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?
Friday, 15 August 2008
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, 8 July 2008
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.
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.
Monday, 7 July 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, 3 July 2008
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.
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.
Monday, 16 June 2008
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.
"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.
Friday, 2 May 2008
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)