‘Public Opinon Is Very Incendiary On This’…..Immigration


The census clearly shows that the decade preceding 2011 saw the greatest rise in the population in England and Wales in any 10-year period since census taking began growing by 3.7 million or 7.1 per cent. Some 55 per cent of this growth is due to immigration, immigration that primarily occurred under New Labour’s watch.


Interesting that the BBC has filled the airwaves all day with talk of immigration….based on Nick Robinson’s programme ‘The Truth about immigration’. and filled the right wing newspapers with his interviews…..shouldn’t all these debates be after the programme has aired….or is it all just the usual BBC trick of having a ‘news’ item which is actually no more than an extended advert for a TV programme?

Curiously, despite Nicky Campbell admitting this morning that ‘Immigration is of massive consequence to people’...and that nearly 80% of people want it reduced,  the programme is not (yet) on the ‘Featured’ section of the iPlayer, nor is it in the ‘Most Popular’, in fact I had to use the search facility to bring the programme up at all.


Campbell’s ‘Your Call’ this morning was based upon Robinson’s programme….and wanted your views and experiences of immigration.

The accepted orthodoxy of the programme was that immigration was good….we were constantly told that ‘studies show that immigrants have a beneficial effect upon the economy’….there was no examination of this, it was just taken as fact.

‘As a fact economists tell us that overall immigration makes us richer.’

And yet that just isn’t true…..

Limit immigration, warns House of Lords

The number of immigrants entering Britain should be capped, an influential House of Lords committee has warned.

Its analysis concludes that record levels of immigration are bringing no economic benefit to the country.

The overall conclusion from existing evidence is that immigration has very small impacts on GDP per capita, whether these impacts are positive or negative. This conclusion is in line with findings of studies of the economic impacts of immigration in other countries including the US.”


Even those studies that do show a benefit admit that the ‘impact is small…..positive, albeit small’

So no, not ‘all studies show immigration is economically beneficial’


The BBC gives the impression by not balancing any such benefit against the downsides, that the benefits are large scale.

Campbell brought on an academic whom Campbell assured us was strictly neutral and unaligned…well, no…he had a very definite bias…pro immigration.

He told us that immigration benefits us by £45 billion per annum….but oddly didn’t mention any costs….so the figure of £45 billion is just pure propaganda.

When a caller suggested that immigrants undercut wages and cost jobs his response was….‘of course it’s difficult but we live in a global economy’.


There is a stark contrast between what the academics and the likes of Campbell tell us and what the ‘man on the street’ who has to live day to day with the effects of mass immigration is saying.

Again and again callers told us that they’d lost out, either with very much lower wages or no jobs at all…never mind housing and access to schools and the NHS and the myriad of other problems immigrants bring but which are ignored by the BBC and Co.

The BBC’s line has been a constant mantra on all its programmes and news bulletins today that immigration is economically beneficial and that to limit immigration will therefore damage the ‘already fragile economy’ as Sheila Fogarty claimed…but the flip side, the negative effects of immigration just aren’t mentioned….or indeed whether those ‘benefits’ actually exist.


The very minimal, if any, benefits of immigration, are being hyped by the BBC whilst completely ignoring the social impacts and the damage to quality of life….which is in contrast to the BBC’s normal stance in which it denounces capitalism, money making, materialism and consumption and promotes as the better alternative, quality of life and the environment…hug a hoodie and a polar bear.

Campbell’s tone when talking to the different callers was markedly different….the pro-immigration callers had a much warmer reception… Campbell telling one he looked forward to hearing from him again.


Campbell had some interesting comments of his own to make which might inform us of his own leanings.

When a caller spoke of the ‘indigenous population’ Campbell asked:

‘What do you mean by indigenous population, we’ve had waves of immigration for years and years now?’

In other words…Campbell thinks there is no such thing as an ‘indigenous population’.

At odds to that po-immigration campaigners always tell us that the ‘indigenous population’ has nothing to worry about….there is no mass immigration…numbers have been exaggerated…it’s only say 13% of the population who are immigrants.

So…that would mean 87% are ‘indigenous’ based on that figure.


He went on to say ‘Public opinion is very incendiary on this,’

So the near 80% of people who want immigration controlled and brought down have an ‘incendiary’ view in Campbell’s opinion?



Sheila Fogarty also based her programme on immigration.

Here once again the BBC repeated the mantra…‘all studies show immigration is economically beneficial’…without quantifying exactly how much…or indeed questioning that at all.

However the two ‘expert’ speakers who were brought on both stated that the economic benefits were ‘small’….but such qualifications never made it to the news bulletins.

Here is the blurb from the programme which gives us a insight into the BC’s own view…which you can always judge by what it highlights:

A BBC survey suggests fewer people than ever think immigration damages the economy.


Depends of course who you ask…..ask someone who has a cheap plumber or nanny and they might think it’s great, ask someone with no job or a job on wages forced ever lower by cheap imported labour and the answer may well be different…but again that all ignores the social impact and the quality of life issues.

Fogarty had on Jenny Phillimore, Professor of Migration and Superdiversity from the University of Birmingham, Institute for Research into Superdiversity…supposedly another of these ‘neutral’ academics…but she was far from that…more like a campaigner than a impartial observer.

The real migration scandal in the UK are the people forced to live without any recourse to public funds. Migrant women who leave violent husbands, and women who have been trafficked into the UK to work in the sex industry, face the additional trauma of destitution, says Jenny Phillimore


Should an academic also be a campaigner? Can you then trust their research?

There are plenty of social scientists, says Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston College, who never produce research results at odds with their own worldview.

“You’re just supposed to tell your peers what you found,” says John Leo, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. “I don’t expect academics to fret about these matters.”


Phillimore though does ‘fret‘ about her findings…and works to provide a solution to the problems as she perceives them to be.

She is fairly arrogant and patronising.

Phillimore thinks the problem is not the immigrants, diversity is just something you need to get used to.

The problem is people in areas which haven’t experienced mass immigration before and where there isn’t much diversity now

They are clearly stuck in their ways with their old prejudices…they are far too used to a stable society….unlike those say in Brimingham where they all happily mix together and happily welcome new immigrants because they are such a diverse society already….allegedly…funny how it is always the inner cities that ‘burn’ when racial tensions kick off.


Even Phillimore admits herself that previous immigrant populations don’t like immigration:


In other words her claim that societies with lots of immigrants are more welcoming to yet more immigration is false…a lie in fact.


And what of a ‘stable society‘?…isn’t that a telling remark?…immigration brings instability then…the ‘superdiversity’ means no one has any identity, no one trusts anyone, no one knows anybody…and society breaks up…as studies show.


The downside of diversity

A Harvard political scientist finds that diversity hurts civic life. What happens when a liberal scholar unearths an inconvenient truth?

The greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.



Phillimore goes on…the main problem is the ongoing negative rhetoric about immigration…..there are not anywhere near as many immigrants in this country as people think she claims.

In other words…shut up..you’re not allowed to talk about immigration.


Who then pops up on Fogarty’s show but one ‘Phil Mackie’ (around 13:10)…the BBC’s very pro-immigration journo…yes, another one to add to the long list.

Curiously his analysis was exactly the same as Jenny Phillimore’s…curious indeed…yes, it’s those ignorant rural hillbillies who are the racists….what they need is a few more black faces around to make them realise that they have nothing to fear and that a massive wave of immigrants is just the thing to improve their lives.


Here Phillimore admits there are problems…just that the solution is not to limit immigration but to ‘deal with it’…..keep the borders open but build more houses, schools hospitals, prisons, cough up more welfare payments, build more roads, concrete over the green and pleasant land….it’s not the number of immigrants that is the problem it’s the lack of help they receive from government and the attitudes of the ‘indigenous population’…should such a thing exist….

Time for change

In this era of superdiversity in the UK it is time for a housing and migration change of plan, says Jenny Phillimore

The census clearly shows that the decade preceding 2011 saw the greatest rise in the population in England and Wales in any 10-year period since census taking began growing by 3.7 million or 7.1 per cent. Some 55 per cent of this growth is due to immigration, immigration that primarily occurred under New Labour’s watch.

There is evidence that in some areas heavy concentrations of new migrants have restricted the availability of entry level housing, led to the development of unregulated HMOs, and pushed rents and house prices up. It is also clear that some landlords have been quick to cash-in on migrant housing demand by inflating rents, overcrowding properties, and neglecting fire safety and routine maintenance.

Some rural areas have also seen extensive changes. Rural Lincolnshire has seen some of the largest rises in the numbers of migrants of all of the UK with increases outstripping those in London and other cities. Again these increases do impact on house prices while lack of housing availability contributes to an explosion in the use of non-standard accommodation with migrants sometimes living and working in sheds and greenhouses or crammed into caravans and mobile homes. Migrants are often the victims of these problems rather than the cause but the net result is increased population density and a deteriorating environment and housing stock.

Much of the emphasis [from politicians] is upon greater controls and limits, strong action against ‘illegal’ migration and short and long-term action on intra-EU migration – the latter a clear attempt to pander to UKIP voters.Cooper fails to acknowledge that not only has the UK already become a country of immigration but, like the rest of the EU, we have entered an era of superdiversity where we have already witnessed unprecedented global movement and increase in diversity.

Movement and change are the new norms.  While we might want to slow these movements down by strengthening our borders we cannot turn back the clock.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someone
Bookmark the permalink.

61 Responses to ‘Public Opinon Is Very Incendiary On This’…..Immigration

  1. Chris says:

    F*ck them all. Dump the third world on us based on lies then tell us that this is the new normal?
    Vote UKIP.
    Then if the will of the people is not met due to the LIBLABCON; it’s time for revolution.


  2. TPO says:

    “What do you mean by indigenous population, we’ve had waves of immigration for years and years now?”

    At the beginning of the last century a male skeleton, “Cheddar man”, was excavated from Gough’s cave in Cheddar Gorge in Somerset. The skeleton dated to 7150 BC and showed that he had died a violent death.
    In 1996 mitochondrial DNA was extracted from the skeletal remains and an experiment was carried out at a nearby school in Cheddar village, with 19 pupils and their history teacher giving DNA swab samples.
    The subsequent analysis confirmed that two of the pupils and the teacher, Adrian Targett were direct descendants of Cheddar Man, and living within four miles of the gorge.

    Many families throughout the UK, I am sure, retain close family roots to specific locations throughout the centuries, and were more examples of Cheddar Man available from other rural areas I suspect that the example of Cheddar man would be the norm rather than the exception.

    So when such a shallow and jejune an intellect as Campbell’s starts to pontificate on such matters, it’s safe to say that it’ll be total crap.

    As for his line “Public opinion is very incendiary on this,” well that ranks up there with that pompous buffoon Nick Higham.

    A few years back the BBC came badly unstuck on something, I think it was the obscene QT broadcast two days after 9/11. The public outcry overwhelmed the BBC to the extent that virtually every news programme in the coming days was filled with self justification.
    The biscuit was taken when Higham, then “meeja correspondent,” appeared on breakfast TV to loftily declare that “Middle England had an uncomplicated view on such matters”


    • john in cheshire says:

      I think you have highlighted an inconvenient truth in that blood ties to a country are the most important factor. An immigrant and their decendants can live here forever but unless they inter-marry they will all remain just that, immigrants.


    • Ken Hall says:

      I am massively offended by the liberal left’s constant and on-going denial of MY cultural identity, MY heritage and My roots. I am white British and can trace my lineage back generations. The BBC and their lefty acolytes seek to plant the impression that all other races and cultures must be protected because they posses a difinitive cultural or genetic identity, whereas we “native” Brits are a mongrel mix of immigrants, so that we can be endlessly diluted. They use the “we were invaded taken over by Saxons, Normans, etc…” for this purpose. Funny how no other immigrant group is examined that way. Anyway, those things happened hundreds and hundreds of years ago. In terms of our lifetimes (and therefore our direct experience which is what forms our own cultural identity today) we have gone from a nation which was 99%+ white British only 50 years go to one now where the BBC would have us believe that we are a mixed pot of multicultural harmony.

      This is a slow motion cultural genocide and it must STOP!

      I rate the BBC’s vile cultural denial of MY culture as being equally as bad as holocaust denial. In fact, no…. it is worse, because holocaust denial is a denial of a past event in history, and denial of it, though wrong, does not change what happened then.

      Today’s BBC’s cultural denial is allowing them and the liberal left, to continue to slowly erase our culture, and our national and cultural birthright with it.

      Watching old documentaries which showed “British life” from the early 1960s, one is struck by what OUR shared cultural identity actually is and how much we have changed and by how much we have lost.

      I started this with the phrase, “I am massively offended”… That is another thing that really pisses me off about the BBC. It is the fact that they do not care about causing offence, unless it is offence to immigrants or any of their other “pet” Politically correct victim groups. If you are not a member of such a victim group, the BBC will set out to cause maximum offence and do so whilst denying you even exist!


      • The General says:

        The BBC do everything to denigrate British history and culture. They seem intent on eradicating our heritage. If as they claim immigration is not as great as is perceived by the public then can they explain why in all major cities the students in schools are almost 100% black or Asian.
        The venomous phrase “hideously white” sums up the BBC’s attitude towards the Anglo Saxon race.


        • Aerfen says:

          “The venomous phrase “hideously white” sums up the BBC’s attitude towards the Anglo Saxon race.”

          And not just those ethnic British of Anglo saxon descent but ALL the indigenous people of our islands. In the BBCs view anyone who rocks up can be as Scottish Welsh Irish or English as someone whose entire ancestry is buried in the soil of our lands.


      • Aerfen says:

        I am constantly arguing about this with Globalists.
        It is simply racist to deny British people our ethnic identity while according it to everyone else in the world.

        This is why I insist that we are ‘ethnic British’ people not merely ‘white British’, an identity which trivializes our history and culture and allows any ethnic European with a British passport to be accorded the same.


      • Uncle Bup says:




    • Mice Height says:

      At the Stonehenge visitor’s centre there is the re-construction of the skull of an ancient Briton who lived during Neolithic times; before the arrival of the Celts; before the arrival of the Belgae; before the arrival of the Romans and the Vikings, the Danes and the Anglo-Saxons.
      This man looks like anyone that you’d see walking down the street today, outside of the inner-city, Turd-World, Labour-held slums.


      • Stewart says:

        Careful now you are approaching the holy of holies of the true religion .
        Do not commit the vilest of heresies, remember despite how things appear to your are sinful eyes and despite the mysteries of medical and forensic science ( best left to priests to ponder) we are all Lucy’s children. No more different than Darwin’s (blessed be his name) finch’s .Less so ,as all human differences are only a social construct.


    • Rob says:

      anyone not related to Cheddar Man, well that’s just hard cheese


    • Barlicker says:

      “What do you mean by indigenous population…?”
      Those of us with four grand-parents, eight great grand-parents born in England? In other words, almost all of us until a couple of generations ago.


      • Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

        Or, if you’re from Norfolk, both grandparents …


        • pah says:

          Very funny, but are you aware that the area where the indigenous population have the greatest levels of incest/consanguinity is Feltham in West London? Not the most rural of places.

          I’ll leave it to your imagination as to the places where incest or consanguinity is an issue in the wider population – but again it is not rural England.


    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      Can I ask Nicky Campbell if he thinks there’s no such thing as an indigenous population here in the US? Or in places like Bolivia? I know he’s displayed intellectual dishonesty in the past, but one could always be generous and try to mark it down as playing devil’s advocate. This really wins the prize.


  3. lojolondon says:

    This is all fake – BBBC is whitewashing the past, facilitating Liebour to go into the next election saying they made a mistake and will be ‘tough on freeloaders’. Because whatever damage they did, ‘they have apologised for their small mistake’. Remember how the BNP lost 12 seats in one election in Dagenham, as Labour deliberately swamped the area with immigrants. This was not an error, it was deliberate gerrymandering.


    • Peter Grimes says:

      ZaNuLieBor have NEVER apologised for their deliberate, gerrymandering, uncontrolled economic immigration policy, only acknowledged that it was an error which is nowhere near the same thing. If Al JabeeBa are saying that ZaNuLab have apologised for it it is further proof of their blatant shilling for ZaNuLaB.


  4. Pounce says:

    Anybody else notice that the bBC instead of reporting just how many people entered the country, instead give you the difference bwtween thise who entered and those who left, thus allowing them to report that the much smaller figure in the rise in immigration is due to a reduction of peole leaving the country.

    Vote UKIP and ensure that when they get to power that all the Labour MPs and their families are put agaisnt a wall and f-ing well shot.


    • Big Dick says:

      Or deported to some nice third world country in Africa , Nigeria ,or Sudan for starters.


    • Ian Rushlow says:

      The BBC are simply reporting the establishment mantra/lie of “net migration”, implying that if the numbers of people entering and leaving are broadly comparable (meaning the population stays static – sic) then there is no problem. It is an utter falsehood: if (say) 200,000 educated, motivated and working Brits escape the country and give their talents to Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc, but are replaced by (say) 200,000 unemployed/unemployable, poorly educated people from some of the most backward Third World countries, then the consequences are very dire indeed.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      Vote UKIP and ensure that when they get to power that all the Labour MPs and their families are put agaisnt a wall and f-ing well shot.

      I wasn’t aware that is UKIP policy.


      • Arthur Penney says:

        It isn’t. UKIP don’t put them against the wall (it damages the brickwork). They make them kneel and then shot into the back of the neck.


  5. Ken Hall says:

    Nick Robinson’s documentary was more of the same pro-immigration propaganda. Once he had blamed the “rivers of blood” speech for being so incendiary that a “mature sensible debate” on immigration could not be had for decades, I very nearly smashed my TV.

    It was not the speech that was bad, (in fact it is self-evidently full of truths), it was the liberal left’s constant and on-going reaction to it.

    It is the left, championed by the BBC, that have censored and oppressed any debate on immigration. It is the BBC that gave free reign to multiculturalists to spread poisonous lies and vile accusations that anyone who wished to control immigration was “racist”.

    The backlash against immigration is a direct consequence of the BBC’s left wing suppression of any thought which they consider “unnaceptable opinion” regarding immigration. They are clearly horrified that more than 75% of people want immigration reducing and over 50% want immigration reducing A LOT!

    The fact is that the only way that the majority of the people in this country can acheive that is by voting UKIP.

    The figures are very clear. If everyone who wants immigration reducing, and a referendum on the EU, and a sane energy policy based on scientific reality, not alarmist climate model based BS, voted UKIP, then UKIP would win a massive majority in 2015. Not voting, or voting for any of the current old parliamentary parties is merely voting for a continuation of the problem.

    If you want to cure the problem, VOTE UKIP!


  6. s.trubble says:

    After watching partsof that smarm last night I concluded that the only man prostate with laughter in his favourite chair would be Mr Farage.

    The show should be re-titled, “bertie Bassetts Allsorts” starring Nick Robinson as Bertie.


  7. Rob says:

    I turned over to ‘the truth about immigration’ for less than 10 seconds. During that time I heard an ex Labour advisor say ‘immigration is a net benefit to the UK’. I then turned off


  8. George R says:

    “Why can’t the BBC ever talk honestly about immigration?”

    By James Delingpole .



    • Guest Who says:

      ‘“Why can’t the BBC ever talk honestly?”
      Amazing what can happen when you have control of the edit (albeit, in my case, briefly).


  9. Dave s says:

    Does Nick Robinson really work for UKIP? Best party political broadcast for years. Worth thousands of votes.


  10. Trefor Jones says:

    Nick Robinson’s much vaunted programme was very disappointing, in that it was highly subjective. It was either a politician on the defensive,offensive or faux apologetic set against the personal views of individuals. There is a subject within geography called demographics. I did not notice a single professional demographer on this lamentable waste of time particularly with regard to the focus on:-
    a) Circulation as against migration in that many temporary migrants return home eventually. Therefore, many of the incoming stats are people returning to the UK to retire – which opens another can of worms. EU migration might well turn out to be a cyclical phenomenon in the medium term , but is traumatic at present.
    b) Population growth owing to the fact that people are getting older and we still have a negative dependency ratio owing to a lack of youngsters which has fuelled much of the floods in immigration and emigration.
    c) The Brain drain to countries such as Australia of our own skilled workers for economic gain which is the main driver or modern migration – in some cases it is famine, natural disaster or war.
    d) Some groups assimilate better than others – the Puerto Rican shadow effect in the cities of the USA. Basically, immigrant groups which mirror the host community get assimilated quicker than those who are different leading to ghettoization.
    The Ugandan Asians are a group that defies this rule, perhaps because they were less Asian in terms of culture than the massive wave from South Asia in 60s and 70s. We have large populations of Poles, Ukrainians and Hungarians that are now totally assimilated after the political upheaval of the 1940s and 50s. Professionals and skilled workers are also assimiliated quicker and to a lesser extent today, men as against women.

    Sorry for this long post, but Nick Robinson had simply not addressed the subject from anything but a politically correct standpoint.


    • Roland Deschain says:

      It was never the intention that he do anything else. This was all about trying to shut down a debate that has got out of their control.

      I think it was too late.


      • Guest Who says:

        There was, at first, a sense that Mr. Robinson was a senior BBC royal who had sniffed the wind and didn’t like what his nose told him.
        But after an initial stab at honesty, the whole thing smacks of highly co-ordinated damage limitation for Labour and those with so much invested in that party.
        ‘whitewashing the past, facilitating Liebour to go into the next election saying they made a mistake and will be ‘tough on freeloaders’. Because whatever damage they did, ‘they have apologised for their small mistake’
        And the BBC has apologised for covering it all up as long as they could until it erupted.
        I’m not sure Mr. Robinson is very competent or very trustworthy.
        ‘… the suggestion by Nick Robinson that today’s PMQs could have been…’
        So, another unsubstantiated punt then? Whatever it is, it’s not news.
        And the BBC seems packed with folk well versed in the craft, calling them ‘Editors’, uniquely.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          I think that’s an accurate assessment, GW. One can almost feel a set of compliance boxes being ticked.

          There’s no reason to trust Nick Robinson on anything except run-of-the-mill political strategy stuff, like “Labour will try to…..” and “the Coalition will say….”

          Other than that, he’s proven himself to be a dishonest broker of important issues.


  11. Robin says:

    Other questions not asked by Nick Robinson, the BBC and the liberal/left that should be put to The Powers That Be ;

    If The PTB wanted to keep inflation low by having mass immigration , why did they introduce the minimum wage ?
    Why did TPTB allow public sector pay in the highest grades to become astronomical .?
    Why do they say that we have the successful ones , the entrepreneurs , coming to our country ? if they are a success in their home country , why leave that success there and move to Peterborough and live 15 to a house ?
    Why don’t all these brilliant people make there own countries successful ?


    • Ian Rushlow says:

      The Powers That Be introduced the minimum wage in the full knowledge that it would be meaningless in a world of unlimited immigration, thus breaking the historical link between employment and wages levels. It is to the eternal shame of the trade unions that they connived in this, rather than defend the rights of British workers. The only practical solution to this is: to vastly reduce the numbers of foreign workers; not allow foreigners to take jobs whilst British workers are unemployed; ensure that benefits are always less than the minimal wage so as to encourage and make it worthwhile for people to work. If foreign workers have to be employed, it should be on fixed term contracts with no right of residence thereafter, such as is done in the Middle East. At the same time, the company providing the employment should be under legal obligation to train up a Brit to take over that position when the contract finishes. Some pain, but a lot of long term gain.


  12. chrisH says:

    It`s the BBC…what can you say?
    Self-appointed groomers of the nation…if it`s not Savile and kids, its their parents with their minds!
    The Birtian Beeb Charter commands the same-to be a healing cloud of lavender when not a frangipangy nosegay for the rickshaw raj who “work for it”.
    Desperate times for the BBC…moneys running low like oil, dashboard screaming Allah Akbar and Rushdie tales abound underneath the turbines. And no0-one listens to an f***in word they say-just their partners and love children from TurkeyBastard Town.
    Enjoy them sliding on their greasy fat bottoms into Mile End sumps and Regents Canal old workings…stop paying for their exit visas and let`s see the battle of when Sonny met Cher…and a mannequin of Bradley/Chelsea Channing Chancer Changeling was the referee..the BBC in one hologram.
    “Clear the streets”- steel rollerblinds down on the churches, and bring the popcorn…Joe Strummer expects!


  13. chrisH says:

    Incendiary?…or consciousness raising, issue raising, awareness promoting?
    Passionate or needing a “Conversation”?
    God I`d HATE to be writing the Guardian PC Thesaurus for 2014…seems to change, twist and get needs for revision every two days now!
    Splendid-liberal esperanto never seemed so much fun!


  14. Doublethinker says:

    The Nick Robinson’s programme offered little that was new. It was mainly just the same old pro immigration propaganda full of half truths, evasions and down right lies. Of course the BBC centred the programme on east Europeans and made the point that within a couple of generations these groups will be fully assimilated into British culture just like the Huguenots were . I agree with this point, but the big elephant in the room is what about all the immigrants from very different cultures and different value sets to our own, eg our Muslim immigrants, will they likewise be easily assimilated within a generation? Of course they won’t , they will go on causing enormous problems for many generations to come. We saw a jolly Sikh festival in Southampton, but do we see Musilm ones. Meanwhile the Brits had their own traditional gathering in the New Forest. Are we supposed to draw the inference that cultures can happily coexist even if apart? It was only mentioned in passing that more than half of immigration is from non EU countries. And of course it was never explicitly stated that the programme regarded immigrants only as those who were not born here. If you were born here of immigrant parents you were regarded as British even if you reject our culture and values. Even on this misleading measure, it was admitted that 14% of the current population of the UK was made up of immigrants. If we added all their off spring we would get a much higher number. But Robinson tried to show how much we over-estimated the number of immigrants by using these misleading figures to mask the real problem.
    The programme admitted that immigration had never been properly discussed in the media or parliament , because the establishment was afraid of the reaction of the British people. If they were afraid of our reaction why on earth did they allow it to happen as it was clearly something that we didn’t and still don’t want! The BBC allowed a few seconds of people saying that, regardless of being threatened by Robinson with more expensive strawberries and curries and higher taxes, they would still want to see immigration much reduced. It amounted to the BBC admitting that they had deliberately covered up this issue for decades and that they had consistently misled the British people on this issue of fundamental importance to the well being of the country. How can they be trusted to tell us the truth about other lesser issues?
    They trotted out the dubious Jonathon Portas who claimed that any Brit who lost their job to an immigrant was just unlucky but it was for the greater good because we needed immigrants for economic reasons. He said it was just the same issue as when the coal mines were shut down because we could get coal cheaper elsewhere. Does he think that lady T was right then ? If so perhaps he is beginning to see some light at last.


    • Stewart says:

      Don’t kid yourself ,there has been no epiphany
      Rather they ( the liberal inquisition ) are confident of victory. Despite the fact that 40 years of legislation, education and intimidation have failed to ‘stamp out those natural feelings’ they feel they only need keep the lid on the pressure cooker for a little longer for their racial engineering project to reach fruition
      Then all those blood sacrifices ( of other peoples children) will have been justified. After all what utopia can reached without a little suffering?


      • Dave s says:

        A gloomy prospect. I think the elite is running scared.
        What scares them is the dawning realisation that they have been the first English generation to betray their own people and that traitors never prosper in the end.
        They know what they have done. If there is to be a change then the first step is to vote UKIp this year. A massive UKIP vote ( even if you have reservations about Farage) will really scare them. So just do it. It is the necessary first step.


        • Stewart says:

          Totally agree a strong vote for UKIP will be the least destructive way to effect any real change , if like me , you have been a Labour voter in the past you should vote for them irrespective of the electoral chances in your constituency
          If your a tory voter you should refer to toby young’s ‘unite the right’ web site .
          Even in the astronomically unlikely event that UKIP had a parliamentary majority or even a decisive presence in a coalition government they would not be able to take us out of Europe in one term ,so even Europhiles who are concerned with restoring some semblance of democracy (i.e. resting power from the unelected ,self organising liberal establishment ) should have no problems in voting for them. The alternative is the same old, same old for ever and ever amen.


    • Ron Todd says:

      That 14% does not include the illegals either.


  15. Rob says:

    Love the latest. First Romanian to be met by Keith Vaz turns out to be a crook suppose it takes one to know one.



  16. George R says:

    “A nation of newcomers”
    By David Conway. (2007.)


    “If you ask most ministers, they will tell you ‘Britain has always been a nation of immigrants’. That claim is false. The evidence which refutes it is not very complicated: it consists simply in looking at the numbers.”



    “A Nation of Immigrants?”

    By David Conway.



    • David Preiser (USA) says:

      It’s not “a nation of”: it’s “a nation with”. There’s a difference.


    • Dave s says:

      The schools and the media continue with these lies. It is as bad as the 1950s USSR Pravdaspeak. .


  17. JayBee says:

    None of the LibLabCon-trick have an answer to immigration. Their whole raison d’etre is based around infinite economic growth on a finite planet.

    All they can do is keep growing the population, take a cut of the profits, buy a house in another part of the world and finally, when it all blows up, be the first to leave the country.

    I will vote UKIP to try and destroy the LibLabCon-trick but I do know that if UKIP got into Number 10 then the men in suits will pay them a visit and we will be back to square one. Namely, that the whole world economy is based on shifting capital and people around the world to make the 1% more wealthy.

    Nigel will be told by the men in suits that either he tows the line or they will engineer financial chaos for the UK.

    Even Nigel’s recent comments about no to Eastern Yoyos but yes to Syrians has me thinking the he is just as good at double-speak as the rest of them.

    Personally, I don’t care how many Christian Romanians and Bulgarians come here so long as they kick out non-Christians one-for-one when they get here.

    If the lefties want unrestrained migration then maybe they should be the first to volunteer their jobs to them. Better still, they should do a house swap with prospective migrants. At least we will be swapping lefties for ultra conservatives.


  18. Phil Ford says:

    Tonight: The Hidden World of Britain’s Immigrants BBC2 9:30pm
    Fergal Keane finds out what life is like for a group of illegal immigrants struggling to survive on Britain’s streets. Contains some strong language. [HD] [S]

    Feargal Keane – serial awards-chaser – will no doubt open all our eyes to ‘the plight’ of the UK’s illegal immigrants. Anyone care to place some bets on how this will go..?


  19. johnnythefish says:

    One of the core strategies devised by The Frankfurt School was: ‘Huge immigration to destroy identity’.

    To hear the BBC and its overwhelmingly leftist contributors promote it time and again should come as no surprise.


  20. The Highland Rebel says:

    For years we’ve put up with the calls in the press, on the telly and on the blogs for the Scots to get the hell out of England, sweaty socks, scroungers, whingers etc.
    Now with the prospect of Scottish independence being a reality the English will get their wish.
    Not only will their wish to get rid of the Scots be granted but their place will be taken by every Romanian beggar, Albanian thief and Islamic extremist on the continent.
    Lucky ol’ England.


    • Stewart says:

      I’m not sure how your presence will affect it one way or the other. I venture that few if any migrants know or care about the act of union, but are coming to England any way.
      More power to comrade Salmond’s ‘beacon of diversity’ says I , then you will be able to share in our enrichment ( it worked for Tony why not for Alex?)
      But of one thing I am jealous, judging by events in Spain, you might be out of the EU afore us.


  21. richard D says:

    Two things strike me :

    1. Of the millions of immigrants who swamped the UK during Labour’s last reign, many, if not most of them, were able to find jobs. During that same period, we had more than 1.5 million unemployed people on average. So, basically, whereas the Poles, for instance, seemed to be able to arrive arrive here and find employment, our own glorious unemployed seemed to be unable to find a job – and all of the idiots employed in the ‘Employment Offices’ couldn’t find them work either. I’m afraid the ‘it’s not a job I would do…..’ excuse just doesn’t cut it – their benefits should have been entirely dependent on their taking any reasonable job offered. Otherwise, we’re hit with all the cost of immigrants (welfare, education, health, social services, translation costs, etc.) AND the continuing cost of the wilfully unemployed.

    2. It’s all very well looking at a GDP increase because of immigration , but, more importantly it should be GDP per capita we’re looking at (as mentioned by others above) and, just as importantly, where the hell the money is being spent. If people are earning money in the UK, but sending it abroad, then it’s hardly doing the UK economy any good, is it ?


  22. F*** the Beeb says:

    The whole “we’re a nation of immigrants” thing is so tedious that it’s not even worth dissecting any more. It’s like saying “we’re a nation of atoms.” It deliberately misses the point of why people are angry. At no point in this island’s history has there ever been an influx of new creeds and cultures entering our shores for political and ideological reasons. Anyone who can’t differentiate the last 15 years (you could argue the last 70 odd years, actually) from the slow and gradual changes that came before it is brain-dead. It’s apples and oranges between the two.


  23. Scrappydoo says:

    I did not watch “The Truth About Immigration” there was no point , we know what the BBC thinks and I have heard it more than enough already.


  24. “The Truth about Immigration”… I can only assume from that title that the BBC has been lying up to now.