a very tolerant nation in that regard, it is simply “quantity”.
To say that this simple statement of fact is racism is a lie, a distortion of the truth, in order to shift the blame away from the guilty politicians who have allowed this invasion of our county without authority.
Yes, and its not ‘xenophobia’ either!
Its common sense. Britian is bursting at the seams and the social fabric of a once cohesive society is disintegrating.
Occam’s Razor suggests that bringing in lots of immigrants swells the Labour vote. Just like allowing millions of Mexicans into the US swells the Democratic vote.
Simples.
Well said
The ‘Do gooders’ seem to think it is the ‘right’ thing to do to pile more and more people into the sinking ship, and hey, if necessary lets throw out the original passengers, owners and crew to make more room for them.
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html
Thanks for posting that link. My point exactly I think.
Reality is harsh and often the consequences horrific. We raise money to feed starving children as by all moral and humanitarian values and one’s own conscience we must do, but what is the effect ? Increasing unsustainable numbers of mouths to feed year on year.
If only ( and unfortunately liberal views make it impossible) we could take a rational approach, we would spend part of the money providing a source of sustainable food producing infrastructure in the many areas where this is undoubtedly possible ( most of sub Sahara Africa for example ) and a deal of the rest of the money in providing security to prevent the destruction and pillaging of those areas, regrettably very often by those who purport to govern and protect those communities.
All ‘pie in the sky’ however and these views are generally regarded as ‘racist’.
I despair !!!
If the political parties agree about the benefits of immigration, then why dont they go into bat at the next GE on a manifesto clearly stating their support for it!
Scott wrote:
“He’s right. Immigrants to the UK claim significantly fewer benefits than the homegrown working age population. Immigrants from the A8 EU accessions countries have been net contributors to public finances.”
What Scott writes is standard fare from those who defend immigration into the UK, but (Sorry Scott) please allow me to smash this defence apart:
Immigrants claim fewer benefits.
Note how that statement is only directed at the citizens of the A8 countries. Yet over 60k arrived from Indian in 2011, Around 45K arrived from China and a similar figure arrived from Pakistan. Three countries and in 2011 they account for over 140K and I left out immigrants from Bangladesh, Sri lanka, Nigeria ,and the Middle East. While the Eastern Europeans may not be claiming working benefits The much larger figure of non-A8 immigrants do. So if we ask the question again but remove the A8 limiting category , then the fact is, well actually Immigrants are claiming more benefits proportionally than the indigenous population. Then lets look at other forms of benefits which aren’t instantly apparent, well there’s housing, NHS, Schooling and lets not forget free School meals. Who is paying for all of this.?
By promoting this view those who attack those who question unbridled immigration , fall in the category of those who try to shame people into silence. Which is perfectly illustrated by the closing statement:
“Now, you can try and caricature this as saying “Hey, let’s more immigrants” if you want, but don’t blame anyone but yourself if people think you’re ignoring facts in order to promote your own prejudices.”
Yup you are all f-ing racists and if you continue to discuss immigration, I will scream, and scream and scream until I am sick. (to be uttered with a lisp)
All facts and figures taken from:
Click to access dcp171778_288105.pdf
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/migrants-uk-overview
Yup you are all f-ing racists and if you continue to discuss immigration, I will scream, and scream and scream until I am sick. (to be uttered with a lisp)
LOL!
Cameron is currently making his immigration speech…
Cue rethponthe?
Note how BBC-NUJ is reluctant to talk NUMBERS, re- immigration.
BBC-NUJ seems to think this is only a problem of ‘fine tuning,’ at most.
The last Labour Government (1997-2010) had an ‘open door’ policy on mass immigration, which BBC-NUJ also advocated.
Britain’s political class enabled the mass immigration from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and from African countries, etc; of course, the immigration from E.U countries is unstoppable under E.U enlargement rules. After the unknown numbers of immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania, who will reside here from next January, there are the much larger numbers which will become eligible soon, as UK’s political class (from Labour, Lib Dems, Tories, BBC-NUJ, Guardianistas, etc) continue their advocacy of E.U entry for 80 million Muslim Turks.
of course, the immigration from E.U countries is unstoppable under E.U enlargement rules
The A8 tsunami was noy unstoppable. Tony Blair deliberately ignored our right to apply transitional arrangement to them and allowed them in while Germany France Spain Italy Denmark and the Netherlands kept them out. Had we kept them out for five years, many may have chosen Germany instead.
Economic factors aside, it is the effect of mass immigration on the nature of British society that many are concerned about. This was not even mentioned (naturally) – but I think many have been shaken by the recent figures on demographics in London. Immigration Watch never gets such an easy ride.
Getting Portes on this morning (with absolutely no searching questions of any kind) was exactly par for the course for the BBC.
I think that any politician or so-called BBC “expert” ought to be required to live in Tower Hamlets for 6 months, to get a real feel for the low economic-activity rates, the multiple signs of poverty, the appalling school standards, the overwhelmed health facilities, the housing problems, the tensions on the streets …….
Then they can come back on to the BBC to spout at us about all the benefits of importing hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshi peasants and their dependents.
Five Live currently giving airtime to various people (some foreign themselves) praising immigrants and repeating the claims that in reality it will be very difficult for Cameron to do anything about it.
This mock debate on immigration today shows how many of those of ‘lib-left’ (inc many Beeboids), have their political prejudice AGAINST British indigenous people, and FOR those they term ‘migrants’.
So, if all those new A8 immigrants come to the UK and find jobs so they don’t go on benefits, will the BBC then have to admit Osborne didn’t destroy the economy after all with his cruel “austerity” plans? I mean, we kept hearing from the BBC that new jobs simply aren’t being created, so if there’s no danger of immigrants coming in and going on benefits, there must be plenty of jobs out there created by the Conservative-led Coalition, right?
Something doesn’t add up here.
yes, once again “doctored” so called debate.
by those who wouldn t know impartial if it jumped up
and gave them a red nose (day 😀 )
all the old favourites
ageing population, relevant skills, fitting in the “all wacists” tone at various points, slime-ing the old hard working “johnny foreigner” drone … as the good points
every single one of these fundamentally flawed.
I actually called in myself with at least five cogent points,
well no dice, not interested, at all … and i wasn t bothered if it was, up on a “tory-boy” or “shouty” …
then to catch five minutes later some “poor” chap struggle to get his words out, and made to look a “right duffer” …
hmm … theres the peoples bbc for you, you know, “your voice is so important to us” and all that.
Was I alone, as I listened to this idiot wittering on unchallenged about “figures” and “evidence”, in wondering that if immigrants are so unlikely to claim benefits, won’t the changing of the benefits rules have little or no effect upon them……? Am I missing something ?
they quite simply register in as “self employed”
you know the tory wet dream, (as usual, this smacks of more tory “soundbite” and concern about UKIP).
yep! self employed hey ho! … and are eligible, such flawed, absurd arguments, this one fella might be employed – his family?, the wife?, the kids? … as we ve seen before how many times, his extended family – you know the health tourists? how about the multitude of orchestrated set ups for syphoning in foreign workers, at the expense of our own?
Comment from lefty ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages) teacher at my wife’s college: “I’ve yet to meet a Somali woman with a job”.
Noticing the large number of posters who are speaking out against this blog. Where have you been for the past 10 years?
Could this be a situation where the bBC concerned at how people are starting to question their tax payers funded leftwing agenda have got a team of experts (Read as Gay/concerned citizens and Nazis prison guards) in which to try and paint this blog as nothing more than a bunch of racist bigots. Well it appears to be working doesn’t it. So scared are white people of been tagged as racist bigots people are actually leaving this blog for pastures new.
So the question I have to ask is why do the likes of Scott/Dez/NAzis prison guard come on here, I mean which right winged bigot goes onto the Guardian CIF or even Homesexual ones. But bloody hell I can’t move for leather studded handbags on this board.
I smell a bloody Rat here, and that tells me the left winged arseholes at the bBC are concerned about how this blog picks out their bloody bias.
Oh and Dez yer tosser, how many times has the bBC used the ‘Muslim and Gay word these past 10 days.
I’m still here. I may not post much but I read this blog every day and I couldn’t give a flying hoot if anyone thinks I’m racist homo bloody phobic or islamophobic.
I would be interested to know the factual basis for your argument that anyone who has the temerity to disagree with you (or other regular commentators) are part of a “team of experts” employed by someone “to try and paint this blog as nothing more than a bunch of racist bigots”?
Pounce, me ol’ china, the trends on this blog have shifted over the past couple of weeks. We still have the constant rebranding of the same old same old trolls, but the attack line has crystalised into something we see right now on the just saying thread. In true msm mode they have turned to the lexicon of deceipt, a kind of “ism” or “phobia” attached to “trolls” , ” dhimmi”, and of course ” gay”.
We still see the moby here (now called homer), but the organised thrust that is evident in the just saying thread has given many of the regulars real problems.
So much so that many have risen to the easily ignored bait, and ended up squabbling and arguing like ferrets in a sack.
The organised inbbc team have indeed found a way of causing real problems here.
Inbbc would love to have any critics silenced, and this blog is one of the fee ways tha man in the street can comment.
If I decide to comment on certain religions, or ideologies, I really don’t give a stuff whether somone counts how many times I use the M word. Its simply not relevant.
Keep posting your opinions, and to all the others here, please dont rise to the baiting being carried out by the inbbc commissariat.
Several months ago I asked that defenders of the indefensible for a definition of a dhimmi. Over some days it was ignored, until an answer was given by a new ID called “me sir, me sir”. The surprise to me was that many regulars seemed to be pissed off by the whole episode. Never understood why, still dont.
Keep up your excellent posting pounce!
I see the bBC is following Scotts angle that actually Immigrants from Europe don’t claim benefits as the PM is claiming. Just like Scott they leave out the hundreds of hundreds of thousands of third world immigrants (Who vastly outnumber European immigrants) who do claim benefits.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21921089
A guilty ‘leftist’ now (too late) partly sees the political light?:-
“A mega mosque in a suburb that was 90 per cent white 30 years ago and the polite apartheid dividing Britain”
By David Goodhart.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2298553/A-mega-mosque-suburb-90-cent-white-30-years-ago-polite-apartheid-dividing-Britain.html
Can Beeboibs now travel at least that far now politically?
The Welcome Mat –
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/.a/6a00d83451b31c69e2017c3815dde9970b-pi
Yes, Mr Vance. I’ve noticed how the BBC, today, have churned out a long line of supporters for open immigration; sensible immigration policies and controlled systems for managing immigration never got a mention. One cravat-wearing academic from Oxford even went so far to say that immigrants have a better work ethic than indigenous citizens and pay more into the economy by a third! He must have been a professor of Arts and Crafts and Contemporary Dance!
Of course it’s true that mass immigration had brought untold benefits to our shores; Jamaican gangsters, Muslim paedo gangs, suicide bombers and schools where only the teachers have English as their native language.
Parts of London are now so wonderfully “enriched” lone women and gay men can’t walk the streets at night.
I see the bBC is running an
article about those poor failed asylum seekers living in the UK.
Glasgow’s destitute asylum seekers: The people who ‘don’t exist’
The central premise of the article is that these failed asylum seekers are humans and just want to work. What the bBC doesn’t tell you if that as to transpire with the 500000 such people who refuse to go home, you would find that they would return home on a holiday (From the country they are seeking sanctuary from) pick up a wife and 4 kids return demand a house, child benefit and the rest.
The bBC, the traitors within our Midst
Isn’t it strange that now UKIP are on the rise the other 3 parties suddenly have immigration high up on the agenda. Well done Nigel Farage.
Yes – and the rise of UKIP is a result of the electorate beginning to speak it’s mind after more than a decade of being cowed into silence. The derogatory labels no longer have the potency they once did.
I’ve no doubt that the three main parties’ sudden conversion to sensible immigration controls is entirely opportunist – a cynical attempt to appear to show solidarity with the public’s deep concern over the issue that is completely contrived and phony. You can bet they’ve been hearing this concern over and over on the doorsteps as they canvas for our votes, and feel they have no choice but to address an issue that they would ALL rather not go near. We all know why. We shall have to wait to see manifesto promises before we believe that any change will be forthcoming, and even then…
Without the receptacle of UKIP for people to place their concerns there would have been no change here, but it is people pressure that is at the root of this supposed ‘change of heart’. I’m grateful for the extra opportunity that UKIP (and others) provides at the ballot box. Whether I make use of it or not, it’s good for democracy to have new rivals to shake up the old order.
Still don’t trust any of the main three on this issue, though.
Labour? Never.
That is very interesting , a nationalistic party which is gaining in strength finds the parties which it is stealing votes from ,aping its train of thought. The thing is personally I don’t think the Tories have gone far enough and let’s be honest as soon as whoever (other than UKIP) gets in power it will be business as usual. The politicians have shown themselves not to be fit for purpose. In doing so they allow the likes of UKIP to come to power.
You’re right there, Pounce. As soon as the politicians from the main parties feel that they have uttered enough sound bites and platitudes about ‘controlled immigration’ to quell the public’s ire, they’ll return to the status quo. Particularly where Labour are concerned, it’s a move by the top brass to appeal to concerns that they would normally dismiss as unacceptable. See the activist on Question Time the other week for evidence of the disconnect between the Leadership’s false presentation and the REAL attitudes of Labour’s core to reducing the number of incomers.
It’s that return to ‘business as usual’ that concerns me. This mass importation must stop.
Eastleigh was the watershed moment.
It has finally dawned on the three main parties they must stop the sudden rise of UKIP.
The strategy will be to devise some suitable platitudes that fool enough of the people enough of the time, in order to spike UKIP ‘s rise.
Once done, they will continue as before.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-03-25/comres-independent-poll-ukip-hit-all-time-high-telephone-poll-vote-share-of-14/
There is a tipping point at which the indigenous population vote can be strategically out-maneuvered by those like George Galloway to exploit reverse colonisation to further their own ends. I suspect the inhabitants of Bradford West bear no resemblence of that area’s inhabitants as recently as 1970.
“Despite the fanfare, David Cameron still isn’t doing anything on immigration”
By Douglas Murray .
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2013/03/despite-the-fanfare-david-cameron-still-isnt-doing-anything-on-immigration/
No member of the liberal elite and that includes Cameron can be trusted on immigration. I am not interested in the economics of it at all. it is simply a question of numbers and do we wish this to remain England or become someplace else. Change the people change the country.
As the liberal elite just cannot be trusted it follows that they can no longer be trusted to guide this country. They must go and go as soon as possible.
Having built the case for immigration upon a series of lies and the denigration of our people and our history this elite is no longer fit to govern and we, the English, must make them understand that their day is done.
“Keep ’em out, Dave? They’re already here!”
By RICHARD LITTLEJOHN.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2299037/Keep-em-Dave-Theyre-here.html
The problem is that many immigrants are hard working and do contribute, where I work many of the staff are from overseas and are lovlely, you couldnt object to them as neighbours. In London there is a darker side, thanks to Zanu-New Labour, if you want to see this just accidentely go into your local social security office and look around. If you can see anybody who is not from a third world country, it will be a shock. The mistake was letting in unskilled labour from third world countries. Just try it as an experiment at some time.
A darker side? I’m not sure you’re allowed to say that.
Lovely or not, we never needed these immigrants and however nice they are, they are a threat to our democracy because their interests are not the same as indigenous interests.
Immigrants in the main want to see the indigenous outmanouvred, so that there isn’t an ethnic majority. Its understandable, they feel safer and more at ease in a multiethnic nation. it is not in their interests for any one ethnic group that they are not part of to have a controlling interest.
It is always in the interests of an indigenous group to maintain the controlling interest.
“The Genocidal Racism of Left-Wing Extremists”
By Paul Weston.
http://paulweston101.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/the-genocidal-racism-of-left-wing.html#more
Enoch Powell once said “immigration is the fulcrum by which England will be overturned” … decades ago, before the Poles et al. The liberal establishment (including Cameron and his crew) hate the conservatism of many ordinary people (including Labour voters) and mass immigration is one way of undermining these. Anyone who objects can be pilloried on BBC Radio 4 as a “racist” or (worse still!) a “Daily Mail reader”. It’s not about race, it’s about culture, and what appears at times like a calculated assault on British traditions. Frankfurt schoolism? Frank Field, always sensible and moderate, said he thought the barbarians were already inside the gates and not just at them.
Perhaps picking pockets pays so well they don’t need to claim benefits !
In addition UKIP are not the answer. They are controlled opposition as are the BNP and EDF. Farage is simply there to placate. We are under a scientific dictatorship mindboggling in its complexity.
Where is your evidence for that? It does sound like paranoia.
I suspect he’s being kept on to split the tory vote next term and allow a massive majority for the son of a Marxist professor, grandson of an NKVD Christian murdering polish Jew Miliband
Possibly, or maybe its just difficult to marginalise him when he firmly refuses to put his foot on the ‘racist’ loaf?
Evidence? Don’t be silly. Notice the lack of links except to radical whatever, and the complete failure to address any issues already brought up here.
Link please, ajp. Otherwise what you say is fluff.
Mark Regev won’t be doing any chaperoning. And 3 days with BICOM – are they complete days – and out of how many days ?. Don’t try to make out that those are the only 3 days of introduction to the complexities of Israel/Palestine.
Still – it is good the poor girl will not be brainwashed by her warped BBC colleagues such as Jon Donnison.
This is silly, A Jewish Person. The BBC spends plenty of time embedded with Palestinian groups as well. They even hire Palestinians to work in journalism for them. Did you not know about, for example, the recent incident of a Palestinian BBC photographer losing his son in what he and the BBC claimed was an Israeli attack? Why would a Zionist organization make the man change is name from “Jihad” to “Jehad”? Why did the BBC get rid of the two useful Jews who were working in Israel, Tim Franks and Katya Adler? Why would a Zionist organization have as their Middle East editor someone with a personal hatred for and grudge against Israel? Why would a Zionist organization allow their pro-Palestinian correspondent, Jon Donnison, to have an all-access pass to the Gaza tunnels but never tell the Israelis about them to get them all closed down and the people involved exterminated? They have to rely on the Muslim Brotherhood to fill in the tunnels on their end, for heaven’s sake.
More incompetence from teh Elders of Zion.
Do I smell rank anti-semitism in ajp’s post ?
Well, the BBC does get complaints from both sides. This is a classic example.
well some minds obviously
EDF, those energy suppliers getting everywhere!
The BBC must be the most incompetent Zionist broadcaster ever, then. How many Zionists do you know that refer to the Al Aqsa mosque as the third-most holy site in Islam, but don’t mention what it means to the Jews at the same time? What kind of a useless Zionist news organization decides not to report on a great propaganda story like the Fogel family massacre? Either they’re the Three Stooges of Zionism (they were Jews, too, you know), or you’re delusional.
Can you provide an explanation of how the BBC is Zionist? Spend a minute reading posts on this blog explaining the BBC’s dishonesty about 1967, for example, then get back to us.
A simple Google, eh? I notice you can’t be bothered yourself to provide even the most basic of arguments. Never mind. That last drink of water you had was filled with sterilization drugs, just like the vaccines in Africa and Gaza, so no chance of your progeny ruining the Zionist plans.
Let’s see you provide even a single, basic explanation of how the BBC is Zionist. I notice you can’t touch the Fogel family story, or any of the posts on this blog regarding the BBC rewriting history about 1967. Either put up or go over to Comment is Free where you will be welcomed with open arms.
You’re having a laugh, A Jewish Person. The Jewish website is showing Llewellyn’s claim as a warning about the irrational anti-Jewish sentiment at the BBC, not as proof that she’s right. She described Jews a “an alien people,”, FFS. Can’t you read?
You still haven’t explained your own heritage, leaving it open to suspicion. The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, so what’s yours?
Zionistic half breeds like Cameron and Blair
Cameron is 7/8 British. Why do you think he would be Zionist?
Blairs genetic roots are not Jewish. why would he be a Zionist?
http://genealogy.lovetoknow.com/tony-blair-family-tree
Most. Incompetent. Zionists. Ever.
Funny how I asked you to refute the arguments presented here, and you went with conspiracy nonsense not based on fact. No links, no dice.
I’m surprised you dare post anymore comments here since the Mossad is already tracking your IP. If you genuinely fear the Jews, you should be more careful.
Several? None useful proof of anything except other people spouting the same conspiracy theories you are. And you can’t even begin to dispute a single post on this blog about the BBC’s anti-Israel bias. Instead, you throw other crap at the wall to obscure the fact that you’re unable to do so.
Pick one. Any one. And reveal your own heritage or nothing you say can be trusted.
Lily-livered? You are a coward, not brave at all. No name, no explanation of your own heritage. Just the anonymous initials. Cowardly hiding behind the safety of the internet. Big words, but no balls.
In fact …. this entire thread is part of a MOSSAD operation…. Surely ajp already knew this though… It doesn`t help when some of our operatives are using Zionist names such as David…. whilst others are obviously pretending that they have nothing to do with the current Isreali mission here on this thread ( Kev from Enfield ) … might as well say “Kev” ..from a place geographically the most distant from Tel Aviv ffs!!! Right now we have compiled a complete dossier on ajp and it won`t be long before a strike team interrupt him whilst he is googling keywords such as Jews, bullsh*t, evil Jews…..
Even if this is true of Camerons great grandfather being in dodgy deals, Cameron is still 7/8 British. I find it hard to see he would be Zionist.
I’d love to see evidence of Blair’s alter ego Miranda LOLS? But he certainly isn’t Jewish.
He may indeed have come heavily under the influence of Jews, but again hard to see that he would actually be a ‘Zionist’.
Does ajp sound a touch anti-semitic ?
Just a tad.
And chem-trails,how do that fit into all this?
Note of the obvious to BBC-NUJ mass immigration proponents:-
It’s easy for Islamic jihadists to get into Britain; it’s very difficult, if not impossible, to get them out.
“Abu Qatada: Government loses deportation appeal”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21955844
Ian Foot for PM! “When in doubt, keep ’em out!”
Hmmm…Church of England Protestant eh?
So how do you feel about the head of your Church being a Jew? 😯
Seriously though you are need in of psychiatric help, and I suggest you stop smoking/ingesting/injecting whatever it is that you do.
Purnell is worth looking into. At least it’s better than Mark Thompson, who is married to a Jewess. Thompson, of course, left to work for the Jew York Times. ‘Nuff said, eh?
Now, about Jeremy Bowen and Jon Donnison and Katty “Jewish Lobby” Kay…..
ajp ………. WTF?? Is your definition of a `Zionist`??? … Also since when did the the twelve tribes of Isreal become thirteen ( adding the lost Fitzsimmons clan ) who actively subvert the intention of Jeremy Bowen and Lyse Doucets` balanced `opinion` pieces based on twitter feed posts and photoshopped images handed to them by Al-Jazeera or presstv…. Also the NKVD had no Jews in thier ranks…. and the NKVD targetted people of all religions… In fact they were the ones who carried out Stalins` purges of the Ukrainians, the Poles and also half of eastern Europe after annexing it in 1948…. One last thing … if BICOM are this massive Zionist lobby group pulling all the strings etc… How is it that there`s only a few basement dwellers such as yourself going on about it??? What does ajp stand for anyway??? A Jihadist Pr*ck perhaps??? I can`t wait to hear more Cool Stories Bro….. Srsly…
From Arch-Zionist to Al-Jazeera…
And so we see the anti-mulims argue with the anti-jew like the best Marx Brothers sketch; when all you are doing is jumping up and down and waving your arms about in front of the perfect mirror image of yourselves.
It would be hilarious if t wasn’t so utterly pathetic.
So you name four people in the NKVD with a Jewish name.. Now the entrie rank and file of the NKVD were also Jewish too.. Never mind the fact that Frenkel wasn`t even in the NKVD (he was a camp commandant and then Head of railroad construction ) The other three guys were executed by Stalin as they were Bolsheviks and also Trotsky supporters…. Frenkel survived mainly becouse he remained a beurocrat and spent most of his time being useful…. However, there is no actual proof that Frenkel was Jewish, TBH he could easily have been Armenian, or an Ottoman Turk… He was caught smuggling goods into Soviet Russia from that region… After which he was sent to the Gulags… I doubt he had time to visit any Synagogues on the way to Siberia…… Anyway, all four of those men were Trotsky allies and apart from Frenkel were executed before the start of WW2 ….
BTW did you ever add up how many deaths the prophet of Islam is responsible for??? Both directly and indirectly by those who follow his “teachings”???