@roy this is the internet, so I have problems believing almost anything you say about yourself. But, I’ll take you at face value and if you have defended colleagues then I am impressed.

Well what I have said is true, The head of the Bedford Industrial Tribunal Office at the time Was a Mrs C. Tribe, One of the panel members there today is Fred Hanna who represents the Union. I only ever defended members of ethnic minorities as either a representative or witness on their behalf. I also knew several leading members of the Commission for Racial Equality, Mr Donovan Rene being the leading light at the Leicester Office in the Haymarket Shopping Centre. And Mr Nadeem Malik at the Park Road Wellingborough Offices

However I do not need to espouse my credentials as they bare no reference on my comments, but here is something that cannot be overlooked easily. The English Defence League has been formed not in order to denigrate the Muslim community but to condemn the jihad radicals. One would have hoped that the non-radical Muslims would fall over themselves to support such a movement. That however has not been the case, the Muslim community have gone out of their way to start violence and attack the police. This happened in Luton even though the EDL stayed away such stupidity is only adding fuel to the fire.

I am not a racist in any way whatsoever but I am a realist and my comment on here represent the true feeling of a vast and growing number of the British population

Accusing those who speak out against unrestricted immigration and publicly funded asylum of being nazi or racists is simply the cat calling one expects from those who find opposing views difficult to undermine. A harmonious society cannot exclude the interests of the indigenous population in favour of minority interests. The police stood by and allowed Abu Hansa to preach his hatred unopposed outside Finsbury Mosque yet the establishment now ban marches that oppose this type of hatred.

Be careful what you wish for this could become very dangerous

I fail to see what WW2 or my own national government financing evacuees has to do with this debate, it is a total irrelevance. The debate as I understand it is about our management or non-management of today’s immigration into the UK.

My concerns are that regardless of the growing anger by a large portion of the population reference the recent massive increase in immigration to the UK public discussion about it is suppressed for fear of being deemed a racist a cry you yourself has tried to hide behind

The ordinary man in the street is not fooled by platitudes from the establishment and they know that asylum seekers are invariably bogus under international law and are financed by the taxpayer. Any attempt to gloss over this truth fools no one and does nothing to placate the disenfranchised but serves to anger them even more. My own experience outlined earlier regarding dentistry happens to British subjects every day and you can see on TV queues of people hoping to register with an NHS dentist whose treatment is not free even for OAPs. Fortunately the small cost to me was an irrelevance but to some it would be a significant expense. Do you honestly expect them to be happy about this state of affairs, how can you possibly justify it to someone with toothache who has paid contribution for years

Having travelled extensively throughout the late 1950s and into the1960s I was struck by the fact that as colonial powers withdrew from their respective colonies or were ejected by their indigenous populations so these nations erupted into civil wars. Uganda, India, Mozambique. Rhodesia and Ceylon. Others like Jamaica became increasingly lawless but have now settled down. Such lawlessness and civil conflict still exists in many African nations like Somalia and has I believe returned yet again to Uganda

However we seem willing to accept immigrants from these countries with no way of knowing if they were the persecuted or the persecutors. The do-gooder liberal mindset is that all religions and races can live together in harmony. If such a scenario were true wars would not exist. We have witnessed over the last decade or two civil uprisings in not just the Middle East but in Tibet, China and Ceylon as well as Eastern Europe and the crumbling USSR. Most of these conflicts are orchestrated on religious or tribal grounds

I am afraid I am digressing here though the point raised is a valid one. The fact remains however that immigration is becoming a cause of significant anger and unrest. The majority feel that Britain has become a soft touch by way of its benefit system. If people wish to immigrate to the UK there is nothing to stop them from applying from anywhere in the world, even from France but they choose instead to sneak across the channel and try to claim bogus asylum. They are certainly not going to be persecuted for their politics in France. The only difference between France and Britain for asylum seekers is the welfare state.

This issue is not going to go away and just as an afterthought you may like to consider this. The most vociferous complainer about the immigration into the UK who spoke to my wife and I in Morrison’s was in fact a charming 66 year old from Trinidad an island I have visited on many occasions and yes she was black, she had arrived here in 1964

Until 1947, in fact through the very war that you feel somehow legitimises your claim, India was British. Indians fought in the Second World War every bit as keenly as your father. That’s why in that snippet from Hansard the girl from Ceylon was billetted in Scotland.

Until 1952, Egypt was part of the British Empire, and one of our strongest resources against Rommel

Until 1962, Jamaica was as much a part of the British Empire as Wales, Scotland or Manchester (and believe me, there’s places there I wouldn’t go without jabs)

Your arguments are still spurious, your compassion lacking, and your aim erratic. Do you seek to deride asylum seekers economic migrants or second generation British citizens?

Well I am not a member of any political party and have an open mind. But I am always alert to the general consensus of opinion at what can perhaps best be described as the grass roots of society. As a skilled engineer I have had the opportunity to mix with a very wide range of the social spectrum and what I have for some time been aware of are the following divisions.

To begin there is undoubtedly a section of society consisting mainly of the business, academic and political elite who for no other reason than their social position believes that their opinions are the only ones that are valid. Having formed these opinions on social issues they then claim to be mainstream when in reality they simply have greater access to the media. This access allows them to override public opinion in general and to disregard democracy.

A classic example of this is the Lisbon Treaty, which we all know would be thrown out should the promised referendum ever take place. The Labour party simply lied to the electorate but nonetheless the Tories will not hold a referendum but will hide behind the Irish vote. Regardless of the fact that under British law no government can bind the hand of its successor.

This same overriding of public opinion is also used to discredit all opposition to the human rights act and what could loosely be described our immigration and asylum policy.

However the far right have raised the issues of dissatisfaction of a large section of the community whose anger is rising steadily. This in response has led to the established parties organising both the media and the shadowy UAF to denigrate there views and break up their legitimate political meetings and labelling them nazis in order to ostracise them.

However this too has failed to quell the anger and has in fact spawned the formation of a new movement the English Defence League. These cannot be deemed nazi or hooligans as it obeyed the request not to march in Luton last week. However some local Asians decide to attack the police who were there in case the march took place.

No doubt if Mr Griffin does appear on Question time the audience will be filled with a large number from rent-a-mob who will not engage in sensible discussion on the issues he represents but do their utmost to ensure he is not heard.

We have seen the “British Jobs for British Workers” already causing industrial unrest at the TOTAL oil terminal. This spontaneous action was not the act of a load of nazi skinheads but the legitimate protest of disenfranchised workingmen.

On a personal basis I can only say this. Regardless of the media speak the general public are becoming more and more angry at the human rights act and the volume of immigrants we now have. They do no longer believe the government spokespersons that tell us that they are all going home, they know that it’s a lie and they also know that the government statistics are invariably manipulated.

In the past few weeks I have heard the issue of immigration raised at football matches, in pubs, on the shop floor and offices of several companies whom I have recently visited and even in my local Morrison store. The anger comes from the skilled worker, pensioners, unemployed and even members of the “blue rinse brigade”. These are normal members of our society they are not National Front skinheads. This anger will not abate easily and the currant economic climate will only add fuel to the fire.

I have on this forum raised the issues that have been raised in the public forums I have specified.

I have been answered with spurious claims that the services provided for asylum seekers are not paid for by the taxpayer some of which are denied to the ordinary British subject. There has been no sensible response to the questions I have raised regarding the violent societies that some of these immigrants come from. There have even been ridiculous references to the evacuee system in W.W.2; I look upon this as clutching at straws

However what I found most disappointing were the cries of “RACIST” as this in such a debate is to me the last desperate measure of the unsuccessful.

I am gloomy for our future and I hope that my contribution to this forum has given at least some of you food for thought. The issues raised are of the utmost importance and If they are not addressed then I believe as I said at the outset the real possibility of civil unrest is open.

My statements are TRUE.

Under international asylum law you are obliged to seek asylum in the first country you come to when leaving your own. Regardless of wether or not the UK under Labour decides to ignore international law or not it is still the LAW. That means that these people are illegal imigrants. It is estimated that aproximatly 100,000 illegal imigrants are at present in this country which the government are affraid to deport them in case it offends their human rights. My point regading Kenya ect is that though you may wish to bring Myra Hindly as an example of criminals in the UK such has no comparison to the wholsale slaughter by thousands of Kenyans on their fellow countrymen simply because their side lost the election. Similarly we do not get 400 politcaly motivated murders at election time as happened in Jamaica. The Law in Afghanistan has recently been changed to make it legal for husbands to starve or rape their wives if they do not allow sex at least once every 4 days. These are the cultural differences we are allowing into Britain today.

The British tax payer has had to build and staff detention centres for these illegal imigrants so that we can process their applications to stay and the thank us by burning them to the ground. We have at the moment 2.500,000 unemployed, I wonder how many we would have if all the emigrants from Europe went home. The majority of the British do not want them here.

Donut Hinge Party

Your claim that evacuees were financed by oug government would appear to be true but it is an irellivance, that is just the British government looking after it’s people. We are debating the fact that we are now paying for illegal forigners and though they may pay for their own food we give them the money in the first place.
Recently I required emergency dental treatment yet even though I had paid into the system for 50years and I am a pensioner when I finaly found a dentist I had to pay £48 for an extraction. You think that that is fair well I dont and niether to most of the British public

As has been pointed out before (and is one of the main themes of this post), refugees and immigrants pay for themselves.

Asylum Seekers are not paid for out of tax payers money, they will become taxpayers themselves and pay tax. So the payments made to them are simply deferred.Immigration is a net contributor to the UK exchequer and refugees are double as resourceful and productive. So UK taxpayers are only funding asylum seekers as far as asylum seekers are future UK tax payers.

I’m not sure what you’re saying about Jamaica, Kenya, Afghanistan, Fiji and India.

tWhat I do know is that the 1950s and 60s were the golden age of development. Between 1900 and independence India’s growth rate was approximately 0% a year. Following the end of colonialism it was 3.5%, poor, but better.

The post-colonial world was a difficult place, landmasses that were barely nations suddenly found themselves states. But I would argue that their independence was better than their subjugation.

Roy, other countries have bad people in them, they will continue to have bad people in them just as Britain has produced Myra Hindley and Ian Huntley, it is not an argument against migration. Migrants have made, and continue to make a positive contribution to this country, you are attempted to smear them by association with unsavoury characters. As I said, you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your statements and you seem to think that we somehow have to prove you wrong…

You have still not said wether or not the statements on my post 65 above reference the benefits paid to asylum seekers are financed by the taxpayer or the incidents I refer to in Jamaica, Kenya, Afghanistan and Fiji are true. So I will ask you again for a straigt answer YES or NO

ARE THESE FACTS TRUE???

Atempting to muddy the waters with silly fererences to wartime evacuees is irellivant the fact remains that you have consistently denied the facts above are true

So lets be grown up and answer the question please

Universal income tax had only existed since the first world war, prior to that it had only been collected by the rich – who admittedly were the only ones who could afford it. So that’s probably a single generation your esteemed ancestors were paying for – unless you were the son of a rich shipping magnate or something, which somehow I doubt. Your ancestors were more likely just semi-skilled factory workers making things for rich people to buy, and contributing by keeping themselves alive just in case the government wanted to have a war. Which pretty much puts you in the same boat as any other country.

I accept your right to dissagree but are you saying that the events I described in Jamaica, Kenya, South Africa and Fiji did not happen? Are you claiming that the laws regading wife starvation or rape has NOT been recently passed in Afghanistan?. Are you saying that the asylum sytem is NOT financed by the British taxpayer?. Are you saying that the provision of the free services benefits and accomadation I refer to are untrue?

Well “THEY ARE TRUE” all of them and your faiure to recognise that fact undermines the validity of your debating stance. Yes I know that these facts when debated in the public theatre cause great embasaement to those who have a different view but pretending that they are not true will not remove them from the public forum

Donut Hinge Party

Comparing evacuees in wartime in Britain is a total red hering, this is my homeland. the land for which generations of my family have paid taxes into. The evacuees of WW2 were not foriegn asylum seekers but chidren being moved to the homes of fellow countrymen. We were not freeloading on foriegn countries but just regrouping to allow the adult population less worry and more freedom to apply themselves to the conflict. the analogies you try to bring forward are an irellivance.

You have admitted that the benefits they get are financed by the British taxpayer, the other issues mentioned above are all true.ie Jamaica,Kenya,Afghanistan,And Fiji it’s ALL TRUE.

Now I can accept that you look upon these issues from a differing point of view but please do not insult you own IQ and that of others by claiming that the above facts are untrue

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1942/jul/07/ceylon-evacuees-billeting-scotland

Mr. Robertson

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he will take to relieve the plight of two fatherless girls, aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, evacuated from Ceylon on the advice of the authorities and now dependent on strangers in Midlothian who have kindly taken them in, as the Department of Health for Scotland is unable to care for them?

Mr. Johnston

A billeting allowance in respect of these girls has now been authorised.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1942/sep/08/billeting-allowance

Sir J. Mellor

My right hon. Friend has put forward the figure of 27s. 6d. per week in justification of the scale of Army pay and allowances; would it hot, therefore, be quite right to compare that figure with the figure paid to persons who are required to billet evacuees?

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/written_answers/1942/jul/07/ceylon-evacuees-billeting-scotland

Mr. Robertson

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he will take to relieve the plight of two fatherless girls, aged 17 and 15 years, respectively, evacuated from Ceylon on the advice of the authorities and now dependent on strangers in Midlothian who have kindly taken them in, as the Department of Health for Scotland is unable to care for them?

Mr. Johnston

A billeting allowance in respect of these girls has now been authorised.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1942/sep/08/billeting-allowance

Sir J. Mellor

My right hon. Friend has put forward the figure of 27s. 6d. per week in justification of the scale of Army pay and allowances; would it hot, therefore, be quite right to compare that figure with the figure paid to persons who are required to billet evacuees?

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/UK-Civil-Social/UK-Civil-Social-12.html

When the evacuation of mothers and children was being planned before the war the Government took pains to inform receiving authorities that they would not be put to any expenditure. This was the first principle; full reimbursement for extra costs arising from the evacuation scheme.10 the second principle, to which no reference was made before the war by the Ministry of Health, laid down that evacuating authorities could not be allowed to benefit; that they should, in some form or another, pay up what they were saving as a result of the removal of mothers and children from their areas.12 Receiving authorities were therefore told to recover ‘normal’ costs from evacuating authorities. So far as possible,accounts were to be settled between the two authorities by ‘day-to-day operations’, receiving authorities recovering expenses attributable to individual evacuees from the evacuating authorities, who might have had to bear the cost if evacuation had not taken place.13 The latter authorities were, in turn, advised to follow their peacetime practice of recovering in appropriate cases from parents and responsible relatives.14 Any costs not recovered by the reception authorities from the evacuation authorities would be a proper charge on the Exchequer.

Just to help you along with your lack of social history knowledge

Before 1948 there was No National Health Service and No Free Dentists,
No Social Security Benefits, No Invalidity Benefits No Sickness Benefit No subsidised Opticians No Old Age Pension and No Family Allowance
Family allowance was not available for your first-born child until well into the 1970s and even then it was only 50p per week

Unemployed people only when desperate could apply to go “ON THE PANNEL” whereby they had to go before a panel of local bigwigs to apply for relief. Such relief might be given if you were of good character and were destitute. You were subjected to MEANS TESTING where your home would be visited and any saleable non-essential furniture or belongings were sold before any relief was given.

All throughout the war food was rationed, only essential imports were allowed to be imported and as I am sure that you are aware the German U-boats sank literally hundreds of merchant ships in the “Battle of the Atlantic” Britain was on the verge of being starved into submission.

Food remained on ration for years after the war and the last food item to come off ration was sugar in 1953 which meant that for the first time children could buy sweets without sweet coupons from their ration books that is providing they could find a means of earning some cash. No child I knew got pocket money but we all tried to find a little job, helping the milkman butcher grocer delivering papers in fact anything that may get a few coppers even collecting rose hips from the hedgerows which could be sold for an old penny a pound.

THE RATION BOOK

Everyone was issued with a ration book and you had to register this book with your local traders i.e. Grocer. Butcher ect ect These books contained coupons that specified the quantity of lard, eggs, flour, cheese ect that you were allowed to purchase Regardless of whether you had the money to pay for extra you could not buy it without the coupons which the tradesman cut out of your ration book as you received your goods. Hence no coupons = no food.

Perhaps now after reading this you will understand just how ridiculous your last post was and hopefully your future comments will be better informed.

@roy this is the internet, so I have problems believing almost anything you say about yourself. But, I’ll take you at face value and if you have defended colleagues then I am impressed. But a little disappointed you would continue to spread such misinformation despite this.

Now I have debated you as have others. Others have provided data and evidence which you have ignored and I see no reason in repeating arguments which you have either read and dismissed or dismissed without reading.

To tackle one particular point, “Honour killings” do happen, and they disgust me. But most, no nearly all, immigrants do not engage in such behaviour, it is unfair to use it as a weapon against immigrants.

1) If those who kill in this way did not migrate to the UK “honour killings” would still occur, just further afield. An honour killing disgusts me as much in Pakistan as it does here, at least here the victim has a chance of escape before hand or posthumous justice if they can’t.

2) You have not proved that honour killings exist to an extent which would make restricting immigration beneficial.

3) You ignore the fact that violence against women and children happens in this country too. Fritzl was an Austrian, you want to ban all Austrians from entering the country?

4) You mention and imply heavily that immigrants commit crimes in numbers out of proportion with the numbers here. Evidence has been provided here that contradicts that assertion, rather than comment on that you just go on about “SPEAKING THE TRUTH,” when you are doing no such thing. As has been proved on previous threads and in previous comments.

Again, I refer to our previous thread. There are unpleasant migrants, just as there are unpleasant people, but there is a huge weight of evidence that migrants do not degrade this country’s culture but enrich it, that they do not scrounge benefits but contribute taxes in excess of what they draw, and that they can easily become law abiding citizens.

The arguments you have displayed time and time again are the same as were deployed against the Irish, the Jews, the Huguenots and the West Indians. Hell, this post could be about you!

We don’t agree, no one agrees with you, and unless you can link to some sound research or evidence which disproves that which was provided for you, I suggest you will not get far here. Reposting your assertions is not evidence, the fact you have done so without also posting others rebuttals says a great deal about how serious you are about debate.

That was a free one, I doubt you’ll provoke me to discuss anything with you again because you seem to be sticking your fingers in your ears as a child and going “lalala can’t hear you!”

@Carl

Yes the McJob… A difficult one that… And I wouldn’t dream of you accusing me of anything, we are bosom pals!

Migrants have tended to drift towards the lower end of the value added chain. That is, they tend to do the jobs which add little value to the end product, which are poorly paid, but which are still nevertheless essential. This is because they arrived with nothing and had to take to whatever was offered (My knowledge is mostly of refugees).

For example, Jewish labourers were accused of working in sweatshops in the 19th century largely because they did, Irish Navies dug canals and laid track and Chinese have been press ganged into cockle picking.

Now some of the working conditions existed, and migrants worked as accused. But others also worked in similar conditions without drawing the same ire, British people.

In certain circumstances it is not migrants producing the McJobs, they are simply satisfying a demand which would otherwise exist, and in certain circumstances the supply of cheap labour has helped create these jobs. It is quite complicated to say the least.

I would argue that enforcing a solid core of strong labour laws and an active, inclusive labour movement would help undermine this tendency. But I don’t think it will ever vanish without a big levelling up of world incomes. For the moment I’m not sure I have an answer for you… It’s something I will come back to in another post I think

Apart from pointing out that migrants make bloody good entrepreneurs and that this would offset the tendency for people with nothing to take low pay McJobs over doing nothing.

(Now I’m quite happy with those bleepy boxes you hate, people scanning boxes is a waste of people’s time. But the benefits of that box is not spread fairly enough for my liking, although this is a totally different discussion)

10 shillings per week for the first child. On an average wage comparison that’s about 300 pounds in today’s money.

Similarly, the government of your fathers also took in foreign children from warzones (French, mostly).

My more general point was that you as an evacuee was taken in out of charity and compassion – a generation earlier you’d have been left to scratch on the floor begging on the streets.

Most of the asylum regulation, and indeed much of the welfare state, isn’t aimed at protecting healthy men, but the children that are often inevitably dragged along or born into poor circumstances.

Without compassion, you’d be dead a long time ago.

ok lets deal with these;

Dentistry – emergency treatment only, plus a few charities funding some other work.
Free accommodation – some get housed in UKBA hostels, others don’t – it depends on whether they followed certain rules. Some will also get free accommodation in one of her majesty’s detention centres. None are eligable for local authority accommodation or homelessness support.
Free food – no. They have to pay for it with their meagre benefits – unless they are held in detention centres.
Medical attention – emergency treatment yes – chronic conditions no (see the case of the Palestinian who was denied regular dialysis)
Benefits – yes, but far lower than you imagine. About 70% of what the dole is IIRC.
Did they apply elsewhere? – some probably did, some probably didn’t – you’d have to ask them.
Are their actions a breach of international law? – depends what actions you are talking about, and not all asylum seekers do the same thing and act in the same way. This is a concept you clearly have difficulty with.

All the above applies to Asylum seekers whilst their case is being processed by the home office – during which time they aren’t allowed to work. Perhaps Roy would prefer it if they starved and froze to death?

Now Roy, for homework go and use google and find out what happens to the asylum seeker once their case is processed and the home office either decides to let them stay, or refuses asylum.

“Carl commented
People are only entitled to any kind of support at all”

The fact that this makes no sense as a sentence is testament to the fact that I didn’t say that.

The NHS did not come into being until 1948, don’t you know anything.

You had to pay at least half a crown (12.5p) to even get to see a doctor which for normal working people was a lot of money

My parents had been contributing with their taxes since leaving school to the nations financies and my father was fighting for Britain at the time.

Pocket money!! what planet do you belong to. Kids didn’t get pocket money they had to get out of shool hours jobs or go without.

Food was on ration and even if you had money which most did not you couldn’t buy food. have you never heard of ration books.

The accomadation was provided by the householders out of the needs of national survival not funded by the income tax of the others

Who was your history teacher he must be some know nothing interlectual with a degree in basket weaving

Now go away and read up on your WW2 history and the later Beverage Report. Unlike you I only post the truth I dont make up silly answers