I wrote this up while watching Nick Robinson’s “The Truth About Immigration”. After it was over, I rearranged a few things, but except for the last couple of paragraphs it was nearly all written as I watched. However, after having digested it for a minute, I think I can sum the whole thing up much more briefly.
Nick Robinson: How is it that a subject that was once taboo is now on every poltician’s lips? Why is it that the doors to Britain were flung open and what are the benefits and what are the perils of now seeking to close them?
Why is it now a major issue and what is the truth about immigration?
Shorter fisking: What Robinson covers is all old hat. See the BBC’s “White” Series for evidence that most of what he rehashes has been done before. In addition, everyone by now knows what Labour did and why. This is a dishonest discussion if one side of the issue is a strawman. Most people do not want to close the door, full stop. I suppose that makes for good TV, but it’s not honest.
What is the truth? Why is this issue now such a big deal that the BBC feels obligated to go over all this again? Aside from the obvious current event of Bulgarian and Roma(nian) immigration, Spot the missing murder of Lee Rigby with the murderer explaining himself on camera. Spot the missing no-go areas. Spot the missing imams preaching jihad. Spot the missing grooming gangs of Rochdale and Manchester. Spot the missing mass murders of 7/7. Spot the missing discussion about how the BBC got it wrong as well, which was part of Robinson’s statement to the Mail.
I think that about sums up the BBC’s approach to the truth.
Longer version, if anyone’s interested:
So we’re expected to believe that the BBC’s original Young Conservative is straying off the reservation, are we? Sorry, no.
It’s all a big deal now, we’re told. Illegal immigrants are being told to go home. Robinson emphasized “illegal”. And what, exactly, were illegal immigrants being told until this national conversation hit an all time high? Oh, sorry, wrong national debate. I was momentarily stunned by hearing a BBC journalist use the words “illegal” and “immigrants” in the same sentence. I’m just so used to hearing them censor that word in their dishonest reporting about the issue in the US.
Notice the footage Robinson chooses to accompany that line. The police are clearly approaching someone who has just snuck across the border. This is an entirely different topic than the real concerns about immigration in Britain. By conflating the two from the outset, Robinson has already muddied the waters. Whoops, that’s a racist comment these days, isn’t it?
Nick’s Big Question: Why is it now a major issue?
Answer: Anything except third-world extremely fundamentalist Muslims coming in en masse and setting up segregated enclaves and not only maintaining those extremely fundamentalist behaviors and refusing to integrate, but causing certain local problems and then being enabled by politicians, police, and a BBC willing to kowtow to any demand in the name of political correctness and to give two fingers to their political opponents, as well as because they’re afraid.
I hadn’t even watched seven minutes of this before I could see it’s mostly a load of tired old talking points, and would ultimately be a dishonest approach to the issue. If the issues Robinson presents as the main concerns weren’t already talked about enough to be well covered, why did the BBC do that whole “White” Series a few years ago? What was “The Poles Are Coming” about, then? It was a deliberate attempt to control the national debate on this issue, and to demonize those who thought it might be a problem. If it wasn’t already a well-known concern, why was Mrs. Duffy such a story? The BBC was just as quick to paint her as a racist as any politician was.
And what about “White Girl”? That particular facet of the immigration issue was entirely absent from Robinson’s supposed truth about it. And let’s not pretend it’s not the main reason immigration is a hotter topic than ever.
Nick Robinson and the BBC think you’re all stupid. We could tell from their reactions to public complaints about Mandelapalooza, and Evan Davis more recently gave DB a hint of it: they hold you in contempt, now more than ever.
Another question – in two parts – left unanswered: If so many immigrants were needed, as Robinson states, to fill all those jobs, how many British people were unemployed at the time and why are there so many more now? Secondly, why was unlimited immigration the answer instead of training the citizens? Surely there must be a difference in cost – on several levels – between the two options. As was evident from the “The Poles Are Coming” episode, the “lazy British” Narrative has become an immutable object at the BBC. Now they don’t even think it’s worth addressing. It’s a given. Not a single moment was spent asking about what to do with the unemployed youth in Britain.
(Side note to Nick Robinson and his producer: You really should have resisted the temptation to use the cute “boom and bust” reference there. It only highlighted how dishonest the BBC has been about that issue as well.
Other side note: I admit it’s nice to see Nick Robinson presenting politicians as being scheming and damaging rather than protecting and defending them, like he did for the Blair/Brown relationship or as the expenses scandal was at its height.)
I’ll grant that it’s good that Robinson got Labour politicians to admit how slimy they were on their policy, but if it’s just David Blunkett saying they were “on the side of the angels”, and Jack Straw saying Labour got it wrong, then the debate gets shifted to whether they were right or not, rather than how dishonest they were the entire time. Yvette Cooper was shown as trying to have it both ways, so nothing enlightening there, either.
Robinson, being of course ruled by the BBC’s requirement to remain impartial, leaves it there. For balance against three Labour politicians, two of whom essentially defended the policy without much reservation, we got Michael Howard. Oh, right, Robinson himself is supposed to count as being on the Right in this case, yeah.
The one saving grace of this entire hour was the part where Robinson showed non-white immigrants complaining about the same things that concerned the first round of complainers, meaning it can’t be called racist anymore. I know a couple people here have brought that up recently, and I imagine it would come as quite a shock to those who trust the BBC for their news on important issues. Unfortunately, it’s easy to predict that the BBC will forget all about that immediately and will be quickly back to calling it racist.
So David Cameron is putting a limit on “net immigraton” is he? How will that work out, Nick? No prizes for guessing. To make matters more pathetic, after going over the whole “We needed mass immigration to fill the jobs” theme, Robinson takes that to the next level to show that you need mass immigration to fill all those student slots at universities. Apparently, the university system will be economically threatened if you worry about the questionable student applicants and don’t let in enough proper ones.
Then we get to work permits. Um, what’s this about skills and the ability to speak English? Didn’t we meet some Eastern European kids who were picking strawberries and were told this is an example of the kind of jobs Britain vitally needs filling? Aren’t those the low-wage jobs lazy British young people won’t do, so limiting immigration to skilled workers will harm the economy? Of course that’s so, and Robinson is keen to tell you later on. He doesn’t have to come out and say it at this point, as that wouldn’t be, you know, impartial.
Then Robinson says that Cameron’s statement about allowing in skilled workers needed now (chefs in the shown example) – but he wants to train the next generation of home-grown workers – is a “blunt” message to stop hiring foreigners. Blah, blah, blah. This makes it all the more lame that Robinson didn’t flat out ask the practical question about training and unemployment I mentioned above.
Ultimately, Robinson tells us, immigration is a great net benefit to Britain. The only question now, apparently, is what’s the best plan to make it work more smoothly in future.
No. That’s not the question at all. Robinson asked at the start, why is this such a big deal now? He doesn’t dare touch the real answer.
I know why the BBC can’t touch the real answer. It’s because those of you who do want to shut the door (or at least put much more stringent limits than Cameron wants) want it shut mainly – and are talking about it more loudly than ever before, which is allegedly also what Robinson is meant to be investigating – because of the factors the BBC refused to address. So they just have to present that side of the argument as some phantasm. Everyone on camera is talking about limits, amd figuring out some common sense, not shutting it down, full stop. Yet Robinson frames that side of the argument in its extreme version. He and his producer know full well what they’re doing. This only makes it more galling that he avoided discussion of the BBC’s influence in the whole thing, after recently saying they made a “horrible mistake”.
This is a major public debate like never before because of things like the murder of Lee Rigby and the seemingly endless stream of stories about Muslim grooming gangs, not because a few Slovenians are picking strawberries for less than Wayne and Kaylee get on the dole. The primary reason it’s such a big deal now that even the BBC has to admit it is the reality of things like Tower Hamlets and Anjem Choudary, not Polish glass workers who moonlight as DJs and Bangladeshi students wearing the hijab at some hip university. That shot of the latter from the part where Robinson is discussing the need for students is almost like they’re taunting you. The only reason I’m noticing something subliminal is because I’ve been prepared to notice it. Perhaps they’re so far out of reality and intellectual honesty that they don’t realize what they’ve done.
Sure, Robinson at least briefly lays out the more general concerns along the way about too much pressure on communities and services, jobs, benefit migration, and people feel like they’re losing their own neighborhoods. But the only time Islam comes up is when he casually mentions that the Muslim population has rapidly doubled, as if it’s just another color in the rainbow.
If one thinks that the real reason unlimited immigration is such a hot-button topic right now is limited to jobs, then one will feel that Robinson has successfully opened the way for a more honest debate about the pros and cons of immigration. But it surely can’t be an honest debate if he reduces one side of the argument to some people wanting to “shut the door once again”. He doesn’t present anyone as saying they want the polar opposite of unlimited immigration, so why the reductio ad absurdum for only one side?
“Perhaps it’s time to have that open and frank discussion we’ve really never had.”
If only. And this documentary avoided that frank discussion at every turn. The BBC can now claim to have successfully addressed the issue, but they will only be lying to themselves, and to you. So where was the part where Robinson talked about how the BBC got it wrong? Where was the part where Robinson discussing how and why the BBC made a “horrible mistake” in suppressing concerns about unlimited immigration? The BBC has more influence on the national debate of every issue than any politician or political party could ever hope to achieve in their wildest dreams. Blaming politicians and I guess the media in general ignores the very real influence and deliberate policy the BBC had on the issue over the last decade, and still has now. This documentary is evidence of their desire to influence it.
In all my long life I have NEVER known a subject that is so much at the front and centre of EVERYONE’s mind be so totally misrepresented by our communications industry and our political classes. The BBC completely dominates in framing the debate. The fundamental question must be “Why on earth should the BBC’s Charter be renewed?”. It is a grotesque scar on our intellectual landscape.
the word muslim was mentioned only once after 19:06 minutes into an hour long piece of BBC mealy mouthed propaganda that will hopefully put an another nail into the coffin the vile BBC.
When nick robinson wheeled out blairite crony economist johnathan portes son of economist richard portes,to tell us to accept our fate just as the miners had to.
than surely shouldn`t the BBC sink or swim in the real world of market forces just like the rest of us.
nah,i don`t think so.because that`d mean an end to the nepotistic gravy train that is the BBC
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/american-muslim/2013/dec/20/muslims-respond-christmas-season-around-world/….muslim council of britian gives permission for christians to celebrate christmas, thanks..we are so gratefull
Imagine if a Christian council made up of white Brits/Europeans living in the middle east or Asia “gave permission” for the majority Islamic population to celebrate Ramadan. There would be uproar about how ignorant and culturally insensitive white people are. But when Muslims do it in a majority Christian/secular country it’s somehow something to celebrate.
Well written David. Brilliant piece
The bottom line is that the BBC (you may give them the money they pay themselves but your opinions count for nothing) pays Nick Robinson’s wages, and he (and every other television journalist) would be committing career suicide if he disputed the orthodoxies of the Left, because the Leftist BBC (because every viewer is forced by threat of imprisonment to pay for them) dominate UK television news and current affairs.
The BBC are opposed to using the television “license fee” to fund a plurality of television news providers, because that would conflict with their view that a Leftist elite (namely themselves) should have the power to enforce their conception of the collective good. The very thought of a Right Wing television news broadcaster makes them feel ill.
To even express a view which challenges the size of the State is to commit a thought crime, because the State (i.e. the Public Sector) is the means by which the (thieving and intolerant) Leftist elite redistribute wealth and power to themselves.
This elite despise the serfs who want to keep what they earn (in that curious activity [foreign to anybody who works at the BBC] called working for a living by providing goods and services people want) and they reserve a particular contempt for anybody who seeks by hard work [another concept foreign to the BBC] to improve their quality of life by creating wealth, and (even more unforgivably) pass it onto their children.
If you happen to think that your local GP is an arrogant useless cunt, or that the teachers at your local school are lazy Guardian reading twats, or (worst of all) if you think that (anti-Western) multiculturalism combined with unrestricted (Third World) immigration into this Country is a bad idea, indeed that in the medium term it will destroy it, you are in the eyes of the BBC committing the worst possible thought crime, not because you are wrong (destroying the unreasonable happiness and prosperity of of these islands is surely the point) but because you are denying egalitarianism – the view that everything (including every Country) that claims to be better is wrong, and that everything (including any culture) which is said to be worse is being falsely maligned.
In short it is not simply that the BBC views any belief which does not accord with the (current) views of the Labour Party as a thought crime (for some reason Ed Miliband has been known to wear a T-Shirt saying how much he loves the BBC – I cannot think why) simply to express love of this Country and its culture is ipso facto to identify yourself (in the eyes of the nihilists at the BBC) as somebody worthy of their hatred and contempt.
That is a nice, concise summary of what the Progressive (leftist) Elite in Britain (and probably Europe and possible the US) are all about at the present time.
Excellent, David. Great piece. You do this site a real credit!
Agree. I also suggest reading Alison Pearson the Telegraph today which echoes many of the points above.
Interesting read, although Pearson needs to make up her mind whether or not Robinson was “refreshingly forthright” or not so honest because he left out all the stuff she mentioned as being the real problems. The only thing her praise is going to do is give the BBC support for their claim that they got it about right.
The sub head said it best, though:
“The BBC’s refusal to air the divided views on immigration has ended up encouraging the very racism it was intended to crush”
Precisely. That certainly isn’t news to anyone here. It’s so obvious, in fact, that all these professional journalists and columnists should be ashamed of themselves for not having noticed this sooner. This is what we told the BBC producer who used to engage with us here years ago under the name “John Reith”. Other Beeboids who’ve stuck their head above the parapet have been told much the same thing. We were always dismissed out of hand. In fact, on at least one occasion we were told that the BBC was trying to help Social Cohesion and our complaints weren’t helping.
Yes thanks David, posts like this give us lots to think about and are much appreciated.
I despair! Your excellent piece is so much more comprehensive and reasoned than the comment that I was preparing on the same subject/programme.
The sheer dishonesty (personally) of Robinson and (corporately) of the BBC on this and other issues just pervaded this “analysis” of the immigration “debate”. As usual – as you and other commenters point out – there is no “debate”. The real issues of concern to the “little people” have been avoided while the words “immigration” and “migration” have been tossed around as if just mouthing the words constitutes comprehensive and honest coverage of the subject.
Well done – yet again.
I hadn’t even watched seven minutes of this before I could see it’s mostly a load of tired old talking points, and would ultimately be a dishonest approach to the issue.
Indeed I predicted this and couldn’t bring myself to watch it!
Sounds like its a perfect example of Chomsky’s criticism of the self assumed role of the media in directing debate:
“The doctrines of Lippmann, Lasswell, and others are entirely natural in any society in which power is narrowly concentrated but formal mechanisms exist by which ordinary people may, in theory, play some role in shaping their own affairs — a threat that plainly must be barred.”
Fantastic analysis, as ever, David.
I know that you’ve been reprimanded in the past for not being “a journalist” but your writing shades much of the output of the wankers currently masquerading as our media betters – both in style, in content and in literacy.
“…the only time Islam comes up is when he casually mentions that the Muslim population has rapidly doubled, as if it’s just another color in the rainbow.”
An excellent post!
The BBC has no intention of “telling the truth about immigration” it simply wants to change the “discussion” so that it’s focused entirely on EU immigration, which to most Britons is a concern, but by no means their real concern. Meanwhile non-EU immigration is carrying on regardless and the BBC will never report on “issues” such as the alarming growth of no-go areas affecting most of our large towns and cities.
the truth on immigration was a big con job by the bbc,where i live it is rare to see eastern europeans immigrants,very rare,what is not rare to see is third world immigrants from pakistan,somalia,iraq afghanistan etc who have created there own little closed off muslim enclaves that even the police fear to tread in .terrorist plots,heroin dealing.child grooming sex rings,violence.vote rigging in local elections are a epidemic in there areas in my city,white flight from these muslim areas has become another epidemic as well,the truth about immigration was not the whole triuth as should of been told by nick robinson,bashing the eastern europeans immigrants is just a clever rouse by the bbc and new labour to cover the real problems with immigration that has come from third world countrys.simple as that.
I watched the whole programme as I suspected it would be an attempt to reprogram me and the rest of the nation. I was of course and very sadly correct. Listening to the distortion and lies thrown relentlessly at me for a whole hour by the pompous know it all Robinson was not an easy task and the good lady wife, who is now only slowly coming to understand that the BBC is an evil organisation with a bizarre left wing bent, had to also suffer alongside me. What is more there were no amusing adverts in the programme to lighten our mood, which was by the way close to apoplectic after only 10 minutes in. So no time for even a coffee break, which is I think a very archaic notion for TV programmes nowadays.
Anyway, this is clearly the line the BBC will take now on flooding our little island with immigrants. They are jolly good for our economy, they pay our pensions, they pick strawberries for us ungrateful lazy lot and make the whole place more cosmopolitan. What is not to like? Just shut up and live with it. As the blind man said those who allowed this debacle “are on the side of the gods”. Lovely.
By the way, I was waiting for Robinson the Pompous to wander down a street in Luton or even Tower Hamlets with a bottle of wine in his hand and a young lady with a short skirt on his arm. A PDQ way to check out the local A&E I believe. Or even have perhaps played I Spy, you know the one where you see if you can spot anything beginning with “W”. Perhaps another day eh?
This may have been mentioned on one of the open threads, but during Charlie Brooker’s 2013 Review he was talking about the media coverage after Thatcher’s death and how newspapers basically force-fed their readers’ opinions back to them, which is of course true to a large extent. But then he went on to say that television news and journalism is expected to be more impartial and backed this up with clip after clip of reporters simply saying Thatcher “divided the nation.” He didn’t make any attempt to debunk or call into question whether the assumptions of balance or impartiality in TV news is in any way justified (of course it bloody isn’t – he’s always mentioning how right-wing Fox and Sky News are in his other shows) – he just took it as a given that this was the case, and expected the viewer to do the same. The message was clear – other news sources are biased, but the BBC isn’t. The sad thing is that so many still believe him even when intelligence-insulting sycophantic bullshit like this is broadcast as a balanced debate, even including the words “the truth” in the title to remind you that what the BBC says goes.
The funniest part about the BBC’s claims of impartiality is that, if you actually apply for a position there (which, shamefully, I once did) they actually use the term “agenda-setting” as one of its positive traits. So which is it? Does it simply report the news and topics impartially as it claims, or does it seek to affect the debate? The BBC thinks it can have it both ways, and unfortunately the people it relies on to keep it afloat are so wide-eyed and oblivious to basic subliminal and subtextual techniques that they will probably continue to get away with it for our lifetimes.
I fear that Robinson’s programme is the one and only confessional the BBC will have before returning to their usual lifestyle of stifling proper debate.
As an aside and listening to the reporting regarding the Mark Duggan verdict, we are told that the police are holding talks with “community leaders”.
Perhaps that is the key to whether one is indigenous or not.
If the police have talks with your “community leaders” you are part of New Britain.
No leaders, no community, no voice, it’s not ‘your’ BBC I’m afraid.
Top comments refers:
‘”On immigration the BBC simply holds the elite view…”
The point is that the BBC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, shouldn’t hold ANY view – save that of the public at large.”
That media commentator Mr. West is at best not too fussed about this fundamental is not surprising, but a concern.
Just a few points that stuck with me from watching:
1. No mention of Islam, need I say more?
2. The BBC seems to think that lots of immigrants saying ‘I want to work’ will some how ease peoples minds. This will no more make people feel any better than them saying, ‘I want to come and live off benefits’.
3. The farmer saying that Strawberrys will no longer be grown here without immigrants, that actually made me laugh out loud! No, what will happen is that the duplicitous ****s profit margin will be hit because he will be forced to up his wages to employ British people.
4. The BBC seems to think that what is good for the economy is, by implication, good for the Country. Funny how it doesn’t have the same view on fracking etc
5. Similarly, the BBC comes across as somewhat shallow and materialistic. When Farage said he was essentially prepared to take an economic ‘hit’, if it meant closing the door on immigration, the BBC probably thought he had made a huge gaffe. However, the majority of people would probably agree with him on this one.
I was thinking the same thing about that farmer and wages, Joe. It wasn’t relevant to the post itself, so I left it out. I’ve noticed the doublethink of the BBC on the issue of low wages. In this case, low wages are acceptable because the Islington and New Salford set need that cheap fruit and veg. When the topic of wages is disconnected from the immigration agenda, though, suddenly these low wages are a human rights violation and nobody ought to work for anything less than a “living wage” or whatever.
A naughty person might suggest that the BBC is filled with elitist Little Englanders who think it’s okay for foreigners to slave away at a pittance but the home-grown white youth must get a higher wage.
Why have they brought immigrants in to lower wages then introduced a minimum wage ?
Because they new that much of that immigrant workforce would be employed in the black economy ( by other immigrants) .Thereby offsetting not only the cost of the minimum wage but also the million public sector non-jobs that the Brown -Blair administration created.
Because the whole “we need immigration to fill vital jobs and grow the economy” theme was only part of the reason they open the flood gates. We know from Neather’s admission and the weasel words of Blunkett and Straw that they had an ulterior motive: to rub diversity/multiculturalism in the Tories’ faces and to create a new class of slaves on the Labour plantation. It was a cynical, racist scheme, and they would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for all those honor killings and beheadings and terrorist plots and grooming gangs and poppy burners.
Filling jobs can’t have been the only goal, or they would have done a lot more to prevent benefit tourism and the balkanization. The latter worked to their electoral advantage, so they kept it going. All aided and abetted by the BBC.
Quality piece David.
One in three 16-24 year olds in Merthyr Tydfil unemployed.
Thirty miles away in Herefordshire Europe’s biggest agricultural employer.
uncle bup, the BBC has already addressed that issue in the past: The Poles Are Coming. Those Welsh youth are too lazy to work the fields and warehouses. Out of the other sides of their mouths, the BBC will tell you that the youth shouldn’t have to work for anything less than a “living wage”. Take your pick.
End immigration before immigration ends us
Very good piece David. I would like to add a few thoughts which you as an American might appreciate as they are peculiar to this country.
This is not an economic issue. It is important that it is not treated as such. This is about England. Is it to survive as a cohesive and largely peaceful country as it has for generations or is it to become someplace else and fracture into separate states. Shire against city and so on.
Robinson’s piece can only be understood if one realises that the liberals have,at all costs, to keep the argument in terms of money and jobs to avoid facing reality.
I know the area he used very well indeed. The New Forest where the County show is held is not twenty minutes from Southampton. It is a different world entirely.
Southampton is splitting into ghettos. We all know where they are. The English are leaving as they are leaving other cities and towns. It is unstoppable.
To discuss why is now pointless. It is happenening and it has scared the liberal elites. it is not what men say that really matters it is what they do. Balkanisation is well under way.
We have a problem here. It is the size of England. it is small.
In the US you have vast space. A good friend of mine has moved to Montana . His family have followed. There he can live as he wishes .The way of his forefathers if you like.
Where can we English go?
Perhaps the far West of the US could open up and let us come to build our people up again. After all the US was originally built by dissident Englishmen.
We ,the English, have nowhere to go. We have held this land for well over 1000years and now our tenure is precarious.
I do not know what will happen but those liberals have much to answer for.
No people have ever voluntarily given up their country .Ever.
We are mostly of Anglo Saxon Celtic descent. We have been a hard people, and hard to govern. Often underestimated.
It is my hope that once again this will prove to be true.
The people wait for a real leader. He or she will be unstoppable.
I’m going to disagree with the poster here .
The main issue is numbers first . The culture ( and religion ) is important – very important , but numbers of people coming here is the first priority .
I also want a total ban on any new incomers . Not a ” managed ” migration policy . Because we won’t get a managed migration policy . The Gramscis in the civil service will see to that . By having a No New Numbers in policy , the Gramscis won’t be able to bend the rules like they have been doing over asylum and self employment rules .
Also it’s bad enough if anyone comes here to work , but is doubly galling if they claim any form of benefit , and doubly again if they only live on benefits . And doubly doubly again if they commit ANY crime .
Well said. Numbers are the biggest factor. Although one point I would make which goes against this is breeding rate; while one Muslim (working) is superficially better than two Poles, if he is later going to import a wife and have four kids, while the Polish couple have only 1.8, then the two Poles are better.
Solution, no more for five years and throw out all those criminals and illegals who shouldn’t be here, return asylum seekers to their countries if they havent yet been given citizenship and their countries have become safe, and encourage all EUers to go back too, by favouring Brits for employment.
What BBC-NUJ censors:-
“THE NON-ECONOMIC COSTS OF MASS IMMIGRATION TO THE UK”
Anathema to BBC-NUJ:
Paul Weston on Race, Immigration and the Nation.
“PREVENTING WHITE GENOCIDE”
Inc Video clip.)
The establishment ‘notices’ immigration, and the damage and discomfort it has caused in the run up to an election. The mainstream parties apologise for past mistakes, make belligerent noises about cubing numbers, barring benefits. The media helps by making the debate briefly respectable, makes soothing noises ‘We understand your pain, we realise mistakes were made, we won’t do it again’.
It happens at every election, but this time it’s aimed at preventing a UKIP landslide at the upcoming european elections.
Once the elections over it will be back to business as usual, the politicians will drop the rhetoric and go back to stuffing the country with immigrants (they won’t actually stop, only say that they are going to), and the bbc will go back to stifling all debate that does not promote thee benefits of immigration amd multiculturalism
here’s one UKIP ‘landslide’ .
Difficult to interpret – if we assume that the LDs switched to Labour (they won’t have switched anywhere else) then both Labour and the Tories lost about the same amount to UKIP.
Snippet from ‘The Times’ (£), front-page, Friday, 10 Jan:-
Rise in “Muslim births as families ‘feel British.’”
By Dominic Kennedy.
“Almost a tenth of babies and toddlers in England and Wales are Muslim, a breakdown of census figures shows. The percentage of Muslims among the under-fives is almost twice as high as in the general population. In an indication of the extent to which birthrate is changing the UK’s religious demographic, fewer than one in 200 over-85s are Muslim. One expert said it was foreseeable that Muslims who worshipped would outnumber practising Christians. ‘It’s not inconceivable,’ said David Voas, Professor of Population Studies at the University of Essex. A breakdown of Britain’s religions and age groups was produced by the Office for National Statistics. The figures, seen by The Times, were extracted from data collected for the 2011 census. ”
Demographics is destiny. It is the reality that none of us can ignore.
The liberal idiots will try to do so.This is what makes them, not the immigrants, the real danger to England and it’s survival.
They are enemy of the conservative forces in society. Never debate with them and never listen to their fantasies.
“The ‘destitute’ asylum seekers with luxury TVs and iPads: Checks at taxpayer-funded properties find 10% have ‘signs of wealth.’
“Auditors carrying out spot checks found expensive electrical goods.
“Home Office spends £150m a year housing 23,000 asylum seekers.”
By JACK DOYLE.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2536865/Luxury-TVs-iPads-asylum-seeker-houses-Checks-taxpayer-funded-properties-10-signs-wealth.html#ixzz2pzMchXXk
“Illegal immigrants may be granted free access to NHS.
“Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants could get free access to the NHS and other public services under plans being discussed by Euro MPs.”
“Almost a tenth of babies and toddlers in England and Wales are Muslim, census figures show.
“The percentage of Muslims among the under-fives is almost twice as high as in the general population, according to a breakdown of census figures.”
“Britain’s proxy debate on immigration”
By Vincent Cooper.