Bit of a sea change at the BBC…at least in parts.
There must have been an official memo come down from on high that demanded a more honest and open exploration of the issues surrounding immigration.
The BBC has had a few looks at David Goodhart’s book ‘The British Dream’, we have had a programme from Victoria Derbyshire that didn’t seek to hide the true reasons for many immigrants coming to the UK specifically, and now Stephanie Flanders has kicked over the traces and really undermined the long cherished shibboleths of the pro-immigration lobby.
Undoubtedly hearts and minds in the BBC won’t change no matter what directives they receive from the bosses…and so the question is can this open and honest approach filter through to the shop floor and not just be limited to specific programmes?….if presenters still label those who want to control and limit immigration as ‘racist’ and allow guests such as Diane Abbot to come on shouting ‘xenophobia’ then the effect of any official BBC approach is negated.
Start The Week had on Paul Collier who has written a book, ‘Exodus’, examining the effects of immigration, not just on Britain but on the countries from which the immigrants come, and neither country seems to benefit long term from mass immigration.
The points he makes are all ones that have been obvious for a long time now and which have been made again and again by those who were critical of mass, uncontrolled immigration….it is essentially a massive experiment which has failed…..and one which politicians, with the help of a compliant Media (The BBC), have forced upon the British population regardless of their concerns and beliefs.
Some of the major points raised by Paul Collier:
1. The least integrated an immigrant community is with the host nation the more immigrants it attracts…because they realise they will feel ‘at home’ ….getting all the benefits of the civilised, wealthy host nation whilst not having to integrate and compromise on language, culture or religion…in other words you get a mini-Pakistan or mini-Somalia.
2. It is not just an economic issue as the pro-immigration lobby try to claim….for a start the economic benefits are disputed, and are at best minimally beneficial…and any such benefit is short term and trivial.
It is the long term effects that are important, the effects on society itself…..too much diversity is dangerous….it lowers trust, there’s a lack of co-operation between groups, and no mutual regard….as well as other costs such as overcrowding, crime, housing, access to schools and the NHS.
And the result is conflict.
3. As more and more immigrants enter the country it is turned upside down and the things that made the country attractive to the immigrants are lost…..eventually the economy breaks down as well as the social fabric as the shared sense of nation and mutual regard are broken down.
4. If you have open borders you can’t have a welfare state.
5. Using net migration figures is a politician’s, and the BBC’s, favourite and misleading con trick….a net migration figure of zero means only that the same number of people have left a nation as entered…the sum total of the population might still be the same…but the identity of the population could completely have altered.
6. A sense of Nation is the glue that holds it all together.
7. Students and asylum seekers should go back to their homelands as soon as their studies or the conflict they escaped from is over…to help rebuild their own country.
8. It is usually the more educated and wealthier who escape from conflicts…and therefore this drains a country of the innovative and clever people it needs to rebuild.
9. The politicians have been deliberately failing to address the obvious problems and are completely out of touch with the Public’s concerns.
As said above it is all very well for the BBC to do the occasional programme like this one that examines and admits the most difficult problems about immigration but will there be a follow up to see if these ‘truths’ are reflected in reporting or in the way that presenters deal with the subject on their own programmes?
If not is it just a tick box exercise designed to say ‘Look we’ve done X amount of programmes on immigration…therefore we’re balanced and impartial’?
If the culture, the hearts and minds, the overall Institutional pro-immigration stance, remains unchanged, that wouldn’t be true.
i agree asylum seekers should go back to their homeland once the danger there no longer exists. Take 2 asylum seekers for example, Peter Hain and Margaret Hodge.
Now Margaret Hodge cant be sent back to Egypt just yet, because she’s a jew, and within a week of her being deported her head would be chopped off and the video posted on you tube. Obviously she can stay here until its safe for her to return. In the mean time she should pay her fair share of tax, rather than what shes legally obliged to pay.
Peter Hain on the other hand, came here because he was an anti-apartheid activist and was getting hassled by the police. Since the apartheid government is no longer in power, and his ANC heroes are, its now safe for him to return to his native South Africa. He should go and take the skills this country has given him (at great expense to the tax paying british public), and use them to better his native homeland.
🙂
I think that’s a really excellent reason to send tax-dodging Enver Hodge back to Egypt.
…with her child psychology skills? Surely not!
Only genuine asylum seekers should be allowed in. Agreed.
For instance, allowing Islamic Jihadis from a part of the world where the Jihad is ongoing, is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is to deny asylum to say Syrian Christians.
Syrian Christians Turning To Russia For Help Against Islamists
http://www.religiousfreedomcoalition.org/2013/10/21/syrian-christians-turning-to-russia-for-help-against-islamists/
Its really sad that Christians, the most persecuted minority in the world, is given such a hard time to get asylum in Christian countries, that they have to seek help from Russia – a country where Christians were viciously persecuted by the thoroughly evil Marxist communists.
On a more general level, Muslims cannot integrate with any any other community, as Islam forbids it. It is we who have to assimilate with Islam and Muslims.
Any serious attempt to integrate Muslims and Islam into Western culture will be regarded as an attack on Islam, and thus trigger an all out Jihad against us. It is koranically justified, and will attract Jihadis from all over the world, as well as EU Muslims, who can enter without question.
Bearing this in mind, any serious attempt to integrate Islam in the West, has to be Europe wide.
Hain is actually Kenyan born and his parents left the country at Uhuru. This is normal practice for Liberal folk who spend their time agitating for Liberation but quickly find that the liberal wet pants turn into literal wet pants.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hain
You will note that even at the age of 15 he was a strong supporter of terrorism (although he would probably prefer the term “freedom fighter”) when he gave a speech in support of a terrorist who had been hanged for a bomb attack on Johannesburg Railway Station that killed an elderly woman (whose name indicates she was of Welsh descent) and severely injured 23 others.
Despite being foreigners in South Africa they agitated against their hosts for political change. Agitation incurred the wrath of the hosts who detained them for a time. In reality they should have deported them back to Wales.
The Establishment can be expected to show their “concerns” over immigration during the run-up to the next General Election, but will never actually do anything practical about it. In the late 1970’s, public sentiment about immigration in this country was building up, so much so that the National Front was attracting votes, despite all the baggage and the odious individuals associated with it. It only took a single sentence from Margaret Thatcher: “people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture” to assuage that sentiment. Swamped? We were barely damp then in comparison to now.
i agree asylum seekers should go back to their homeland once the danger there no longer exists.
Yep it really is that easy isn’t it?
I principle you have a point, but how many people are given asylum in the UK on the pretext that they are from country X which has problems, when they are in fact from country Y which does not.
The often destroy their passports so officials cannot tell where they have come from, and they lie about which flights they took. Just because you get on a boat in Lybia does not mean that you have come from Somalia, even if you later claim you have.
What are you going to do if someone arrives here and has children who are educated in state schools speaks English and not a native language? Send them to a country they have no knowledge of?
No, asylum seekers should not be allowed here in the first place. Under UN rules, such people should seek asylum in the nearest safe state.
The UK is not the nearest safe state to Iraq, Syria, Somalia, etc.
In any case and as such, these are not so-called asylum seekers but economic migrants and in much in the same way as those now leaving safe Tunisia to cross the Med are not seeking sanctuary but a “better life” and something for nothing.
Under UN rules, such people should seek asylum in the nearest safe state.
Doesn’t say ‘must’ though does it, and therein lies the problem! They can still seek asylum legally where ever they like, however if they pass through other safe states and fail to claim asylum it can affect their case.
They cannot be classified as ‘refugees’ or ‘asylum seekers’ if they have already passed through a ‘safe’ country. I think if you check the UN charter it lists countries considered ‘safe’ – one is sure to be France!
I am willing to be corrected should I be wrong; however when I was – ahem – working in the ‘industry’ [which was some time ago I will admit] it certainly was the case then.
I agree – if they have already been granted entry into a safe country, then, by definition, they cannot be leaving that country in order to flee persecution. So they surely can’t, again almost by definition, be genuine refugess from the safe country , and eligible to seek asylum status in yet another country.
Sorry but they can ‘claim’ asylum in any signatory country , until they are refused asylum they are by definition ‘asylum seekers’ !
They are refugees until they get out of the unsafe country into a safe country. After that, they are no longer refugees – they have refuge (unless they entered that safe country illegally – in which case they are illegal immigrants.)
At that point, if they are in the country legally, i.e. they have gone through the legal process of gaining access to the country, then they have ‘de facto’ achieved asylum. It’s really quite simple, until the do-gooder legal teams start picking ways to interpret the rules, I guess.
Not if they come from having first registered in Greece. Since a case at the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg we have stopped returning to Greece. Thousands are building up.
That’s different! If you claim asylum in one country then you can’t move and claim again in another.
If they didn’t claim in Greece and came to the UK then they would be entitled to claim here.
Sage is correct; they are virtually all economic migrants. Only bBC lovies would agree that they are asylum seekers.
They are asylum seekers ! No matter which way you dress it up they have come to the UK are claiming asylum, therefore by any sane measure they are asylum seekers.
Whether that claim holds water, and 90% of those claims don’t is another matter!
It amazes me that people can waste their breath discussing returning people to countries of origin when safe to do so, while overlooking the massive number of failed asylum seekers still in the UK which the authorities have failed to return!
If someone is found to have a legitimate case which is difficult enough, then surely they should have first call on staying here? The ones who have lied about their status need to be removed from the UK promptly which is not happening !
I’m afraid you are the one completely missing the point, Thoughtful, already made by others. If these people are genuine asylum seekers, then they should have sought asylum in the first safe country they entered.
By any sane measure (to use your own words), anyone transiting a safe country to get to another country cannot be a real asylum seeker, they are not really seeking asylum from persecution, they are quite clearly seeking something else entirely.
If they truly arrive here from another country, with the passport or other credentials which they must have used to board any aircraft or ship coming to the UK directly from a country where they truly are being persecuted, then fine. Anything else, and I include the convenient ‘loss’ of their papers, and they should automatically be denied asylum. Then we would be less likely to have ‘failed’ (or fake, as is quite likely to be the case) asylum seekers which we have to find once they abscond, having accepted our initial hospitality.
And we should make it a condition on all air carriers and passenger shipping companies to take an electronic image of their documents before they board the craft, to be held for a month after the journey. After all, we can take photos of everyone in the UK as we go through security in, for example, Gatwick- why not a quick scan of the relevant documents too ?
Regarding your comparison of discussing returning people to country of origin, and the failed asylum seekers already in the UK (see above for part of the solution) – I have no problem in urging our government to deal with both. It is not about one or the other.
I also think the direct plane or boat travel is an unacceptable. As that means those with money can claim asylum while those without cannot. If you ‘escape’ by boat or plane you should only go to your nearest refuge. Travelling 8000 miles to get directly to the soft touch UK should be excluded.
I’m afraid you’ve actually argued the same point which I originally made Richard !
Nope – I refuted your original point.
I like the point about net migration. There are two things that are bad here – some people find a better life overseas and they leave, that is a bad thing. Some people find this a better place and they come here – that is a bad thing too. Only someone as dishonest as a politician could subtract the one from the other in a (successful) attempt to make both figures look better!
The key point is that the people who leave are invariably professionals – scientists, businessmen, experts in their field, leaving for top jobs elsewhere. The people who arrive vary, but far too few are uneducated, unsocialised and close to unemployable – a disaster for the country.
You mean like Roma gypsies ? I find it really baffling why people don’t like them !! A picture paints a thousand words.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2470124/Marseille-Roma-gypsies-French-police-clear-large-site-ghost-town-rubbish.html
Very poor recyclers aren`t they?
Maybe an education campaign targetted at them…and let`s ensure plenty BBC vans, equipment and fat walleted hacks are there to bear witness to this EU campaign of “nudging towards niceness”.
Dale Farm or Sangatte?…all fine by me!
Very good point, lojolondon.
When did we ever see masses of ‘economically inactive’ net beneficiaries of the UK benefits system, queuing at the ports to get to somewhere else…. as opposed to the evidence the other way round, like, oh, for instance, the crowds ‘waiting patiently’ in Calais to get here ?
I’m pretty sure the figures don’t exist, but I’d be willing to have a flutter that there is a net cost to the UK exchequer of both immigration AND emigration. We probably have a net loss of tax income from people who leave the UK, and another net loss of tax income to those who arrive (and I’m obviously not just talking about Job-Seekers’ Allowance.)
And you have to give Third World immigrants free housing, free health care, free dole money, free education for their many, many children, and ultimately their prison stay. All paid for by the British tax payer.
The fiscal cost of unlawful immigration to America.
http://www.amren.com/news/2013/05/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/
Oh dear Richard, they are patiently queuing at Calais, in order to bless us with all that cultural and economic enrichment of which we are so deprived.
As you rightly point out, just observe the direction of flow, and go figure!
When did ‘migrant’ replace ‘immigrant’ ? Makes them sound like some exotic bird that will fuck off back home in November.
”some exotic bird that will fuck off back home in November. ”
If only they would. In the 13th century Europe suffered the black plaque, seems like we’re suffering another black plaque.
Damn this ‘ report’ button.
Too close to reply button.
That is a racist comment. You would be well advised to withdraw it, or for your host to modify it for you. Not all “unwanted” immigrants/asylum seekers are black.
I saw a programme on Nigerian immigrants in Germany, they said they came to Duisburg for a better life !!
That’s a bit like someone breaking into another persons house because they don’t think their own home is satisfactory.
To quote “Yes Minister” – I think it was Jim Hacker.
“If you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will soon follow.”
There has definitely been a sea change in the last few weeks with more and more big hitters (Mail, Telegraph) getting on the ‘biased-bbc’ bandwagon. Whether this is being done at the behest of No 10 (which to be honest has to neutralise the BBC for the Conservatives to be elected in 2015) is ‘not proven’.
That was an OLD OLD saying long before “Yes Minister” even that was only a deviation from “Let them hate me, as long as they FEAR me” by the Emperor Caligula a couple of thousand years ago. And it was probably not original then, either.
Still true for all that.
Kublai Khan once boasted a nude virgin could walk his roads carrying two sacks of gold unmolested.
He didn’t do that by making an open house and being obsessed with the “rights” of terrorists and thugs and drug addicts, unlike now, thats for sure
BUT…..it makes jobs for incompetent politically correct parasites like Hilsum……
Think that the BBC rather like this taqqiya notion-and have learned a few things by osmosis.
Let`s see those Comic Relief portfolios(child labour?)…and let`s see that Balen Report as it was written.
Paul Collier was good as far as PC World would let him be( he`d still need to get a coffee at the Uni Refectory later on, after all!)…but Lynsey Hilsum was an eye-opener..all taqqiya, wanting no border controls and false flags of the Red Cross -which breaches the Geneva Convention apparent;ly.
A true Channel 4/BBC hybrid.
Lynsey Hilsum – channel 4 news apparently. One of those responsible for the “Call to prayer” on Channel 4 which enraged the British people, and was only of use to muslim extremists.
You can always tell listening to these hypocrites WHO is controlling them. Islamic terrorists have often tried to redirect the help given by the Red Cross by saying they were “spies” etc, to the point Red Cross helpers are taken prisoner, held hostage, murdered, and a few years ago, 4 of 5 American doctors helping the poorest people in Yemen for free, were butchered by a muslim fanatic because he’d been told they were trying to “brainwash people with christianity” they had done no such thing.
But repulsive arrogant vermin like Hilsum get jobs out of doing the muslim extremists work for them in this sick country (I stopped watching Channel 4 by the way)
Now you mention it Basileus, this puts the hostage taking of Red Cross personnel recently in a new light for me…somewhere Islamic like Pakistan I think( as if that would NOT be the constant to all these incidents).
Did Hilsum or the Red Cross ever think of THAT when they let her fly her Red Cross flag of convenience, so Snows socks were not the headline back her?
Or was the few minutes of video feed worth that-in the eyes of the BBC/Channel4 it`s a dumb question…of COURSE, the little people are worth the sacrifice…don`t they KNOW what a BAFTA is, for crying out loud?
This Lindsey Hilsum?
Victoria Derbyshire ????? “Honest” “Didn’t seek to hide the truth” ?
Are we talking about the same politically correct hypocrite who has grovelled to muslim extremists and bigots, whining homosexuals etc etc etc ad naseum ?
One such had an extremist on the show demanding British news progs show women in hijabs etc, with a repulsive grovelling middle class leftie “male” saying how wonderful that would be, and the “British people would LOVE that” (unbelievable – and shows how much contempt these turds have for British opinion) and Derbyshire said, trying to show the muslim in a good light “And we could have a jewish person doing the same, couldn’t we in the same manner – a variety ?”
Absolute silence from the muslim bigot.
Derbyshire hurried on “Er…er….right….and…”
The worthless PC male however kept a tirade of grovelling to the muslim. I’m sure he’s have worn a burkha if the bigot had demanded.
Another was when the was a furore about the Pink Nazis wanting any rights taken away from anyone demanding NOT to know if blood came from gays or not. (Odd how a person’s “rights” are not important, or even “offensive” when it bumps into gay/lesbian demands, isn’t it ?)
Anyway, a lady in her 60’s faced down a RANTING Derbyshire, by asking “And what if it’s your baby ? Does it suddenly become different then ?”
Derbyshire’s silence for a couple of seconds was a massive giveaway. Like all hypocrite politically correct, these demands aren’t supposed to apply to THEM.
Derbyshire lost it after that, and the old lady handled her with amused contempt, until Derbyshire had to end the show, notably ignoring the lady when doing so, and the lady said “And thank YOU, Victoria” beating her even there.
I actually applauded the radio, I remember.
So you’ll excuse me if I have major doubts about her being fair in discussing immigration.
…”Demanding to KNOW if blood came from gays” that should have said – I wish there was an edit on here (and I also should check first too)
Bravo to the old lady. Thanks for that write-up.
It’s all Thatcher’s fault.
You need a new dictionary as you have spelt ‘gutless corrupt Liebore and associates’ as Thatcher.
Your right I got mixed up.
I was listening to radio 4 before I posted that.
Heard Giles Fraser tell us all on the Moral Maze last week that the “Give up your poor, your huddled masses etc…” was his guiding star(none of that Jesus pap!) when it came to unfettered immigration.
For somebody who hates the USA, that`s big talk for little britches like his!
He mentioned something about his “parish” being the Elephant and Castle…
I therefore hope that all our Roma friends will take that as a guaranteed bed and board-jobs and all-from Giles.
Just pop by the rainbow flags and lavender sachets on Walworth Rd, and you`ll find Giles Drum(cockney slang, welcome to show solidarity).
Marseille?..Duisburg?…Dale Farm?
Let`s set those satnavs on old Dobbins halter and ensure that GPS for these salty chaps and families is just so for Giles Parish-this Sunday Service might be a good time to touch base eh?
Will Giles practice what he preaches?…the Gospel of Miliband?
The pompous ass started his spiel on the Moral Maze with this ponderous quote…hope we get a few of our kids back, whilst we`re at it!…Lost Property amnesty international?
The Elephant shopping centre, now far beyond help from bulldozers, more like a large meteor strike…
Sky allocated the whole of last week to a discussion of immigration. Might that have had some effect in the BBC?
Primary article is the go home vans.
Christ do the BBC hate white English people.
its a shame they didnt allow comments. But al beeb knows most people support the vans, which is why the hate whitey
Sorry to disappoint:
Those vans were never meant for illegal immigrants.
The whole charade is aimed at a naive Joe Public.
This useless shower ( of all current parties) want you to think that something is being done, no more, no less.
When actually they couldn’t care less.
IMHO a Prime Minister who actually believes that Turkey’s accession to the EU is a good thing, ought to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
And if he doesn’t actually believe it, WTF is he playing at ?
All the scary posters, vans, tv ads, all part of one big Con.
It’s to placate the gullible masses, that is all.
Absolutely!
Yes that van, I suspect there’s only one, to give the impression that the government is doing something on immigration.
The BBC always interviews from the left and always will while the licence fee continues.
While Mark Easton remains ‘Home Editor’ i.e. chief churnalist on immigration there can be no substantive change in thinking or output.
Luckily he is lazy and the thought of a redundancy package will be attractive.
lets just say,and it was like this a few years ago before mass immigration when there was no muslims.no pakistanis or somalians living in this country.would england be a more relaxed place to live,would england be a more peacefull place to live.i think so,on the whole the the black and asian community have mixed in quite well in the uk and we get on quite good in my opinion,the one community that seems to be causing alot of people concerns and worry is the ever growing agressive demanding muslim communitys who seem to be colonising every big town and city up and down this country.ps .channel 4 re doing a pro niqab every night this week.it is sickening,tonights offering was superior muslim women looking down on white women and the way they dress.opps ooopss,.what has hell has it got to do with muslim immigrants the way white girls dress in a white christian country,tommorows offering is a sicky white muslim woman convert who will tell everybody how ignorant we are about the religion of peace.
Play the lefty’s at their own gain
vid doesnt work.
Its about the Cloward-Piven Strategy.
ok thanks. i kow what you mean now.
When you said play the left at their own game, i thought you meant we should all go out and kill 100 million plus people!
The left wants Economic collapse because they think they will get their Marxist one world government out of it.
So contribute as little as possible to the system and take as much as possible out of it.
When the SHTF what will all the champagne socialists do when they realise they are going to suffer for what they have done to society.
I would never suggest killing 100 million people as Socialism has done.
Regarding Start the Week, Paul Collier was saying what most common sense people have been saying for decades.
Few people are against immigration per se but many of us are against a HIGH RATE of immigration which dangerously creates multiples cultures and works against integration.
The really annoying thing was that the BBC was treating this as a new revelation. The fact that the BBC was not prepared to have the truth on its airwaves for decades doesn’t mean these statements of the obvious were not already on the minds of most of the rest of us.
The problem was the way Enoch Powell addressed the issue – with emotive and thoughtless language.
The result was that for nearly forty years anyone who tried to open a debate was seen off with the cry of racist, and realities could not be discussed.
The election of the National Front’s Nick Griffin to the European Parliament only accentuated that censorship.
The arrival of five million people in the last 15 years has however forced the issue to the surface. The BBC will now momentarily allow a very controlled intervention but then close the debate down. The emergence of UKIP may well change things for ever but any extremism in language or action will be used by the BBC to talk over and retard the debate.
Sorry, don’t agree. I don’t think there was a tactful way of raising the issue because, like now, it had already been decided that immigration should continue unopposed.
Remember that Ray Honeyford raised his concerns in the sober and relatively obscure Salisbury Review, but that wasn’t acceptable either, as he soon discovered.
People were raising objections in Bradford before Enoch’s speech. Got them nowhere.
Ray Honeyford
Truly a prophet in his own land
It is a disgrace that the manner of his hounding has been fogoten
I confidently predict that there will be a statue put up to him in Bradford before too long.
We remember him-how he was treated-and I myself was a useful Guardian idiot back then, and would have been calling for his dismissal from the minarets of Haringey at that time.
Ray Honeyford, like Neil Herron are the peoples martyrs-but the people still sleep.
As Goya said/depicted….”the sleep of reason brings forth monsters”…
Hamza to Toynbee…blurring into another.
indeed it is
That is a racist comment. You would be well advised to withdraw it, or for your host to modify it for you. Not all “unwanted” immigrants/asylum seekers are black.
Have you used the ‘Report comment’ facility first? Especially as this will identify accurately the comment you are at issue with. Which may not be clear to other posters.
Maybe even aid administrators not aware of what is happening days back.
If so, maybe wait a decent interval.
If not, why not?
I confidently predict that there will be a statue put up to him in Bradford before too long.
We remember him-how he was treated-and I myself was a useful Guardian idiot back then, and would have been calling for his dismissal from the minarets of Haringey at that time.
Ray Honeyford, like Neil Herron are the peoples martyrs-but the people still sleep.
As Goya said/depicted….”the sleep of reason brings forth monsters”…
Hamza to Toynbee…blurring into another.
Am listening to this again.
I do wonder what is the point of Paul Collier giving us some insights when Lynsey Hilsum doesn`t listen to a damned word that he says.
She shouts over the Tory like the lazy left are doing regularly-this despite bringing the Red Cross into disrepute and great danger(but no questions asked of that!).
Collier isn`t original-but given the fetid nature of all Beeb coverage, he blasts through with some oxygen at least.
And even Stephanie Flanders seems becalmed…is that because she is leaving the BBC soon?
The following is not a portrayal of many an English city which Beeboids would make.
“HOW NOTTINGHAM HAS CHANGED IN THE LAST 15 YEARS”
(July 2013).
By Paul Wilkinson.
http://libertygb.org.uk/v1/index.php/home/root/news-libertygb/5937-how-nottingham-has-changed-in-the-last-15-years
Also:-
“The Islamic Republic of Dewsbury”
By Danny Lockwood.
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/113331/sec_id/113331
The problem was the way Enoch Powell addressed the issue – with emotive and thoughtless language.
The result was that for nearly forty years anyone who tried to open a debate was seen off with the cry of racist, and realities could not be discussed.
The election of the BNP’s Nick Griffin to the European Parliament only accentuated that censorship.
The arrival of five million people in the last 15 years has however forced the issue to the surface. The BBC will now momentarily allow a very controlled intervention but then close the debate down. The emergence of UKIP may well change things for ever but any extremism in language or action will be used by the BBC to talk over and retard the debate.
“A prophet yet an outcast: 100 years after his birth Enoch Powell has been vindicated on a host of crucial issues”
By SIMON HEFFER.
(2012.)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2158958/Enoch-Powell-A-prophet-outcast.html
Framer. I have to agree to disagree, Enoch chooses his words very carefully, he was was a professor of Latin at 24. So this guy is really sharp.
How can you close down a debate by talking about the subject ? No, what closed the debate down on immigration was the tsunami of hate filled abuse, by the Left, which they, of course wanted, pure Saul Alinsky tactics.
Tony Benn ” The swastika is fluttering over Birmingham today.” Absolutely disgraceful.
Nobody has stated the obvious point: the levels of immigration in the 1960s were a fraction of what they have been since 1997. Enoch Powell’s argument was intellectual: he could see what would happen with the same level – or increased levels – of immigration and the higher birth rates among the immigrant groups. However, the numbers were relatively small. Then, 20,000 wasn’t too controversial whereas 50,000 might be. Contrast with the figure of >580,000 for 2004 …
Anybody able to tell me why setting up an elite academy in Afghanistan…selective, an ACADEMY for Gawds sake…is approved of by the BBC when it comes to the Afghan Army( oh do tell what will happen to us afterwards…I can`t guess!)…but if I were to try and do this for English kids so they could fight back (as they`ll have to do), …why Fiona Miller, Polly and the whole BBC establishment would come a crashing down.
Bloody Gove…Tories…etc, etc.
Any troll able to tell me the difference-surely they`re elitist, and hardly-inclusive is it?
INBBC: politically filtering the real Islamic jihad threat
In this INBBC politically selective headline, the deceased man is ‘British’, but not a ‘Muslim’, he’s a ‘fighter’, but not a ‘jihadist’!
INBBC:-
“Death of a British al-Shabab fighter”
By Secunder Kermani and Dominic Casciani
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24643303
Note that about 90% of the INBBC report is about Muslims; it is as though Islamic interests predominate the situation for INBBC, and the we non-Muslims, the vast majority of the British people, have to take the decision of Muslims on the Islamic jihad threat to us!
And, of course, INBBC censors the brutal severity of ‘Talha’s murderous jihad threat
See ‘JihadWatch’ headline for what’s censored by INBBC-
‘JihadWatch’:-
“London-born Muslim calls upon ‘all the Muslim men in Britain’ to ‘come to jihad’ and ‘cut the necks of the disbelievers'”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/10/london-born-muslim-i-call-upon-you-today-all-the-muslim-men-in-britainto-come-to-jihad-and-cut-the-n.html
We, the disbelievers, are termed ‘KUFFAR’ in Arabic.
Remember this excellent article?:-
“Separating the Kafirs from the Muslims”
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/separating-the-kafirs-from-the-muslims/
Note how INBBC avoids the actual words, and thereby the actual Islamic nature of the jihad threat to ‘kafirs’.