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.