Not in our Shires you don't.

Caroline Flint gives me the creeps.

Kibbutzing is unwelcome everywhere.

Not in the Golan.

Caroline Flint and head.


Never has there been such an accurate comparison of use.

Around here they plan to turn ancient Monument in the green fields into Browns Town.

Opposition since 2003,so it's Blairs towns and cash for peerage and policy.

An united opposition from Mp's of the soon to be afflicted areas would be nice.

45 thousand persons from abroad they plan to dump on us.

Immigrants account for 10,000 of the 43.000 population or a thousand immigrants every New Labour year.

Over the next 25 of their years they plan to raise that to 2000 immigrants per year,domestically produced or imported.

So by 2023 about 70% will be foregners.

Why should we suffer because of crooks and cash for policy,the New Labour took the illegal bribes.

Who gets the no bid contract to furnish New Labour with a new Sewage works,new hospitals,new schools,new roads,new cop shop,new whatever?

More simply,who takes the financial and mental strain of their bought policy?

It's not the here today and gone tomorrow political pensioners is it!

They run out of land for their bought policies,compulsory purchase.

They run out of people for their bought policies,import them.

They run out of money for their bought policies,raise taxes.

England submerged under built and foreign owned environment,English culture destroyed by multiculturalism,Eng
lish people impoverished and villified.

I do not see any advantage to England in their bought policies.

So what of Mr Baldry?

A little man with a smaller mind,perfectly happy to represent destructive policy as long as the gargage is not dumped in his constituency.

They voted in a jerk,so what else is new.

Let's look at a previous conspiracy to cause harm.

'This House
notes its decisions of 25th November 2002 and 26th February 2003 to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1441;
recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing non-compliance with Security Council Resolutions, pose a threat to international peace and security;
notes that in the 130 days since Resolution 1441 was adopted Iraq has not co-operated actively, unconditionally and immediately with the weapons inspectors, and has rejected the final opportunity to comply and is in further material breach of its obligations under successive mandatory UN Security Council Resolutions;
regrets that despite sustained diplomatic effort by Her Majesty's Government it has not proved possible to secure a second Resolution in the UN because one Permanent Member of the Security Council made plain in public its intention to use its veto whatever the circumstances;
notes the opinion of the Attorney General that, Iraq having failed to comply and Iraq being at the time of Resolution 1441 and continuing to be in material breach, the authority to use force under Resolution 678 has revived and so continues today;
believes that the United Kingdom must uphold the authority of the United Nations as set out in Resolution 1441 and many Resolutions preceding it, and therefore supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction;
offers wholehearted support to the men and women of Her Majesty's Armed Forces now on duty in the Middle East;
in the event of military operations requires that, on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme, and the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people and endorse an appropriate post-conflict administration for Iraq, leading to a representative government which upholds human rights and the rule of law for all Iraqis; and
also welcomes the imminent publication of the Quartet's roadmap as a significant step to bringing a just and lasting peace settlement between Israelis and Palestinians and for the wider Middle East region, and endorses the role of Her Majesty's Government in actively working for peace '

Their own words **** them.

if you pay a useless lowlife **** of a counciller the right amount in back handers as they have done for years,you can do whatever and whatever you like .they are parasite scum....

Will the electorate finally realise that they have wrongfully voted in this Labour government/administr
ation twice and now accepted a PM they didn't even vote in? Public outcry is needed to run this lot out?

Not sure which is worse, the current lot. or the Tory sleezeballs. A vote for 'Dave' is a vote for a bunch of Eton oldboys greasing each other palms and paying family members to do bugger all courtesy of the taxpayer. Shoot the lot of them.

Ten years from now, there will be 65 million people in the UK - an increase of five million - and by 2031, the population will be over 70 million, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said.


Within a generation, immigration will add the equivalent of a city the size of London to the population.

This is the fastest growth rate since the post-war baby boom - and is far more rapid than the Government forecast just three years ago.

One campaign group accused the Government of conducting a ''vast unplanned experiment’’ with the country’s well-being.

Statisticians said at least 70 per cent of the population rise over the next 20 years will be attributable directly to immigration.

The rest will be babies born to British mothers - many of whom are second-generation immigrants.

The Government has recently revised its long-term forecasts for annual net immigration upwards by one third to 190,000.

But data buried deep in the official figures revealed that over the next five years immigration is projected to run at close to a quarter of a million before reducing.

In the current financial year, officials expect net migration - the difference between those arriving and leaving - to be 240,000.
http://www.telegraph
.co.uk/news/uknews/1
567068/Record-immigr
ation-sees-UK-popula
tion-soar.html

Sorry- I don't think a massive Socialist experiment to undermine the Country by importing Labour voters is worth losing any of this 'Green and Pleasant Land' for.

80% of the population are against mass immigration. No-one asked us, the electorate, about this policy.

All this land will be concreted over, all the housing will be swallowed up by population increase due to immigration and our children will see no benefit.

You don't build an extension over half your garden so your kids have a bedroom each and then invite the neighbours to live in it.

What's 'eco' about concreting over Countryside?

More Big Lies from the NuLabour Spin Machine.

The Great Immigration Scandal
By Steve Moxon

Imprint Academic 2004

Reviewed by Michael Newland

‘Systematic abuse of procedure and open invitation to fraud allowed by the Home Office at ministerial and top management levels extend across the whole of migration.’

Enoch Powell observed that matters of vital importance to humankind are contested at the limits of human endeavour.

Most vital events in history invite the invention of counter factuals. Seemingly trivial changes, as a result either of chance events or a different decision by the leaders, would have led to an entirely different result. A small publishing industry thrives on discussing ‘what might have happened’. A recent BBC documentary, for example, suggested that Rasputin might have been murdered for fear that he would persuade the Romanovs to seek an armistice with Germany - leaving that nation free to concentrate its forces on the Western front, and perhaps winning the Great War.

Are Britain and its people to be terminated by mass immigration? Are we to end up like the American Indians marginalised and sidelined?

I have a little private joke about areas of the country becoming ‘reservations’, as native Britons flee in the face of living as foreigners in the cities. Far-fetched? The head of the Commission for Racial Equality has called for black children to be taught separately. The thin end of a very long wedge indeed.

Opinion among those who do not believe in a future multiracial multicultural paradise divides between those who say “too late”, and those who argue that almost any situation can be turned round given the political will.

The difference between the outlook for the British people and that faced by American Indians in the 19th century is not simply in the resources available to us to defend our continued existence. The Indian tribes had no hope of resistance against European weapons and numbers. Counter factuals are difficult to imagine in that case.

The present British struggle is obviously not military. The vital and critical difference for the British is whether the will exists to resist, or even adequate comprehension of the bad faith of our own leaders. The Indian tribes understood very well what would happen to them when the first transcontinental railway was built in the 1860s, and made a futile attempt to attack it. A similar outcome for the British people is just as certain if immigration policy is not changed.

For decades, the British appear to have been lulled into a sense of false security by deception about immigration on the part of every government, both in respect of numbers and concerning the intention to allow mass immigration on a permanent basis.

For example, the last census figure for the numbers of Chinese in Manchester was 8,000. But when a civil servant gave evidence on oath, in a trial concerning Snakehead gangs, he revealed what he said was ‘highly classified’ information in that the real numbers were between 40-50,000!

But those who claim to be able to divine the inevitable outcome for us with certainty are arguably wrong. Neither the eclipse of our own people nor a last minute 1940-style ‘Battle of Britain’ survival story is certain. We are not fatally technically disadvantaged like the Red Indians. Our fate will be decided by our comprehension of our situation, and by our ability to organise ourselves politically. All that can change rapidly as a result of events unforeseen either in nature or effect. The Dutch political situation was radically altered by the murder of a politician and a journalist. The unexpected can trigger a sea change.


****
One Sunday in March 2004, the Sunday Times published damning revelations about how immigrants from Eastern Europe were being allowed into Britain in blatant contravention of the ‘strict’ controls which the Labour government claimed were in place.

For the first time, a civil servant who had worked within the immigration service, had blown the whistle on how things were actually done. The one-legged Rumanian roof tiler, supposedly coming to Britain to start a building business, became a tabloid cause celebre.

Steve Moxon worked in the immigration service for some months on a daily basis at the level of assessing and approving applications for entry to Britain. He handled and processed the documents upon which individual decisions were based. The incredible extent of the deception, deliberately engineered by the most senior levels of government and the civil service to fool the public into believing that there are substantial controls on immigration into Britain, is laid out in his book.

Moxon’s book is a crash course on immigration, the realities of policy, and the many false arguments, both social and economic, which have been thrust upon the British to deceive us. It’s a **** good read whatever your previous level of appreciation of the monstrous imposition made upon the British people by those supposedly paid to serve us.

Three examples from the many in the book, concerning how immigration controls actually work, give the flavour of what Moxon found working for the immigration service in Sheffield.

It is now widely known from recent press reports that many of the ‘language schools’ which immigrants claim to be coming to Britain to join as students are bogus. But when Moxon attempted to make elementary checks on schools named by migrants in their applications, by looking to see if they had a working telephone enquiry line or web site, he was told he was showing excessive zeal and given an official reprimand.

Students visiting Britain are supposed to be here under strict controls about working. Yet, when Moxon saw clear evidence from bank statements that the rules were being ignored, he was told not to bother in characteristically suggestive, but deniable in its implications, civil service language. He also deduced that the immigration control branch of government is deliberately under-staffed to ensure its ineffectiveness.

He was further reprimanded for questioning the extension of visits to Britain in order to obtain medical treatment, when it was very likely that NHS treatment would be obtained illegally.

Why then are things like they are? Why have Britain’s political leaders put themselves into a position where they can be found out rather than openly pursuing what they appear to believe in.

The embarrassing pursuit of their own creature comfort is one motive. It is only recently that the leftish political establishment has been willing to make the kind of hubristic admission made by Will Hutton on television. Britain needs immigrants to provide nannies. Right-on Will. And don’t forget those of us suffering life without butlers. You just can’t get the staff since the war.

Recognition that there is little support for what they doing, and so a disinclination to admit to it, is another motive. But, as Moxon says, the motive goes far deeper than political tactics, or nannies for wealthy Labourite apparatchiks. The leftish establishment has retreated into its own incestuous in-group in the face of the failure of its own favoured ‘vanguards’ - like the working-class and students - to stay true to the cause.

The establishment lives in a state of denial like a failing but arrogant military staff pushing symbols of non-existent or defeated armies round a map table.

The working-class is implacably opposed to immigration, and the students generally not absorbed by politics in the way they once were. Getting a good job is now the preoccupation, not upsetting the social order.

It is easy to see the attractions for people of power and influence, deserted by their own political troops and living on borrowed time, in seeking some new constituency of followers prepared to listen - and one which lends itself to romanticism. The religious fervour with which heretics about migration are pursued betrays the psychological imperative behind it.

As Steve Moxon says, the migrant is now the championed figure in politically correct thinking - ‘another class of saviour for the cause being the disadvantaged person from outside the core of the capitalist world untainted through never having declined to grasp the chance when offered of ‘rising up’ against the bosses’.

Those pesky working-class and students, corrupted by capitalist false consciousness, no longer deserve even the courtesy of having laid out for them the intentions of the superior and socialist class who, chosen by fate, alone guard the truth in their lonely position of responsibility.

The sheer looniness of imagining that immigrants in the main have any enthusiasm for anything other than making money, and using their own numbers and solidarity as a lever for their own advancement, betrays just how far the Guardianista class have retreated from reality.

Neither of the two main strands of argument employed to justify mass immigration holds water.

Just about every speech by a major political leader during the last decade appears to include as de rigeur a ‘tribute’ to mass immigration and ‘diversity’. Political leaders appear to think it too risky not to mention the subject on every occasion ad nauseam. But how any society can hold together when it is the policy to create the maximum division among its members in their aspirations as to the social fabric?

The head of the CRE, Trevor Phillips, now says that multiculturalism is not such a good idea after all, and that separatist projects would no longer be funded. He presumably does not see racially separate teaching arrangements as separatist. Maybe he really does now reject multiculti, but the numbers able to form critical masses of varying ethnic composition, and pursue separatism whether government likes it or not, are now so great that it will make little difference what he thinks.

Moxon cynically thinks it likely that Phillips’ remarks are merely the pretext for more resources being directed towards ethnic groups. If that is the case, then it will be said that the Government is funding integration. As always, the real reason will be to buy votes.

Question diversity as a justification for immigration and the standard switcheroo will appear. Britain’s prosperity depends on migrants - ‘labour shortages’, and so on.

Moxon’s book includes a very good rapid tour of the detailed arguments for mass economic migration - every one of which is easy to deflate.

Anyone who has had the misfortune of trying recently to get a job through Labour’s Job Centres in the main national melting pot - now dubbed ‘Londonistan’ by the politically aware - can see what is happening at least among smaller employers. Nearly every one of them has expectations of being able to get his work done - and often skilled work - at farcical wages associated with ‘foreign students’. The black economy is creeping into the white-collar workplace. Often employers are imbued with inflated ‘animal spirits’ about the low wages they can expect to pay. Even the fabled ‘students’ sometimes cannot be found to fill the job. Shelf-fillers in London are now paid 10% less than in other areas of the country with lower living costs.

The leading immigration economist, Professor George Borjas, joked that economists have no difficulty in agreeing that an increased supply of labour will lower wages. Until the increased labour supply is attributed to immigration, when economists become mysteriously tongue-tied!

As Moxon says, increasing numbers of local British workers feel it is simply not worthwhile to work for the wages now being paid. This creates a ratchet. Existing workers disappear into the benefits system or crime (or both), and the near three million classified as sick. Immigrants are brought in to meet supposed shortages of staff, who further force down wages and encourage more to give up on work. Past immigrants are themselves disadvantaged by those coming in later as the ratchet tightens.

Particularly duplicitous is the Labour claim of ‘staff shortages’ based on the half-million or so advertised vacancies. As any economics text book can tell you, there is something called ‘frictional unemployment’. Jobs take time to fill. Advertising, locating potential staff and interviewing them cannot be done in a day.

Even if there were an infinite number of the unemployed available to fill vacancies there would still be a substantial number of job advertisements. Half a million is only a percent or two of the total number of jobs, and in a fast changing and mobile economy certainly no indication of labour shortages in itself. And especially not when a large proportion of the jobs are part-time or temporary.

‘Active promotion of mass net immigration into an already crowded and fully developed economy is unique to Britain’ says Moxon.

But the Labour Government is caught in a trap of its own making.

To admit the error of its ways would be politically calamitous when its entire policy is based around immigration both as a social device - ‘diversity’ - ‘vibrant multiculti’ - and as a supposed economic necessity. The Tories - witness Michael Howard’s recent speech (January 2005) - have more latitude after towards a decade in opposition.

Cui bono?

A coalition of strange bedfellows certainly benefits for now from the destruction of British society. Labour expects to be rewarded with votes from immigrants. The remnants of the ideological left hope for a new revolutionary political army made up of foreign mercenaries. Many employers, consumed by short-sighted greed, want foreign workers for low wages. Some of the middle-class enjoy cheap servants. But a growing majority are becoming aware that preserving their own social fabric is matter of importance to them even if they still have little grasp of the economic pup being sold to the country.

Blair appears to attribute Labour’s increasing unpopularity to managerial failure. Perish the thought that the ideology - such as it is being a rag bag of fashionable leftish sloganising and some half-baked economics - might be calamitous.

But people are waking up says Moxon, and there will be a big political score to settle.