Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696

    David Cameron: migration threatens our way of life

    David Cameron: migration threatens our way of life

    David Cameron will claim today that uncontrolled immigration has undermined some British communities.

    By Andrew Porter, Political Editor
    10:00PM BST 13 Apr 2011

    Link to this video http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... kdown.html

    In his most forthright speech on the issue since he became Prime Minister, he will say that mass immigration has led to "discomfort and disjointedness" in neighbourhoods because some migrants have been unwilling to integrate or learn English.

    Pledging to cut the numbers entering Britain to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands, Mr Cameron will say that "for too long, immigration has been too high".

    He will also promise to "stamp out" forced marriages, saying that "cultural sensitivity" cannot be allowed to stop the Government from acting.

    In the speech to party members in Hampshire, the Prime Minister will attack Labour for claiming it was racist to talk about immigration, saying it is "untruthful and unfair" not to speak about the issue, however uncomfortable.

    The Prime Minister will also blame the welfare state for creating a generation of workshy Britons, leaving the jobs market open for migrants. Figures show that of the 2.5 million extra people in employment since 1997, three quarters were foreign-born workers.

    But Mr Cameron will argue that it is not a case of "immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs" because some migrants have created wealth and jobs.

    He will say that the "real issue" is "migrants are filling gaps in the labour market left wide open by a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work".

    "Put simply, we will never control immigration properly unless we tackle welfare dependency," Mr Cameron will say.

    He will say that he can see why people have argued that "immigration will remain high because British people won't do the jobs migrant workers do", adding: "We have had persistently, eye-wateringly high numbers of British-born people stuck on welfare."

    The speech comes three weeks before the local elections and is likely to be seen as an attempt to convince voters that the Conservatives are in touch with public opinion.

    The Tories are fighting a large number of council seats in the North where immigration was one of the major issues at last year's general election – with Labour subsequently admitting they failed to address the concern in their heartlands.

    Mr Cameron will say: "When there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods, perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there, on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate, that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.

    "This has been the experience for many people in our country and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it."

    He will attack the levels of immigration under Labour and commit to tackling the obvious "abuses of the system" that routinely happen, including sham and forced marriages.

    Mr Cameron will say: "For a start, there are forced marriages taking place in our country and overseas as a means of gaining entry to the UK. This is the practice where some young British girls are bullied and threatened into marrying someone they don't want to.

    "I've got no time for those who say this is a culturally relative issue – it is wrong, full stop, and we've got to stamp it out."

    Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in Britain than those who left to live abroad, Mr Cameron will say.

    "That's the largest influx of people Britain has ever had and it has placed real pressures on communities. Not just pressures on schools, housing and health care – though those have been serious – but social pressures, too."

    He will tell his audience that by getting to grips with all forms of immigration he can return it to the levels of the 1980s and 1990s.

    "And I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade,
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Posts
    117,696
    Related Articles

    750,000 asylum seekers have gone missing in past 20 years
    06 Apr 2011
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... years.html

    As one immigration loophole closes, another opens
    26 Mar 2011
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... opens.html
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #3
    Senior Member Pisces_2010's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,040
    I agree 100% with David! At least someone is willing to speak the truth!!
    When you aid and support criminals, you live a criminal life style yourself:

  4. #4
    working4change
    Guest
    Excellent article ...makes complete sense imo

  5. #5
    working4change
    Guest
    Why is the BBC STILL so hideously biased on immigration?



    By Andrew Green
    Last updated at 8:58 AM on 15th April 2011


    David Cameron has just made the most important speech on immigration of any Prime Minister for many years.

    He tackled the subject in a frank, open, comprehensive and factual manner, while remaining sensitive to the delicacy of the issues.

    He set out a clear aim — to get net immigration down to tens of thousands — while disposing of the myth that EU migration would render this impossible.
    Immigration levels may worry the public but the BBC won't allow the subject to be discussed, at least that's what you would think by monitoring its coverage

    Immigration levels may worry the public but the BBC won't allow the subject to be discussed, at least that's what you would think by monitoring its coverage

    He didn't shy away from describing the widespread abuse in the immigration system, whether by forced or sham marriages, bogus students, dodgy colleges, or dubious work permits.

    This was a very significant contribution from a national leader addressing a sensitive issue that troubles a huge number of people in this country.

    Yet if you had listened to Radio 4 you would not have known it. Their treatment of this story was abysmal.

    More...

    * BBC accused of being 'cheerleader for assisted suicide' after filming man killing himself in Terry Pratchett documentary
    * PM urged to sack Cable as immigration splits coalition after Lib Dem says Cameron's speech 'will inflame extremism'
    * DAILY MAIL COMMENT: Unwise and wrong on immigration

    The Today Programme, the so-called jewel in the BBC's crown, introduced the item with a sound-bite from the BNP claiming that the Government had adopted their policies, but 20 years too late. How is that for a smear?

    This was followed by a hostile interview with the Immigration Minister, Damian Green, in which the presenter accused the Prime Minister of making 'an anti-immigrant statement'.

    What was he referring to? The Prime Minister's sin, apparently, was to say that 'real communities are bound by common experiences'.
    Balanced? Immigration Minister, Damian Green, was asked to defend David Cameron's 'anti-immigrant statement'

    Balanced? Immigration Minister, Damian Green, was asked to defend David Cameron's 'anti-immigrant statement'

    His speech went on to say that 'communities are forged by friendship and conversation, knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. All these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time.'

    Most of us would think that this was a statement of common sense — not to say the blindingly obvious. But not, it seems if you work for Radio 4.

    The rest of the interview bore so little relationship to the Prime Minister's speech that one wondered whether the presenter had even read it.

    Next to weigh in was the BBC website which ignored a sensible contribution from the Lib-Dem spokesman, Tom Brake, later on the Today Programme.

    Instead it led with a headline in which Vince Cable described the Prime Minister's speech as very unwise and risked 'inflaming extremism'. Nobody who had read the text could possibly draw such a conclusion, but the headline suited the BBC's agenda.

    No surprise then that the World At One followed up with a discussion in which racism and extremism featured prominently.

    One is left wondering how it is possible to have a sensible debate on immigration when the largest news organisation in the country is so hideously biased on this subject — to adopt the terminology of its former Director General Greg Dyke, who complained memorably that the corporation was 'hideously white'.

    It would be wrong to tar the whole of the BBC with a Radio 4 brush. The BBC is a huge organisation. Some of their journalists are entirely professional, so are some of the editors.

    Radio 5 Live, for example, are a good deal more responsive to public opinion on this issue; they know from their phone-ins where public opinion lies and they seem to be less inclined to talk down to their audience.

    Nevertheless, there is a strong and widespread reluctance, particularly on Radio 4, to tackle the issue of immigration.

    Like many on the Left — and I make the connection advisedly — they believe that anyone who raises the subject must have some racist motivation.
    I was repeatedly asked by BBC interviewers whether it was racist to discuss the subject

    The fact that 77 per cent of the population want to see immigration reduced, that 50 per cent want it reduced by a lot and that a majority of the ethnic communities also want it reduced, is simply waved away. The public, it seems, are racist or stupid or both.

    This is not a new problem. Ten years ago, when I helped found MigrationWatch, an independent think-tank which monitors developments in and conducts research into immigration, we were virtually ignored by the BBC.

    When I was eventually given airtime, I was repeatedly asked by BBC interviewers whether it was racist to discuss the subject.

    This was despite the fact that the Prime Minister and Home Secretary of the day had both said that it was not, as had the Head of what was then the Commission for Racial Equality. The fact is that, on their own admission, the BBC have failed to achieve a satisfactory standard of impartiality in respect of immigration for a number of years.

    In 2007 the BBC Trust issued a report which questioned whether the BBC was being impartial over immigration.

    More recently, the Director General Mark Thompson made a similar admission in a talk to the Institute of Government last December. Talking about impartiality he said that it means 'not loading the dice or excluding some perspectives, but letting all voices be heard'.
    BBC colleagues Michael Beurk and Peter Sissons: 'What the BBC regards as normal and abnormal, what is moderate or extreme, is conditioned by the common set of assumptions held by the people who work for it'

    BBC colleagues Michael Beurk and Peter Sissons: 'What the BBC regards as normal and abnormal, what is moderate or extreme, is conditioned by the common set of assumptions held by the people who work for it'

    He pointed to specific areas of BBC coverage — business, Europe and immigration — where, as he put it, he believed the corporation had been less than balanced in the past but had made great strides towards better impartiality in recent years.

    On the evidence of yesterday's news, that claim is extremely dubious.

    The BBC veteran, Michael Buerk, in a recent review of the memoirs of his former colleague Peter Sissons made a highly relevant observation.

    He said: 'What the BBC regards as normal and abnormal, what is moderate or extreme, where the centre of gravity of an issue lies, are conditioned by the common set of assumptions held by the people who work for it.'

    He added: 'It's all very well-meaning, and painstakingly even handed, but often notably adrift of the overriding national sentiment.'

    He was spot on — except that the coverage of immigration has been far from even handed.

    The BBC can hardly avoid dealing with immigration. But they do not provide airtime for a rational case against the mass immigration that has been allowed to develop over the past dozen or so years.
    The time has come to review the way in which the BBC is held to account for the impartiality which is required of them

    The clearest evidence for this lies in their treatment of the Cross-party Parliamentary Group on Balanced Migration.

    This is a group of 50 Parliamentarians, led by Frank Field for Labour, and Nicholas Soames for the Conservatives. It includes a former Speaker of the House of Commons, a former Archbishop of Canterbury, a former Field Marshall, a former

    Leader of the Opposition, half a dozen ex-Cabinet Ministers and a number of peers and younger MPs.

    You would think that the BBC might want to draw on this group. Not at all. Frank Field has been on the Today programme twice in two-and-a-half years, the second occasion being mainly about the economy.

    The time has come to review the way in which the BBC is held to account for the impartiality which is required of them, and for which we are paying. The problem is that the BBC polices itself — a system that is simply not working,

    There is a proposal that the issue of impartiality should cease to be the responsibility of the BBC Trust and come under the independent media regulator Ofcom, as is the case for other broadcasters.

    This would at least detach this vital matter from the BBC 'mindset' which has long denied immigration the thorough and balanced treatment that it deserves. Ofcom could start by investigating the BBC's handling of the subject and publish the result.

    That in itself would be a first.

    Certainly, something has to be done or politicians will continue to regard the subject as so toxic that it is better avoided altogether.

    Here we had a Prime Minister setting out, in a clear and balanced way, the nature of the problem and the measures that the Coalition were taking to address it — something that the vast majority of the public both wish and need to hear.

    Yet the response of the over-mighty BBC was to trigger a row with connotations of race.

    If this is allowed to continue, rational policy discussion will become impossible and the public will become ever more alienated from our political leadership and ever more resentful of the mass immigration which, they feel, has been imposed on them.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... z1JamVtg5E

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •