There’s an ongoing furore over the ever more bloated international aid budget whilst things at home are austerity stricken.
Perhaps Cameron might have a change of heart and start repatriating some of that money to help the homegrown refugees that the BBC has discovered roaming British cities. ( 9 minutes in)
Yes that’s right, British refugees.
The BBC tells us that Birmingham has ‘increasing numbers of refugees from the South East, Newham in particular’ caused by a housing shortage in London.
That’s the South East of England not South East Asia.
The cause? The Government cap on welfare and lack of house building.
No mention of immigrants causing the housing shortage …despite the majority of the ‘refugees’ on the BBC’s piece being, er, immigrants.
‘Refugees’ was repeated a few times so no mistake, no slip of the tongue…an obviously deliberate choice of words…..wonder why the BBC editorial meeting decided on that highly emotive form of wording?
An unfortunate irony that Derbyshire’s programme was followed immediately by Sheila Fogarty’s which had genuine refugees from the Syrian war telling their stories. Having to move from London to Birmingham just doesn’t compare somehow…unless you work for the BBC and have a political point to make I suppose.
The continuing colonisation, and significantly Islamisation, of Britain through on-going policies of mass immigration will increasingly produce such crises.
It seems likely that Britain’s political class (inc BBC-NUJ) will campaign for many areas outside London to be forced to take a much higher percentage of immigrants/refugees, so as to have space for even more immigrants/refugees to enter the S.E of England.
BBC-NUJ is now engaged in a political campaign to get as many ‘asylum seekers’ into U.K as possible, with no upper limit on numbers.
“Asylum seekers in plane plot”
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4971917/Asylum-seekers-in-plane-plot.html
“Spy cams on every plane: Expert’s CCTV call after jet terror alert”
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/4973242/Spy-cams-on-every-plane-Experts-CCTV-call-after-jet-terror-alert.html
“More than 22,000 asylum seekers have been housed in Glasgow over the last decade as a result of the government’s ‘dispersal policy’, which sought to house asylum seekers away from the south-east of England.
“Glasgow now has the largest number of asylum seekers in the UK, with around 2,300 housed in the city.”
http://blogs.dailyrecord.co.uk/torcuilcrichton/2010/11/housing-threat-to-glasgow-asylum-seekers.html
What happened to the other 19,900?
Well, at least they are being housed in rock-safe Labour seats. The time to start worrying is when they are placed in marginal seats where Labour usually come second.
It’s time to start placing them around the Chipping Norton set, filling their schools.
Then we may see some reaction?
The Immigration Minister, Mark Harper, visited Plymouth yesterday (‘one of 86 towns and cities across the UK that are currently used to accommodate asylum seekers’). The Conservative MP pointed out the cost of this and wanted Plymouth taken out of the scheme. Mr. Harper’s response was -‘we’re still going to need to make sure we have them throughout the UK rather than just in the S.E. of England’…… from plymouthherald .
Am waiting to see if local BBC has any report on this……. they are keen on the Diversity Festivals.
I’ve never understood how the BBC has the gall to always depict Asians and Africans as labour voters. Clearly they are family orientated hard working people who are self starters (demonstrated in them travelling half way around the world to improve their lot) – do they get some kind of grooming from the officials who receive them into the country?
Our upcoming immigrants won’t want to live anywhere else but the SE, just like the 2000-now wave. It’s about time Boy Dave and his ex-chum Boris stuck it properly to ZaNuLieBor about the millions of economic immigrants they let into the country. It’s about time too that we got an authorative study about how many are getting what benefits, including social housing. When the Sunday Times can do a piece about single mums in the same circumstances on wages between £13-34k all receiving about £34k because of Brown’s largesse/stupidity, I just cannot believe there is any truth at all in the economic ‘benefit’ of immigrants.
My relatives’ area has been swamped with migrants over the last decade, I presume some economic, some asylum seekers. They seem to whup the locals in terms of dynamism and friendliness, they have opened churches (there’s always a downside 🙂 and their children are polite – they are mostly Africans. I cannot tell how many polish (or others) there are because they obviously blend in except when they talk, but there are quite a few of them too as polish shops have sprung up alongside the new African shops.
Asylum seekers, I believe, are forbidden from working while seeking asylum so those ones will obviously be in receipt of benefits. The Africans can’t all be asylum seekers because they have opened up shops so are working but we don’t have any international agreements to take economic migrants from Africa so how has this come about?
While I sympathise with asylum seekers (and those that have to stay in troubled countries) I can’t help feeling that allowing people to leave en masse simply exacerbates the problems in those countries and the UK (and other countries) acting like a sticking plaster only causes internal strife here too.
I have no problems with Africans (or other nationalities) coming to the UK as economic migrants as long as they can support themselves when they arrive and for a certain amount of time after their arrival, that once they have worked for several years they can stay as a citizen if they want, and that (as should happen with indigenous people of the UK) they cannot easily live on handouts for the rest of their lives – with one proviso; that the UK only accepts immigrants from countries with a reciprocal arrangement i.e. if they can come here, I can go there!
: )
Some good might come out of this. Smug people far away from London, Bradford and other heavily enriched areas might realise that diversity will “coming soon to a town near you”.
Better b****r off to rural France pretty damn quick!
“The liberal Left should be furious that Abu Qatada has taken advantage of our asylum system”
By Dan Hodges (2012).
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100189338/the-liberal-left-should-be-furious-that-abu-qatada-has-taken-advantage-of-our-asylum-system/
And in America:-
“America’s Insane Asylum for Jihadists, Hustlers and Frauds”
By Michelle Malkin.
http://michellemalkin.com/2013/04/24/americas-insane-asylum-for-jihadists-hustlers-and-frauds/
The correct term is internally displaced.
Perhaps the BBC is anxious to promote a new, unique refugee organisation on the lines of UNRWA, exclusively for home-seekers from SE England, with a new, unique definition of refugee just for them?
No, no, no!
The EU sees Brum as being in a different region to the South East. The BBC is therefore only using the correct, as it sees it, terminology.
Ah, this, I think, explains the non-sequitor on Today this morning on the piece about a new luxury hotel being built on the South bank in London. Webb, I think it was, apropos nothing, said in his best snidey voice “Do we really NEED another luxury hotel in London? Wouldn’t it better to build more affordable housing?” Like it’s a zero sum game; a one thing or the other choice. He’s clearly moved by the plight of the refugees…..
In 40 minutes there was no mention of the fathers of the children.
I recognise that picture. It’s just of the A325 between Farnborough and Nepaldershot.
this strategy by the BBC is not uncommon, they also frequently dig up images of people queuing for soup kitchens and food hand outs – I know people who are directed to these places “to show that the situation is getting worse” and who are encouraged to ask for benefit loans to make it seem like people are struggling – citizens advice and charities (subsidised by the tax payer) and leaflets handed out on behalf of action groups .
The same skuldugery is used when portraying homeless figures, they never say this is the total of people in temporary accommodation and includes people in council property awaiting permanent allocation of housing.
Similarly, they never mis an opportunity to portray the disposable income of someone they are portraying as vulnerable as the whole income instead of explaining that they get housing benefits and lots of other benefits.
Thank you a lot for sharing this with all people you really
recognise what you’re talking about! Bookmarked. Kindly also visit my website =). We can have a link change contract between us