Immigration and The Daily Mail - Hypocrisy in Action

Lots of 'scary' headlines about the latest immigration figures in the national press. The Times took a suitably alarmist stance:

A record number of foreigners were granted British citizenship last year, according to Home Office figures published today.

Just over 164,600 people were given citizenship —- the highest number of applications granted in any year.

The seven per cent increase in persons given citizenship followed a fall in the previous year.

Since 1997 when Labour came to power almost 2 million people have been awarded citizenship, the figures show.

An estimated 591,000 people entered the country, ten per cent up on the previous year, meaning net migration into the country was about 190,000. The overwhelming majority —- 86 per cent —- of immigrants were non British citizens.

“This continued the trend of high immigration to the UK experienced since 1998,” said the Office for National Statistics which published the International Migration figures.


Mmm, scared yet? How about this (watch out for the meaningless statistic):

The number of migrants granted UK citizenship reached an all-time record last year as separate figures revealed more than 200,000 Britons moving abroad.

A raft of statistics released by Whitehall revealed 164,635 foreign nationals were granted UK passports in 2007 - the equivalent of one every three minutes.

The figure is up seven per cent on the previous year and takes the total since Labour came to power to almost 1.2m.

Did you spot it? Incidentally, that last extract is repeated in the Daily Mail. And the good old Express? Why, they are suggesting the figures aren't reliable and are actually much higher:

MINISTERS have no idea how many immigrants are coming to Britain, according to a damning report by MPs.

The official statistics are “totally inadequate” for grasping the scale of population changes, the Parlia-mentary investigation has concluded.

As a result, public services are in danger of collapsing because the lack of reliable data means the Government is incapable of planning ahead.

None of these papers really touch on why there is a rise in immigration (the Daily Mail doesn't even mention where they are from). After all, that would mean treating readers like intelligent individuals instead of mindless zombies. According to the National Statistics website the majority of asylum seekers come from: Afghanistan, Iraq, Zimbabwe, Iran and Eritrea. Notice any connection there? Two countries have been devastated as a result of our military adventures. These two countries have become increasingly dangerous as a result of our interference. Consequently, it seems quite right and proper that as we fucked their countries, they should come here to enjoy the freedom and democracy we have failed to deliver over there. If we bomb the shit out of their utilities and make their daily lives almost impossible, who can blame them for coming here?

As for the others, presumably the mainstream media are suggesting we send back asylum seekers from Zimbabwe? Despite the fact that the very same media outlets have been exposing how dangerous life is in Zimbabwe. So what is it to be, eh? Help the people of Zimbabwe, or turn our backs on them? It wasn't so long ago that the Daily Mail ran a headline screaming:

Don't Zimbabweans have human rights?

Make up your minds chaps. Either you want the people of Zimbabwe to have asylum here, or you do not. Which is it going to be? Just how deep is your concern for the people of Zimbabwe? Is it simply political opportunism? Fear-mongering? Or a genuine desire to protect their human rights? I think we know the answer.

The Madrid Bombing Verdict and the Disdain of the Establishment

The establishment have really had it in for the Spanish ever since their apparent 'craven' surrender to the terrorists after the Madrid bombings. That they are so dismissive of the Spanish for their bravery in standing up to their lying government and kicking them out, speaks volumes of the true nature of democracy in the West. I have written about this at length in the past (I was in the country at the time), but the judgement of the Spanish court yesterday brought all the old establishment disdain out into the public once more.

The Times (the chosen paper of the establishment) was, of course, at the forefront of the attacks on the Spanish legal system. One look at their piece told you all you needed to know:

191 dead, thousands of victims - but the ‘mastermind’ is cleared

The accused mastermind of Europe’s worst Islamist terrorist attack was cleared of all charges along with six others yesterday in a shock judgment that angered victims.

After hitting the reader with the initial 'What the f*&k opening', purely designed to make you spit out your breakfast with disgust upon reading it, it then adds:

Twenty-one others were convicted of playing a role in the 2004 Madrid train bombings, though many of them on much lesser charges than the prosecution had sought.

Oh, so 21 were convicted?? That's pretty impressive. We have hardly convicted anyone. But, before you digest that:

Family members of the 191 people killed and 1,800 injured expressed astonishment, branding the sentences as lenient and feeble, and vowing to appeal.

"Bloody judiciary. Full of softy liberals."

"Didn't it say something about 21 convictions?"

"Brrrr, yes, but......"

Pilar Manjón, who heads the largest association of victims, said: “I don’t like to see murderers walk free.” She lost her 20-year-old son when ten bombs packed into sports bags and detonated by mobile phone ripped through four commuter trains.

"There, you see? Murderers walking free. Bloody disgrace."

"Yes, but the 21 convictions??"

"21 what? You lefties are all the same. These murderers walk free and all you can keep banging on about is a trifling 21 convictions."

It's interesting how it works. First the set-up, guaranteed to shock all those bowler hatted types eating their cornflakes. Then the tiny piece of fact that drops the anger down a notch, which is then quickly forgotten as the apocalyptic rage is cranked up several notches with talk of murderers being let off and the poor families that were affected. In the first four paragraphs, three are clearly designed to make you rage, while the other one is hidden amongst the anger so that it is broadly ignored by the red-faced establishment stooges settling down to their daily fix. And just in case you fail to grasp the subtle subtext of the piece, it blazes across the headline:

191 dead, thousands of victims - but the ‘mastermind’ is cleared

Well, that's clear then.

Thankfully, The Guardian's leader (a paper that has been as guilty of defending the establishment line as other papers) puts the trial into its proper perspective:

Nevertheless Spain's experience challenges Britain to do these things better than it has done so far. Our systems may not be the same - and the Spanish police also had some lucky breaks in their post-Madrid investigations. But there are important parallels too. Spain has deep historic links with the Islamic world, as we do. Spain had built up a strong corpus of laws during the Eta terrorist years, just as we did during the IRA ones. Yet, with all the provisos, Spain has managed to secure lawful convictions under these pre-existing laws without either legislative hyperactivity or threatening to do away with essential liberties. Suspects in Spain are rarely held for more than a maximum of 10 days without charge, compared with Britain's already draconian 28 days, which Gordon Brown now wants to increase. There are many differences between our situations, but Britain needs to learn a Spanish lesson.

Now the Spanish system is not perfect (far from it), but they have certainly dealt with this situation in a far better way than we have. Perhaps that is what really sticks in the throat of the establishment. Here are a people who bravely marched on the streets of every town and city in Spain in the aftermath of a horrendous terrorist attack to show their unity and strength. A people who had the temerity to kick out a government that lied about the bombings in the days leading up to the election. A people who dared to utilise their democratic rights. Clearly such people are to be condemned. Democracy should work for the establishment, not against it, right?

Flying Matters - If You Are Plane Stupid

I caught this fantastic smear on Plane Stupid in The Times today. Eager to press their line that Plane Stupid is a menace to society, they headlined their piece:

Activists plan to cause chaos when Terminal 5 at Heathrow is opened

Rather like the 'chaos' they caused in the summer (virtually nil). However, the pièce de résistance was in the final paragraph of the article:


Michelle Di Leo, director of FlyingMatters, said: “Again Plane Stupid are indulging in irresponsible gestures.

Their actions impact most on those they profess to be protecting: families who holiday once a year, ethnic minorities who rely on air transport to visit family, and farmers in the developing world reliant on UK consumers.”

Err, come again???The majority of fliers are once a year families and ethnic minorities??? Something tells me that Michelle Di Leo is talking bullshit. As Plane Stupid points out:

The idea that these three groups are the primary users of Heathrow is so abjectly absurd that I wonder how they ever thought we'd believe it. Civil Aviation Authority data, and data from the Department for Transport, repeatedly shows that the 'democratisation of the skies' is really just an excuse for the wealthy to fly six times a year, not for poor families to take the occasional city break.

50% of people don't fly, according to a recent Mori poll, and 62% didn't fly abroad last year. 79% of the poorest quintile didn't fly abroad, while 14% of the richest people flew 4 times or more - hardly the image of equality Flying Matters want you to believe.

As for farmers in the Global South - how will climate change affect their agriculture? Air frieghted goods make up a small percentage of output, but have a disproportionate impact on climate; not the best way to work yourself out of poverty.

Might just send an email to Ms Di Leo putting these facts to her (doubt I will get a response). Whatever, there is clearly only one organisation that is truly 'plane stupid'. Ms Di Leo, please take a bow.