Time and Bertie Wooster

Today's 60th anniversary of the UN Declaration of Human Rights has not gone unremarked (e.g. BBC Radio 4's Today).
What is remarkable is that the European Convention on Human Rights was used to enable foreign and Commonwealth men to occupy the UK through marriage. Once they have gained that "right" they then have the "right" to deprive native British men of work and promotion. This is because Britain's legislation on race relations applies to nationality. If that legislation does not deprive Englishmen, Scotsmen, etc. of work and promotion then an awful lot of time, money and legal effort has been expended for nothing.
Since "human rights" legislation was drawn up in the shadow of the Second World War the last thing it should do is enable people to occupy other people's country. Winston Churchill was a prime supporter of the Council of Europe (the home of the European Convention on Human Rights). It is inconceivable he would have supported its use to do just that, particularly regarding the country to which he devoted all his energies.
It is because circumstances change that the constraints of a written constitution have been avoided in Britain.
Think of America and guns.
Abraham Lincoln suspended habeus corpus. John Wilkes Booth referred to him as a tyrant for that reason.
A written constraint can be excused by the wisest words said by man:-
When Bertie Wooster was brought before the beak and asked why he had knocked off a policeman's helmet he replied: "It seemed a good idea at the time."

Ongoing Systemic Muddle

The Office of National Statistics reported (BBC radio news, 19 November) that last year 237,00 more people took up residence in the UK than emigrated.
The previous day BBC radio and TV news reported that every year 300,000 people are issued with visas to enter the UK in error. This is because the "business" is driven by productivity.
It was also reported (BBC Radio 4 "pm" and The Guardian) that the Immigration Minister criticised the "overuse of appeals" by "some" (he emphasised) lawyers and Non-Governmental Organisations. He also criticised the vexatious use of judicial reviews concerning immigration cases.
If the Minister is not in a position to remedy the ongoing systemic muddle - rather than expressing dissatisfaction - who (other than the Home Secretary or Prime Minister) is?
Answer: The Council of Europe.
But although other people have "rights" concerning the occupation of the UK, Englishmen (Scotsmen, etc.) do not.
This is because the European Commission of Human Rights will only investigate complaints from people who have been subject to a decison by a government body.

Loophole for "Life of Luxury"

A woman of Pakistani origin, who lives in Manchester, has written a book called Belonging. She told BBC Radio 4's Midweek today that when she was 13 she was taken to Pakistan to marry a man who wanted to come to the UK and "live a life of luxury".
He (and others like him) would not even think of being able to do this if the law were changed - as promised by the Conservatives in 1979 - to end the concession that allows foreign men to live in the UK through marriage.
The Conservatives' policy provoked the intervention of the Council of Europe. I anticipated that, and complained to the European Commission of Human Rights on 10 June 1977 about foreign men being allowed to occupy the UK in this way "... even though British men often cannot reside in foreign and Commonwealth countries as of right if they marry local women."
The issue - as I made clear to the ECHR - is not to enable British men to live abroad through marriage, but to prevent the unhappiness caused to many native British men by foreign and Commonwealth men exploiting this loophole.
This is exactly the sort of complaint the ECHR was established to redress.
The ECHR would not investigate my complaint. Instead, it determined (May 1982) in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK.

It's a Sham(e)!

According to BBC Radio 4's Law in Action yesterday, sham marriages are on the increase in Britain. This, we were told, is because the Government's attempts to reduce them are said to contravene the European Convention on Human Rights.
The last thing the Council of Europe should do is facilitate migration by people from non-member states to member states. This is because it was set up in response to activities in Nazi Germany.
We were told that the article in the European Convention that guarantees everyone's right to marry was there because of restrictive practices concerning Jews and other Germans. In other words, problems within a country.
There is nothing in the European Convention to facilitate the occupation of a member state by people from non-member states.
If a foreign (non-member state) man wants to marry a European woman they can live in his country. They can get married in his country. If they choose to marry in Europe there is no obstacle to their then going back to his country to live.
Therefore it is a misinterpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights to cite it as being violated if they cannot live permanently in a member state.
My complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights of 10 June 1977 about foreign and Commonwealth men being allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage while I (and other Englishmen) often cannot live and work in their countries through marriage was, I believe, exactly the sort of complaint it was established to investigate. But it didn't, on the grounds that I had not been the victim of a decision by a government body.

Who Benefits?

According to today's Daily Telegraph, page 8:
"Long-term immigration hit a new record, with 605,000 moving here in 2007."
"Almost a quarter of babies born last year had a foreign mother...."
(For England the figure was probably more than a quarter.)
"... the Office for National Statistics takes us to 85 million by 2081, adding another 16 million by 2050."
All of which supports my contention that the European Commission of Human Rights should have investigated my complaint of 10 June 1977 about foreign and Commonwealth men being allowed to use marriage as a means of living and working in the UK.
Instead, the Council of Europe pressured Japan to allow foreign men to live and work in Japan through marriage. That did nothing to help solve the UK's problems, nor mine, concerning this issue.

Subversion

The great Greek Historian Thucydides wrote during the Peloponnesian War (5th c. B.C.) that words change their meaning during times of war.
Foreign and Commonwealth men can easily change from being foreigners by marrying someone who has permanent residence in the UK. They then become part of an "ethnic minority". Furthermore they are then entitled to work and promotion on equal terms with native Britons. Thus is the word "equality" subverted.
This is "thanks" to the European Court of Human Rights (Wrongs?) decision in May 1985which determined in favour of three women (two foreign, one Commonwealth) whose husbands were not allowed to live and work in the UK.

Albatross

It is natural that it is men rather than women who lead the way in the occupation of territory other than their own.
It is also natural that men want to defend their territory.
It would be natural if women supported their countrymen.
But the UK has an albatross around her neck. It is her history.
During the First World War, because of the energetic campaigning of (some) women, power in Britain was transferred from one sex to another (as expressed by Mrs. Humphry Ward in a letter to The Times, 23 May 1917).
The outcome is that (some) women vigorously campaigned to enable foreign and Commonwealth men to occupy the UK. (That is, they defeated the Conservative Party's 1979 election policy to end the concession whereby foreign men can live and work in the UK through marriage.)
This can be summed up by some graffiti that used to be in London's Covent Garden: "Hell hath no fury like a vested interest masquerading as a moral principle."

"If you prick us do we not bleed?"

When I was at Nautical College in the 1950s some Cadets took dancing classes. They danced with each other. One told me: "It's a social asset." He was right.
There was a rush of young men to enter Britain at the end of June 1962 before the Commonwealth Immigration Act came into force. I too arrived back in London at that time following my failed attempts to live in Asia.
I went to dancing classes. There were twice as many men as women. So sometimes I danced with men.
Every weekend for 18 months I went to local town halls where public dances were held. There were at least 10 men for every woman. I never once had a dance with a young woman. This was not for want of trying. They always refused. But they never refused an Afro-Caribbean.
It was obvious to me that Commonwealth men would now come to the UK on tourist or student visas and find someone to marry in order to live here.
The first time a woman about my age accepted my invitation to dance was at the Royal Commonwealth Society in February 1964. In 1966 she said she wouldn't see me again unless I married her. We divorced in 1980.
The Equal Opportunities Commission successfully campaigned against the Conservatives' 1979 election policy to end the concession whereby foreign and Commonwealth men can live and work in the UK through marriage - even though the House of Lords subsequently (7 July 1983) determined that the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act does not apply to immigration control.
Even if native British men can live in their countries through marriage that does not make for equality. Because native British men who remain in the UK can lose out to foreign and Commonwealth men in obtaining work and promotion. If that is not so then the newly-formed (2007) Equality and Human Rights Commission is spending a lot of time, money and effort for nothing. In other words, reciprocity in this area is not conducive to equality because like is not being compared with like.

Poachers Fund Unis

After two Chinese graduate students were murdered on 9 August a senior policeman said it was a tragedy because they had come to Britain only to study.
I thought: How does he know?
Foreign students are allowed to work, and many foreign and Commonwealth people acquire student visas to enable them to stay in the UK permanently.
Or, once here, they decide they like it and want to stay.
The renowned Professor Mona Saddiqi is in Britain because her father came here from Pakistan as a student in the 1960s (BBC Radio 4, 12 August). He stayed on.
Since 1962 I have felt like a poacher (who tried to live in Asia) turned gamekeeper who feels that the landowner is in cahoots with the poachers.
In these circumstances I believe the Council of Europe should support the gamekeepers (because it was set up in response to events during the Second World War); instead it supports the poachers (in 1982 and 1985 it determined in favour of three women who complained that their foreign husbands were not allowed to live and work in the UK).
In the late 1960s fees for foreign students were increased relative to British students. Some students protested that this was unfair. Now, universities specifically recruit from abroad to increase their funding.
If the UK is a rich country, as is often claimed (she can, after all, afford multiple "equality" commissions) why look to foreigners to fund universities?

The (God-given?) Human Rights Delusion

"Around 3,000 blank passports ... were stolen" from an unlocked van, according to today's The Daily Telegraph, page 13.
This does not just mean that 3,000 more foreign and Commonwealth people will be able to occupy the UK. Once they have established their apparent "legal" credentials they will be able to bring in their families. There is no limit.
The new citizens will doubtless mostly be men, but the attempt (in 1979) to change the law so as to prevent women from bringing in their husbands or fiancees was prevented from being implemented because of the Council of Europe and its interpretation of human rights.
At the same time - 1982 and 1985 - Japan changed its law (doubtless under foreign pressure - gaiatsu is a word not infrequently used in policial circles) to enable foreign men to live and work in Japan through marriage.
This gives the impression that some kind of equality has been achieved.
But Japan is not the UK, though there are many similarities. Including the fact that many foreigners want to settle there.
Japanese passports are highly desirable, but they are not stolen or forged to enable Asians to live in Japan. Rather they are used to enable them to enter other countries. This is largely because the Japanese language provides a form of protection to uncover false identities.
By far the largest country in the world is Russia, but her passports are not in such demand as the UK's.
In short, the UK's problems, while they may be similar to elsewhere, are peculiar to herself. As such, they require specific solutions - not superficial comparisons.
A country that can send its soldiers to get killed in distant lands while allowing the occupation of its own is deluded as to what is good and right. Likewise the European Commission of Human Rights which determined in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK. That was on 11 May 1982 when British servicemen were fighting to regain the Falkland Islands.

Church Militant

Religion is supposed to be a help in very time of trouble.
The reason I don't want children is because foreign and Commonwealth men use marriage as a means to occupy the UK.
Patricia Hewitt, in her book The Abuse of Power, published in 1982 (pages 173-4), wrote: "The Conservative election manifesto of May 1979 promised a withdrawal of this 'concession' to foreign husbands. After a sustained campaign, supported not only by women's groups, black organisations, the churches and the Labour movement ... the Government retreated...."
The involvement of the Church in this war - which is what this is, being about the occupation and/or control of territory - is a reason to support secularism.
Yesterday's victory by some women at the Church of England's synod at York to have female bishops is another reason.

Invalid Country

A month ago, 7 June, The Daily Telegraph reported (page 2): "Britain should set an example by reversing its steeply rising population growth and allowing no more people into the country than leave, the Government's chief 'green' adviser has said." This is none other than Jonathan Porritt, chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission.
Some hope.
Patricia Hewitt led the campaign to defeat the Conservative Party's 1979 election promise to end the concession whereby foreign men can live and work in the UK through marriage.
Then as Health Secretary she encouraged doctors from abroad to come and work in the UK. Subsequently she issued the guidance that these doctors should not be appointed to training posts.
The British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin challenged this, and: "By 'dashing the legitimate expectations' of doctors who had been encouraged to come to Britain, the law lords said, Ms Hewitt had acted unfairly." (The Times, 1 May 2008, page 15.)
As a result, "roughly 700 to 1,000 British-trained doctors" are "likely to be unable to get a training post in 2009, 2010 and beyond."
Who funded the appeal to the House of Lords?
The Indian doctors, who are displacing British-trained doctors, doubtless celebrated with their sponsors and, like them, will take up residence here.
Even a 'green' guru cannot prevent the UK's confrontational system of governance that is being exploited to the detriment of its native citizens.

Criminals in Cahoots

Feminists in Britain (e.g. the Fawcett Society) are celebrating 90 years of women (over 28) having the parliamentary vote and 80 of women over 21 having the parliamentary vote. In view of this it is appropriate to celebrate the centenary of the Women's Anti-Suffrage League. This was founded by the novelist Mrs. Humphry Ward in 1908. There should have been no need for it. As Mrs. Ward pointed out in her letter to The Times of 23 May 1917 Frenchwomen were suffering but they did not campaign for the vote. The struggle for the vote by women is relevant to native British "culture" in a way that it is not to other people's. This is to make the case for cultural relativism. Mrs. Ward argued that (British) men would come into competition with women and that the outcome was in doubt. It can only be in doubt if (British) men fight back. What is at issue here is that even if British men can live and work in other countries through marriage that is no (good) reason why foreign and Commonwealth men should be able to use marriage as a means of living and working in the UK.
This is to repudiate the Council of Europe's stance. It determined this issue in 1982and 1985, the year that the Japanese changed the law so as to enable foreign men to live and work in Japan through marriage.
Instead of solving the UK's problems - feeling a stranger in one's own country; young men greatly outnumbering young women; overcrowding (in England) - the Council of Europe's approach is to exacerbate these same problems in Japan.
Th UK has additional problems. These include the widespread use of the English language. The Japanese regard their language as a protectin against foreigners. English, by contrast - because of the achievements of our forefathers - is a draw for foreigners. English language schools are a visa-acquisition facility.
The so-called "equality" laws enable foreign and Commonwealth people to deprive native British men of work and promotion. Women also benefit from such laws. British women, through marriage, enable foreign and Commonwealth men to deprive Englishmen, Scotsmen, etc. of work and promotion. This is a partnership of criminals in cahoots.
Human rights are universal and about human dignity or they are nothing more than a semantic device to bring about or justify a law. The Council of Europe as the guardian of human rights in Europe (as laid down in the European Convention on Human Rights) was certainly not established to enable people from non-member states to set up permanent residence in Europe.
Rather, my complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights about this issue (which is the cause of my not wanting children) in 1977 was exactly the sort of complaint it was established to investigate.
Though the Council of Europe's activities on this issue mirrored those of Japan there is no mention of Japan in the Council of Europe's literature. This shows that what takes place elsewhere is not relevant to a normative assessment concerning marriage and migration to the UK.

The oft omitted 4-letter word - "some"

The Daily Telegraph of 24 May, page 12: "The English population will rise by 17 million over the next 50 years, largely due to migration...
"The House of Commons Library estimates that by 2056 the population will be nearly 68million...."
On 10 June the Telegraph's front page highlighted the 100th British serviceman to die in Afghanistan. While page 9 reported: "Tens of thousands of illegal Chinese immigrants cannot be deported for crimes committed here because China is refusing to take them back, prosecutors said yesterday...
"A spokesman for the UK Border and Immigration Agency denied that there were problems deporting criminals.
"... We can and do return people to China and Vietnam.
"Biometric visas have been rolled out to more than 100 countries, including China and Vietnam, tying people to one identity, whilst foreign nationals will soon be required to carry ID cards."
If only 2 people are returned to China and Vietnam then the spokesman did not lie.
But it's deceitful. Because the word "all" was not used; neither was the word "some".
It's pointless the UK having ID cards if people who are here illegally are not deported. Besides, forged and stolen ID cards will enable people who are here illegally to remain undetected.
The point of the above quotes is to draw attention to the unique nature of the UK. History makes the case for cultural relativism. In particular, the Council of Europe's policy of enabling foreign and Commonwealth men to live and work in the UK through marriage should have been judged on what is beneficial to the UK. Instead, the Council of Europe pressured Japan to change its law. As from 1985 foreign men have been enabled to live and work in Japan through marriage.
That not only does not help the UK cope with its many serious problems, but exacerbates them because it is an encouragement to miscegenation because it gives people an unfair choice of two countries in which to live. It is not right that some native British men should have this privilege while leaving their fellow countrymen to feel like strangers in their own country.
The consequences of the Council of Europe's actions are not just bilateral. Men from Afghanistan to Zimbabwe can live and work in the UK and Japan through marriage.
History shows that when two parties are in conflict a third party is often the beneficiary. In this case the Council of Europe supported some women in Britain - three women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK took their case to Strasbourg in May 1982 - to the detriment of many British men and to the benefit of foreign and Commonwealth men.

Bias

The Times (1 May 2008, page 66) Law Report states that the House of Lords determined that "Government guidance to National Health Service employers which had the effect of preventing overseas trainee doctors from being offered postgraduate training places in NHS hospitals was unlawful."
If the UK is a liberal democracy, as is frequently claimed, how can parliamentary decisions be unlawful? Judges are supposed to apply the law, not interpret it and certainly not make it.
In the news item on this subject on page 15 The Times' Health Editor writes:
"By 'dashing the legitimate expectations' of doctors who had been encouraged to come to Britain, the law lords said, Ms Hewitt had acted unfairly."
The case was brought by the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin. The crux of the matter is that the trainee doctors want to take up permanent residence here.
People who apply for visas are aware of the constraints. So they are not treated unfairly.
The article conjectures that as a result of the decision some 700 to 1,000 British-trained doctors will "be unable to get a training post in 2009, 2010 and beyond."
It is they who are being treated unfairly, and it is doubly unfair that they have no recourse to the law.
This bias has close parallels with my (unfairly failed) attempts to use the law to prevent foreign men from being allowed to live and work in the UK through marriage.
Other people were able to use the law in this regard and they successfully thwarted the Conservative Government's election policy in 1979 - but no Englishman (Scotsman, etc.) could avail himself of the law.
Patricia Hewitt was in the forefront when, as General Secretary of the National Council of Civil Liberties (now renamed Liberty) she campaigned against this concession - which it is - that allows foreign men to occupy the UK in this way.
It is no wonder lawyers justify safeguarding their power. Immigration controversies provide them with an endless gravy train and other peoples with a road to these sorely self-afflicted islands.