An EU conspiracy?

THE LAST TIME I believed in a conspiracy theory was following the death of President Kennedy, and I clung to it right up to the time I watched the film JFK; Oliver Stone's long winded attempt at trying to prove Lee Harvey Oswald to have been a patsy working for either the CIA or Cuba[1], and concluding that it was not Harvey's rifle that fired the fatal shot, but whoever was lurking on the 'grassy mound' as the president's cavalcade passed.

            

            American conspiracy theorists are, like Oliver Stone, of a usually Left-wing liberal bent[2] who think the US government are up to all kinds of schemes to eliminate those who get in their way – especially liberals like himself, and JFK.

           

            From time to time governments of whatever ideological bent, try to keep information they do not wish the public to be made aware of, secret. In the UK, under the thirty-year rule (said to have been put in place for reason's of national security) documents are kept hidden until the rule has, like an insurance policy, matured and the actors in the proceedings are probably dead.

WHEN I HEARD THIS MORNING on Sky News that the UK has been asked to contribute a further £1.7 billion to the EU, while Germany and France get a rebate; I smelt a conspiratorial rat at work.

            

            I thought to myself, it must be a stitch-up. A conspiracy had been concocted between Downing Street and Brussels to spike Nigel Farage's' guns in the forthcoming Rochdale by-election where the latest poll puts his party 13 points clear of the Tories.

            

            It would go like this. Brussels would insist that the UK should have to pay this extra contribution because of the UK's economic success; and at the same time Germany and France should be given a rebate for the failure of their economies, adding further to Ukip's popularity. Well…I ask you. What better foil could Cameron have, than to have himself and his party made even more unpopular - but then, there would follow a sudden victory over Brussels; a victory brought about by  'negotiations' which gave Cameron his victory over the £1.7 billion taxpayer robbery? Well, we will all have to wait and see.

            

            But a fellow conspiracy theorist on this issue, insists that indeed a conspiracy is afoot; but it is not one of Cameron's making. My brother came up with the following. He suggested that Brussels wanted Cameron out, come the next election and a more pliable Miliband put in his place. Milliband would never allow, for instance, an In/Out referendum; and therefore represented the EU's best hope for keeping the UK safely within the federalist concoction.

            

            Think about it. Cameron has offered an In/Out referendum if he wins next May after negotiating EU reforms – a process the EU is fearful of, if only because whatever reforms they agree to with the UK; other member states will demand the same changes, thus causing such a volcanic eruption within the EU that its very existence may be left in doubt - better therefore Milliband governing the UK than Cameron – or at the very least, anyone but Cameron.

            

            As a conspiracy theory this makes far more sense than my own. Perhaps, instead of Cameron, the idea behind this demand for more funds is meant to help Milliband. After all, on Sky News this morning when Ed Balls was asked what he would do about this budget increase; Balls wittered on about Cameron alienating himself from the negotiating process with our European partners. He never once said that he stood full square behind challenging such an unfairness.

SO THERE ARE convincing and unconvincing conspiracy theories surrounding the  £1.7 billion demand from the UK. Between the two, I favour my brothers. In doing so I do not insinuate or even infer that Ed Milliband is part of the conspiracy, but a mere willing associate of anything pro-European. Brussels are the political puppet masters in all of this, which Cameron is finding to his cost, and Milliband, if elected will surely find to his own.

            

             Both Cameron and Milliband are being, in one way or another, used by Brussels to the EU's advantage. They are both instinctive supporters of the European Union and our membership of it; but are both trying to either hold on to or gain power within the UK, and Brussels is trying to manipulate it to their own advantage, and in doing so they have come out in Miliband's favour. Milliband is an innocent in all of this, for his natural EU impulses will willingly serve the interests of the social democratic European Union in any event, just as they do the Unite trade union in the UK.

             

            The EU wants Milliband. He has proven himself a creature of the trade unions; so perhaps he has strings that can be pulled by Brussels. Well I would not be surprised if Ed did Europe's bidding. After all, he disdains an In/Out referendum, even on Cameron's spurious grounds.

           

             So Ed is the perfect servant of Brussels, one who can be guaranteed to turn the UK under the much longed for tutelage of a Federal Union into a mere province of the greater European Union, where the nation state becomes a thing of the past; where it becomes a province, divided into regions instead of counties and in thrall to the Brussels' Commission.

            

            This is the supposed nightmare scenario of European federalism. A dystopian vision concocted by Europhiles throughout the Union beginning after the Second World War in order to restrain further military conflict of the type that brought forth two World Wars on European soil within 20 years causing the deaths of countless millions.

            

            So in order to avoid further such future conflicts… so the theory goes: we have to, according to the EU, abandon our national sovereignty and nationhood, and become immersed into a federal union within Europe where nationhood, sovereignty, and even democracy has no place in the scheme of things. Is this the future the British people wish to be part of? A future bereft of nationhood, national sovereignty, and the abandonment of ancient counties and traditions - I very much doubt it. But if they do then let them have a referendum before they gift their children and grandchildren such a future.

THIS IS THE only option on offer for the people of the UK if we remain part of the journey to a federal Europe while remaining a member of the EU. European federalism is being presented in almost prosaic terms, if at all. A federal Europe means the ending of the nation state within the continent of Europe. Yet the LibLabCon triumphret are between them seeking to steer their parties toward such an eventuality without losing as much electoral support as they can manage.

           

           The leadership of all the three main parties have long since bought into a federal Europe, but they know the British people are more sceptical. Until Ukip appeared as a genuine threat to the Tories… Cameron then effectively saw them as fools and idiots. But now, since the rise in their popularity, which has been maintained by the events of last May and in Clacton; he has promised an IN/OUT referendum if he cannot bring about reform of the EU before 2017, if he wins the next election.

            

           Cameron believes in the EU. He is intelligent enough to understand what a federal union means to the nation state; and yet, as a Conservative, he still remains supportive of its aims; and if it had not been for Ukip, he would have no doubt continued to follow the same map route of every other of the main parties within the UK, as well as the rest of Europe.

           

             

---

[1] Preferably, for Stones purpose, the CIA.

[2] As was I when I clung to this theory.

Squeezing the rich until the pips squeak

"When I was 21, I attended a meeting at my trustee’s office in London. The old head of the firm, who wore pince nez spectacles, striped trousers and a blacktail coat, pushed this letter across the green baize tablecloth from the Inland Revenue demanding tax on three quarters of all my income stretching back to when I was 12." Haley Mills

IN THE YEARS leading up to my puberty, at which point sex imposes itself on the innocence of childhood love, I had a deep crush on Haley Mills. Today she gives an interview in the Sunday Telegraph,  where she speaks of being put in the supertax bracket of 90% in the 1970s, and how her father helped her fight this iniquitous practice by thieving class war Labour politicians; cheered on by the envy of their supporters. She was eventually saved by Lord Denning; " I fought it like crazy. It went through five years of Court of Appeal, Commissioners and then up to the House of Lords. Lord Denning, who headed the Court of Appeal, found in my favour but he had to grant HMRC the right to appeal. It went back to the Lords, who did everything by the book, and bingo!…"

             It does not matter how much a person works to earn or make, taxing the rich more than anyone else should never be taken to such extremes as it was in the 1970s by Labour governments. Michael Cain, who I read the other day tries legally to avoid paying his full whack, was one of those, like Ms Mills who was expected to hand over 90% of his income in the 1970s, but rightly fled abroad to avoid such legalised theft; and if he finds a way of legally not handing over 40% of is earnings (earnings remember) then I support him, and anybody else with ambition to succeed.

           

            This addiction by the state to dip their hands so freely into people's wallets, is a relatively new phenomenon in our nation's history. It used to be the case that if a man or women worked all the hours under the sun; they had every right to keep that which they had laboured to earn and spend it how they wished to spend it without any portion being taken from them by politicians, who always believe they know better how to spend other people's money, than the people themselves. The outrageousness of this state of affairs would have been apparent to earlier generations; but, since the end of the war, Robin Hood type taxation Ms Mills experienced is the real villain.

            The direct taxation people pay according to their earnings is between 20% and 40%[1] of income. Which means even at the lower level of one fifth (a day's wages and a day's work) is handed over to the government. So for one day a week a worker effectively works for the government. But remember this is only direct taxation. If it ended here it may not seem so bad; but this is not the end, only the beginning of the great state fleecing of the people that even the Sherriff of Nottingham would have been proud to have been able to emulate.

INDIRECT TAXATION  comes on top of the direct kind; and the different forms of this are legion. Let me list some of them: National Insurance, Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Alcohol Duty, Air Passenger Duty, Tobacco Duty, Fuel Duty, VAT, Stamp Duty and Land Tax, Gambling Duty, Climate Change Levy, Landfill Tax, Vehicle Excise Duty, Business Rates, Capital Gains Tax, Company Car Tax, Bank Levy, Venture Capital Tax, Switzerland Tax, Inheritance Tax, Company Car Tax, Carbon Price Floor, and HGV Road Users Levy.

            Indirect taxation is the great smoke screen that the politicians have over the decades added to direct taxation. By doing so they either sought to raise revenue for public spending, or to help lower previous deficits. The Labour Party were part of the former, and the Conservatives, the latter. It was Labour under Tony Blair who promised, if you remember, not to raise direct taxation during his first term in office. But new and old forms of indirect taxation made up the shortfall.

            Both parties have in their way added to the bounty of the Exchequer but for different reasons. Labour believes in taxing, borrowing, printing, and above all spending. The Conservatives use to believe in small government, and minimal taxation, believing that the people themselves knew best how to spend their own money – money hard earned, and as much part of their private property, as the houses they live in, whether rented or privately owned.

TAXATION SHOULD never be seen as a passive, acceptable practice that it has now come to be seen by both parties, but particularly the Conservative Party. Taxation takes money from people who have worked hard in order to provide for their families. Income Tax, first of all should be the only tax demanded from any government from its people. These indirect taxes are acts of larceny by our elected representatives, who believe, for instance, that the freezing of fuel duty on petrol represents some sort of favour given by them to the road user. It is no such thing, especially after that latest price drops in a barrel of oil. The government demands the vehicle owner  pays not only the price at the pumps; but a fuel duty on the petrol purchased; on top of which VAT is also incurred. Yet a government spokesman has the audacity to demand that the petrol stations drop their petrol prices by two pence a litre.

            Indirect taxation, probably accrues more revenue for the exchequer than does direct taxation. But when I hear that the country's financial sector  - the City of London; coughs up £20 billion a year in what I suppose to be Corporation Tax, or  various other little heard of and little understood appendages to such a tax accumulated within the Red Book at every budget; I begin to wonder why such banking talent is being so much maligned -   £20 billion after all, buys a lot of hospitals, schools, or houses.

HALEY MILLS was right to stand her ground when she did. She earned her money. It belonged to her and nobody else. Nevertheless she would have been no doubt willing to pay a reasonable amount of tax comparable to the PAY E of the ordinary worker at the time. She was a child star earning amounts of money that would have been deemed exorbitant by a Labour government of the 1970s; but it had no right to demand  a 90%  super tax from her, or any other 'wealthy person' by vindictive lefties.

           

           

           

           

           

           

             

           

           

           

---

[1] Although Labour promises to increase this later to 50% if elected

The malevolence of overseas aid

'Corruption is a fundamental issue that afflicts the everyday lives of the very poorest and thwarts global efforts to lift countries out of poverty.'

'DFID has not… developed an approach equal to the challenge, nor has it focussed its efforts sufficiently on the poor. While some programmes show limited achievements, there is little evidence of impact on corruption levels or in meeting the particular needs of the poor.' The ICAI

THE DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPEMENT (DFID), has come under criticism from the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) for not developing an; 'approach equal to the challenge, nor has it focussed its efforts sufficiently on the poor. While some programmes show limited achievements, there is little evidence of impact on corruption levels or in meeting the particular needs of the poor.

            

            DFID’s willingness to engage in programming that explicitly tackles corruption is often constrained by political sensitivity in country. It is not capturing and applying lessons learned. As a result of these findings, we have given a rating of Amber-Red.'

            

            Overseas aid corruption has been ignored by all political parties in the UK regarding our overseas aid budget and its failure to do what it was intended to do. The annual £9 billion  budget was ring-fenced by the Cameron Conservatives in 2010 to help them sanitise their party from being regarded as the 'nasty' party. The party which the Blairite Cameron sought to make popular once more and lead him to what?…a coalition with the Liberal Democrats? Cameron had hoped, through his enchantment with Blair, to replicate the Blair three term strategy for his party, but he has failed to do so.

            

             Ring fencing the overseas aid budget was a ploy by Cameron to make his party appear more humane; more attune to the touchy-feely approach of the Blair government that came before; and more in sync with Tony than Margaret. While many supporters of  his party; who have now crossed over to Ukip, were unconvinced by such a ring-fencing agenda of the DFID. In fact many traditional Conservatives felt betrayed by the Cameron Conservatives to willingly kow-tow to the corruption that the ICAI has now exposed.

            

             The distribution of overseas aid has always been considered a corrupt way of distribution. Not only to the recipients, but by its contributors. The distribution of overseas aid has never been pure and uncorrupted. Even Western governments, including our own have insisted upon a quid-pro-cue, usually involving military sales, in return. But it was seen as unforgivable for any politician to speak of it in terms of African leaders spending it on trips to London's finest emporiums in Oxford Street…that would, and still would be considered racist

THE DFID should be replaced, on an emergency by emergency basis without a Whitehall department  overseeing it. The British people are a generous people who are willing to see their taxes spent whenever a global crises emerges; as with Ebola. All must be done to manage the spread of this disease. But it does not require a department of state to do it with a £9 billion yearly budget.

            

            Whenever a humanitarian crises arises, the government must do what it is able to do to resolve it. Aid should be provided for natural disasters, such as famine relief, earthquakes and outbreaks such as Ebola. Any other kind of aid should be provided by the various and numerouse charities, through the generosity of the public subscribing individually.      

The DFID seems to have no compass other than exploring the possibility of military or other commercial contracts from the various governments we deliver aid to. The West, but in particular the UK, uses the DFID to arrange various commercial contracts involving our UK  industries. Better that we should remove and disassociate ourselves from this practice, by restricting overseas to natural disasters…like Ebola.

            

            We do not need a department of state with a multi-billion pound budget, and a shoal of well paid, well pensioned, civil servants, plus a minister on a ministerial salary in charge to help people in dire need through natural disasters.

            

            With Ebola, it was not the DFID that responded but the military, which nowadays seem to have become nothing more than an army of uniformed social workers. Did, by the way, the cost of the HMS Argus deployment, and 700 soldiers to West Africa, come from the DFID's budget or the MoDs?

THE DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, is not needed. It is a means of bribing the various undemocratic and democratic, but corrupted oversees governments. They are being given oversees aid on a quid-pro-quo basis; a nudge here and a wink there. When you deal with corrupt countries with taxpayers money you care little about how much you spend. As with everything else the politicians spend taxpayers money on, any amount of waste and frivolity which  is quickly forgotten about.

            

            This is why, particularly, but not exclusively, the Labour Party, like to make spending promises to corner the market vote leading up to an election. Politicians, all politicians nowadays, are natural spenders of other people's money. They see it as their own, in the political sense; for if it was really their own, they would merely drop a few quid into a charity bucket, give a tenner a month (or less) by direct debit to an oversees aid charity… or, give a few of their old clothes to a charity shop.

           

             Governments of all countries have a duty to provide financial assistance to the victims of natural disasters as they crop up from time to time. This is the state's only remit; other problems should be and are supported by charities who rely upon the generosity of the British public to keep the aid flowing.

            

             There are now nearly some 80,000 charities concerned with purely the oversees human condition in the UK; they include among them the bulwark of funding for long term diseases, many now overcome in the more advanced countries, but still all too common in the developing world. Billions each year must have been collected by such charities to rid the world of disease endemic to various regions.

            

             There is as whole industry of charities, much greater in numbers than many of the UKs manufacturing industries; all employing, either voluntarily or with salaries, men and women, who in terms of numbers, freely bare comparison with the great manufacturing industries of the past such as textiles. We are fast becoming a charity based economy in terms of the industrial demographic. Yet we still need the DFID?  It is a complete nonsense.

            

             This institution  is there to make politicians garner popular support in the country - or in Dave's case, make the Tories seem less nasty. It is about time that this department of government no longer existed. I bet it has done more in its history to keep corruption alive; more so than it has done to help the people whose plight it was originally intended to help.

            

             The Department For International Development should be unceremoniously cremated and the ashes poured over that fleeting passage of time of such irrelevant departments of state, as a warning to others that politicians may conjure up in the future.

CRISES ABROAD, such as Ebola must be supported by government. Any natural disaster or natural calamity like Ebola. must be tended to, not by a department of state, but by the government itself. We do not need a whole ministry to provide sustenance from natures periodic attacks in the world outside of our own country.

            

              The Department for International Development (DFID), is a politicians source of bribery for commissioning various, but in particular, military contracts from abroad. It is a scandal that has persisted for far too long and needs pruning back. Pruning back to the extent of removing a department of state which has done little to benefit its intended recipients; and more to benefit UK industry.

             

           

           

           

           

             

           

            

An EU conspiracy?

THE LAST TIME I believed in a conspiracy theory was following the death of President Kennedy, and I clung to it right up to the time I watched the film JFK; Oliver Stone's long winded attempt at trying to prove Lee Harvey Oswald to have been a patsy working for either the CIA or Cuba[1], and concluding that it was not Harvey's rifle that fired the fatal shot, but whoever was lurking on the 'grassy mound' as the president's cavalcade passed.

            

            American conspiracy theorists are, like Oliver Stone, of a usually Left-wing liberal bent[2] who think the US government are up to all kinds of schemes to eliminate those who get in their way – especially liberals like himself, and JFK.

            

            From time to time governments of whatever ideological bent, try to keep information they do not wish the public to be made aware of, secret. In the UK, under the thirty-year rule (said to have been put in place for reason's of national security) documents are kept hidden until the rule has, like an insurance policy, matured and the actors in the proceedings are probably dead.

WHEN I HEARD THIS MORNING on Sky News that the UK has been asked to contribute a further £1.7 billion to the EU, while Germany and France get a rebate; I smelt a conspiratorial rat at work.

            

            I thought to myself, it must be a stitch-up. A conspiracy had been concocted between Downing Street and Brussels to spike Nigel Farage's' guns in the forthcoming Rochdale by-election where the latest poll puts his party 13 points clear of the Tories.

            

            It would go like this. Brussels would insist that the UK should have to pay this extra contribution because of the UK's economic success; and at the same time Germany and France should be given a rebate for the failure of their economies. Well…I ask you. What better foil could Cameron have, than to have himself and his party made even more unpopular -  but then there would follow a sudden victory over Brussels; a victory brought about by  'negotiations' which gave  Cameron his victory over the £1.7 billion taxpayer robbery? Well, we will all have to wait and see.

            

            But a fellow conspiracy theorist on this issue, insists that indeed a conspiracy is afoot; but it is not one of Cameron's making. My brother came up with the following. He suggested that Brussels wanted Cameron out, come the next election and a more pliable Miliband put in his place. Milliband would never allow, for instance, an In/Out referendum; and therefore represented the EU's best hope for keeping the UK safely within the federalist concoction.

            

           Think about it. Cameron has offered an In/Out referendum if he wins next May after negotiating EU reforms – a process the EU is fearful of, if only because whatever reforms they agree to with the UK; other member states will demand the same changes, thus causing such a volcanic eruption within the EU that its very existence may be left in doubt - better therefore Milliband governing the UK than Cameron – or at the very least, not Cameron.

           

            As a conspiracy theory this makes far more sense than my own. Perhaps, instead of Cameron, the idea behind this demand for more funds is meant to help Milliband. After all, on Sky News this morning when Ed Balls was asked what he would do about this budget increase; Balls wittered on about Cameron alienating himself from the negotiating process with our European partners. He never once said that he stood full square behind challenging such an unfairness.

SO THERE ARE convincing and unconvincing conspiracy theories surrounding the  £1.7 billion demand from the UK. Between the two, I favour my brothers. In doing so I do not insinuate or even infer that Ed Milliband is part of the conspiracy, but a mere willing associate of anything pro-European. Brussels are the political puppet masters in all of this, which Cameron is finding to his cost, and Milliband, if elected will find to his own.

            

             Both Cameron and Milliband are being, in one way or another, used by Brussels to the EU's advantage. They are both instinctive supporters of the European Union and our membership of it; but are both trying to either hold on to or gain power within the UK, and Brussels is trying to manipulate it to their own advantage, and in doing so they have come out in Miliband's favour. Milliband is an innocent in all of this, for his natural EU impulses will willingly serve the interests of the social democratic European Union in any event, just as they do the Unite trade union.

             

            The EU wants Milliband. He has proven himself a creature of the trade unions; so perhaps he has strings that can be pulled by Brussels. Well I would not be surprised if Ed did Europe's bidding. After all, he disdains an In/Out referendum, even on Cameron's spurious grounds.

            

             So Ed is the perfect servant of Brussels, one who can be guaranteed to turn the UK under the much longed for tutelage of a Federal Union into a mere province of the greater European Union, where the nation state becomes a thing of the past; where it becomes a province, divided into regions instead of counties and in thrall to the Brussels' Commission.

            

            This is the supposed nightmare scenario of European federalism. A dystopian vision concocted by Europhiles throughout the Union beginning after the Second World War in order to restrain further military conflict of the type that brought forth two World Wars on European soil within 40 years .

           

            So in order to avoid further such future conflicts… so the theory goes: we have to, according to the EU, abandon our national sovereignty and nationhood, and be immersed into a federal union within Europe where national democracy has no place in the scheme of things. Is this the future the British people whish to be part of. A future bereft of nationhood, national sovereignty, and the abandonment of ancient counties and traditions ? I very much doubt it.

           

           

             

---

[1] Preferably, for Stones purpose, the CIA.

[2] As was I when I clung to this theory.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when in order to deceive.

SO, EU IMMIGRANTS MAKE a £20 billion tax contribution to the country. Nobody, least of all Ukip has ever tried to deny an amount exists, and it does not need a study carried by two London based academics to draw our attention to it. All it does is allow the liberal commentators to cheer the findings, as proof of the benefits of EU immigration and the free movement of peoples.

            

             First of all, as a Ukip voter; I do see the need for highly skilled and talented immigrants, not only from Europe, but from the rest of the world. Ukip, and those opposed to immigration outside of the BNP and the EDL, are not little Englanders; they know we would be cutting our own throat as an economy if we rejected such talent.

            

            There have been some 250,000 talented Frenchmen and women settling in London to evade the socialist tax policies of president Hollande. I regard these as the modern Huguenots, fleeing not Catholicism but socialism, and they should be welcomed with open arms; as should others of their calibre from other countries.

            

            What I and Ukip protest about are the sheer weight of numbers being sent through our open boarders from the EU, and the toll it is taking on this country's social fabric. Words such as 'swamped' and phrases such as 'opening the floodgates' have been used to describe what is happening. When I speak of immigration, I try to always qualify it with the adjective mass.

            

            Those without skills (that account for the 'mass' in immigration) are dampening down wages for the indigenous people of this country. They are putting pressure on the NHS, our schools, and our housing. These are the three great elephants in the room that the liberalista choose to ignore in any debate on immigration – they blame, for instance, the longevity of the British people, on the failings of the NHS, without hearing a squeak from them regarding the impact of immigration.

           

            We hear, particularly from the Labour Party and their supporters, about the cost of living crises which they blame on the Tories. But we do not hear from them about the impact that immigration has on the cost of living. Most economists believe that mass immigration has a tendency to drive down wages, and thus up the cost living. When it comes to immigration, the NHS, education, and housing rented or private…there is a bloody great herd of elephants squeezed tightly into the room whenever the liberalarti hold forth in the media.

IT IS SIGNIFICANT THAT THIS report made the front page headline in both the Guardian and the Independent (?). The report was limited in its scope; partly restricted to EU migration, but even hear they used dates to serve their purpose. It never mentioned, as today's Daily Mail points out, the fact that; "Three-quarters of the contribution – £15 billion – was made by people born in the 15 members of the European Union prior to the ‘big bang’ admittance of Eastern Bloc countries in 2004. It includes huge sums paid in by the likes of French bankers and German engineers.

            

            A further £5billion came from the East Europeans. Recent non-European immigrants’ net contribution was also said to be positive, at about £5billion." Make of it what you will, but it falls far short of the headlines in both the Guardian and Independent - £15 billion to be precise. But, as the Daily Mail puts it; "…buried inside the 51-page report was the calculation showing that, if the time period 1995-2011 is considered instead, non-European migrants living in Britain took out more than they put in for 17 consecutive years."

THE COST OF none European migration to our shores over this period, according to the report was £120 billion over 17 years. The Daily Telegraph headline to this effect today runs contrary to both the Guardian and the Independent headlines. The liberal papers chose to emphasise the favourable (but highly questionable) aspect of this deliberately ill-focused and intentionally restricted view of immigration into the UK from the EU, as an afterthought for the fact that immigration from outside of the EU has cost the British taxpayer £120 billion over 17 years which was presented in the report but not, it seems within the liberal media.

            This report was engineered within such limits that they (the authors) hoped would serve their pro-EU migration purpose. But in order to accomplish it; they had to pick their dates carefully to match favourable statistics; and when they could not do this in the case of immigration from outside of the EU, they buried it in the 52 pages of their report, hoping, no doubt that it would not be gone over but taken at face value as both the Guardian and the Independent willingly did.

            If it was not for the Daily Telegraph, the headline  emphasis on immigration from outside the EU would never have had a mention, except as maybe a footnote in the liberal press.

            Mass immigration, from whatever source it comes, must represent, on such a scale, a handicap to the indigenous population of this country. They know it because, unlike some ivory tower academic, they experience it. The white indigenous working class population have their empirical knowledge, rather than academic statistics to be informed by. Their every day experiences, which are foreign to academia, and the London liberal elite from both politics and the arts, are all that matters.

           

            Immigration has to be regulated as it is in, for instance, Australia. We should attract the brightest and the best in whatever sector of the economy they are needed, from all parts of the globe. But unregulated immigration from an open EU market will only cause social unrest; especially if it is coupled with migration from without the EU.

            The British indigenous white  population are not racist. What they are, are ordinary people wishing to live among themselves, like the people of India or Pakistan after they rid themselves of British colonialism. We and not Europe should determine who are to live among us. Europe says that all and sundry from within the EU should have the right to invade our shore and be treated equally within the indigenous population.

            They of course have right on their side because of the various European treaties signed up to by our various governments who told us they were, often or not, mere technical arrangements which we should not be bothered about; and so we were not – it was, after-all, a procedural device and needed no further input by the British people…and the 'no further input' has extended itself to the need for an In/Out referendum on Europe. We must allow our elected representatives, to consider what they believe to be our best interest, just as in the Middle Ages the Divine Right of Kings monopolised the will of the people; so in the case of Europe, we must obey and trust in the wisdom of our politicians…I think not!

November 6^th…an update

AFTER JUST 24 hours the report authored by Professor Christian Dustmann, and Dr Tommaso Frattini is unravelling. First of all we learn that University College London, from where they and the report emerged, has received funding from the EU totalling £35million over the past decade. Secondly, we find that professor Dustmann, (according to Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the much respected Migration Watch) was the very man who, when working as a lead researcher at the Home Office, wrote that immigration from Eastern Europe would only total between 5,000 and 13,000 a year. As we now know, between 2004, when Tony Blair opened the floodgates, and  2009, more than one million crossed the channel.

            But the most damming of all arguments against this document, is that its scope was too narrow and its statistics were based on dubious methods aimed at trying to counter an anti-mass immigration lobby such as Ukip, as well as David Cameron's attempt to steer the immigration debate toward welfare payments instead of numbers.

            The Guardian and the Independent jumped on board without apparently questioning the evidence or examining the perimeters of the evidence; or even University College London's lucrative relationship with the bureaucrats of Brussels…and to top it all, neither paper looked into Professor Dustmann's form on the topic of predicting the numbers of east European migrants expected to turn up after Tony Blair prematurely opened the floodgates; which Professor Dustmann predicted at the time would amount to nothing more than a dripping tap.

            Neither the Guardian or the Independent[1] could wait to publish the two academic's findings. Politically speaking, the papers editors must have read the report's conclusion about the £20 billion contribution by EU immigrants and…kerching! At last, they believed, those lefties like themselves who accepted as a truth that mass immigration produces only advantages to society, were now vindicated by the report's findings.

           

            Both papers probably thought that they could now get back onto the front foot on this issue. Two respected academics had finally proven that immigration was not only beneficial, but a miraculous cure for the country's economic ills. But enthusiastic naivety once more addled their thinking[2]. They seem not to have studied this report in terms of its scope on the complex subject of immigration; or the objectivity of its authors; who, like themselves, were pro-EU liberals.

            My advice to these newspapers is to listen more to the experiences of the indigenous population outside of London, than rely upon academic studies regarding immigration. If they cannot bring themselves to do that, then why should they expect their headlines on the subject to be taken seriously outside of their small coterie of like minded liberal metropolitans ensconced in London.

            The subject of Immigration has been ill-served by, not only this report, but by the accompanying headlines in the liberal press and media in response to it. A desperate need to prove a Ukip negative, drove these two liberal newspapers to support a false positive from their point of view; and they did so, so vehemently on their front pages.

           

---

[1] The Independent – now there is an oxymoron.

[2] As it is prone to do on the Left

A young killer becomes a lab rat for psychiatrists, who will help return him to freedom

WILLIAM CORNICK, the 16-year-old murderer of his teacher Ann Maguire has got it made. Sentenced to a 20 year minimum which he will not serve because, in our liberal age, sentences are widely comparable to works of fiction. But in Cornick's case, his sentence has already drawn criticism from a former magistrate, Penelope Gibbs, who is quoted in today's Daily Mail, telling the BBC's Today programme that; "‘We are out of line with the whole of western Europe [good]. There are no other countries within Western Europe which give children - and this boy is seen as a child under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and is in the youth justice system - who would give children a life sentence."

            

             Ms Gibbs will be the first of many to complain in the coming months; for as memory fades of the brutal murder and it circumstance, more human rights lawyers will step forward to help young Cornick regain his freedom long before the minimum sentence is served.

            

             Young Cornick may even become a liberal cause celeb. Why they bother I do not know. He will be living in conditions while in custody that many millions of our law-abiding- citizens would be envious of; he will be cosseted over by drooling psychiatrists eager to understand and pontificate on their findings throughout the fraternity of head inspectors world-wide: and they will have a far greater say in his release date than either the likes of Ms Gibb, the human rights lawyers (although they will try to help with his parole); and certainly not the British public - or even those at the bottom of the food chain…the wretched and grieving Maguire family.

            

             A rightly cynical British public have as much faith in a judge's sentence, as they have in a politician delivering a straight answer to a troubling question. Every aspect of this nation's once respected institutions are now distrusted by the people; including justice for the victim of a brutal crime.

            

             The criminal, in many cases, has become the victim; as will assuredly William Cornick one day, long before he is due to be released. There will be a band wagon set in motion by the liberal great and good – they will gush their sympathies for the Maguire family of course; but will remind us that William Cornick, was not your average working class oik of the type that killed Stephen Lawrence;  but a well-behaved, well-liked son of a middle class family who was considered bright and even gifted.

            

             A self-confessed psychopath, Cornick, will be quickly dissuaded from such a 'self- loathing' judgement by the shrinks; who will consider it evidence of his mental condition and not an accurate description of his behaviour. They will study how such an accommodating, easy going young man could rise to the challenge of sticking a knife into someone, with the intention of following through on two other teachers he had in his sight.

           

            My guess is, that he will be 'cured' by such psycho-babble, and a release day will be announced (in 10 years or less). He will be given anonymity and sent to live somewhere in one of our coastal towns…thus making murder the gift that goes on giving.

JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIM is a meagre dish; especially served up to the dead. Being dead allows the authorities to concentrate on the living, and in a liberal society like our own; it means justice for the perpetrators of the crime.

            

            The only justice criminals are entitled to is due process including a fair trial; and if found guilty; justice should move back to the victim when it comes to sentencing. Because someone dies, it does not mean that their killer should be treated with the same sympathy as his or her victim in terms of shortened sentences.

            

             The criminal justice system is becoming just another of our country's institutions monopolised by the liberalista that faces the disparaging and mocking contempt of the British public outside of Metropolitan London.

            

             The Maguire family may view a 20-year minimum sentence as justice. But how will they feel if Cornick is released before the minimum sentence. Remember, a minimum sentence infers a much longer one because of the seriousness of the crime; which is why Ms Gibbs is up in arms over the judge's decision.

I AM NOT ADVOCATING that Cornick should ever be hung for his crime; and neither would the Maguire family. But when, in the 1960s, hanging was outlawed it was accepted by the population on the basis that life would mean life for the murderer. Life for life was the then liberal compromise for ending capital punishment.

            

             At the time I myself opposed capital punishment, but believed that murder, of a type planned and cold-bloodedly carried out, of the kind that Cornick used to kill his teacher, would mean a life sentence: it would mean a rebuke for the murderer who denied his or her victim not only a life; but a free life. A life to be enjoyed (in the Maguire case) with her family, her children and grandchildren or even great grandchildren. She had the right to die in her own time measured, not by an imbecile wielding a knife; but by time itself, as we all expect to do in the end.

            

             Why should this mentally deranged individual become the victim of liberal sympathy?  He should he be kept under lock for the rest of his life and not allowed back into civilised society where, as on many occasions, recidivism has emerged to the embarrassment of the liberal establishment. We have heard of cases where murderers have been deemed fit and ready to rejoin society, only to return to the confinement from which they were released through recidivism…life should mean life.

           

            In any civilised society there should be the ultimate sanction; it was once capital punishment: it should now mean life being life. If it is not to be capital punishment, then a life sentence delivered by a judge should not be picked over and shortened. It should mean life…and only life.