Dr Frank Ellis gives an analysis of Question Time

A personal view by Frank Ellis

Nick Griffin on Question Time, BBC 1, 2235 hrs, Thursday 22^nd October 2009

Chairman, David Dimbleby

Panellists: Bonnie Greer, Nick Griffin MEP, Chris Huhne MP, Jack Straw MP & Baroness Warsi

Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being “pushed to an extreme”; not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859)

© Frank Ellis 2009

As the leader of a party that has local councillors, county councillors and 2 MEPs, it was entirely proper that Nick Griffin MEP, the leader of the British National Party (BNP), be invited on Question Time. The attempts to apply pressure to the BBC to cancel the invitation say a great deal about the left and indeed the Conservative Party. You cannot deny your political opponents free speech and then insist on your own rights to same.

One of the first questions put to the panel was whether it was right and proper that a party like the BNP used Churchill in its campaign literature given that Churchill had led Britain in a war against a racist and oppressive regime. The assumption is that the BNP is a racist party therefore it must be wrong for the BNP to use Churchillian iconography. It must be made clear that Britain did not got to war against Nazi Germany because the Hitler state was racist or even oppressive. Had Germany not attacked Poland Britain would not have declared war, though given the aggressive expansionism of Germany war would have come sooner or later. In the summer of 1940 after the disastrous performance of the British Army in France, Britain was fighting for her survival. Freeing the world of racism was not a consideration. The obsession with racism comes after 1945. True, Asians fought in both world wars, so did Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians and Americans. Does this mean that all these soldiers (Asian or white) have a right of residence in the UK? Griffin made the excellent point that in World War Two we went to war to protect British sovereignty: we did not go war to allow our country to be transformed by legal/illegal immigration. Griffin’s point – addressed to Straw – that his father served in the Royal Air Force, while Straw’s father was in prison as a conscientious objector was a powerful blow against Straw. Griffin also pointed out that many of Churchill’s views on immigration and Islam were somewhat politically incorrect (indeed they were).

Ignorance or obmutescence regarding the crimes against humanity and the genocide committed by communist regimes worldwide are a characteristic of the print and broadcast media, and the left. Straw, for example, made much of the importance of race for the BNP, implying that the BNP was simply a clone of the German Nazi party. What he failed to point out is that race is deemed to be a very good thing for blacks who on both sides of the Atlantic are encouraged to celebrate their being black to the point of making all kinds of bizarre claims about black achievements. In the UK there is an organization called the Metropolitan Police Service Black Police Association. Now, it is not clear to me why blacks working in the public sector can create an organisation membership of which is explicitly racial whereas a political party, the BNP, must open its membership to non-whites. If blacks can celebrate being black, why are whites vilified when they seek to promote and to protect their own interests?

Straw also failed to point out that class war so beloved of communist fanatics and white middle-class revolutionaries in the National Union of Students (no platform for fascists, etc) has been responsible for millions more deaths than the Nazis managed to kill in World War Two. Stalin’s Final Solution of the Peasant Question led to the extermination of about 11,000,000 peasants six million of whom were Ukrainians cruelly put to death by starvation on Stalin’s orders. This genocide was completed 10 years before Heydrich and Eichmann convened the Wannsee conference in January 1942 during which they finalised the plans for the extermination of Europe’s Jewish population. Hitler was not the most terrible mass murderer in history but it clearly suits the left (Jack Straw) and many other establishment figures to have people believe that Hitler was uniquely evil because any opposition to mass legal/illegal immigration can be shouted down as racist when it fact it is rational, morally sound and quite normal.

When we examine the way communist traitors and supporters of the most genocidal and bloody party in man’s history are received by the BBC and other media organisations we cannot help but notice yet another glaring double standard. The former terrorist, Mandela enjoys saint status and the fact that the Labour Party was heavily penetrated by the KGB, Stasi and the Czech StB has not resulted in prosecutions. Ten years ago Robin Pearson, a lecturer at Hull University was exposed as a Stasi spy. MI5 concluded that Pearson had damaged British interests and that there was a very strong case for prosecuting him. Jack Straw – that man again – was Home Secretary at the time and rejected MI5’s recommendations to proceed against Pearson. Ten years later, as far as I am aware, Pearson is still in post. Somebody reading this piece might like to check out the Hull University web site and then ask the university secretary what is going on. One wonders whether Straw’s ideological allegiances informed his decision not to prosecute Pearson. Again, the same people who campaigned to stop Griffin from appearing on Question Time do not seem to mind Gerry Adams and colleagues who have now renounced their terrorist past. As far as I am aware, the BNP was not responsible for the deaths of 3,000 soldiers, civilians and members of what used to be known as the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The left prostrate themselves before Mandela, ignoring his terrorist past, whereas the Holy Father is the target of constant snide attacks because of his membership of the Hitler Youth.

Bonnie Greer made little contribution to the debate. Her attempts to undermine the notion that there were any indigenous British were grossly incompetent. Speaking as an Englishman, I found her attempts to deny the existence of my people insulting and, to ape the language of The Macpherson Report, unwittingly racist. She clearly has no idea of the evolutionary and geological history of Western Europe. Even if early humans first appeared in Africa – the out-of-Africa theory – the expectation that we should celebrate any African ancestry is sentimental and bizarre. There may well have been a time when we were all Africans, as it were but evolutionary pressures and natural selection have ensured that the basic African blueprint, if the early humans did indeed come from Africa, has changed at the superficial and deep structural level. Blacks and whites are now not the same: there are important psychological, physiological and intellectual differences, and these differences have real world consequences. She also failed to realise that Rome’s multiculturalism was one of the factors for its downfall. America may yet go the same way.

Griffin landed further telling blows on the rather lacklustre Straw when he pointed out that Straw denied the English the use of “English” as a category on the census form. Griffin landed yet another blow when he told Straw that he, Straw, would not go to New Zealand and tell the Maoris that they were not the indigenous people of New Zealand.

The audience had clearly been selected to be as hostile as possible to Griffin. Black and Asians, along with white PC types, were overrepresented and many of them came to shout Griffin down rather than to argue. One of the first to have a go at Griffin was a very emotional black. He was wearing glasses and sitting to the right of the panellists. One of the main themes of his tirade was that Griffin should accept the contributions that immigrants have made. The trouble with this of course is that none of us - the benighted, non-existing English - was asked whether we wanted these “contributions”. Immigrants can kindly offer them but we the owners of this land have the right to decline the offer. In any case the talk of contributions is a debating ploy. It removes discussion of whether these immigrants, or some of them, should be here in the first place and whether they have entered the country illegally so as to make these contributions. If the price of these contributions, whatever they are, is the racial and cultural dispossession of whites, the reduction of whites to a minority in some of our bigger cities, near permanent racial unrest and tension in many other towns and the desire on the part of what the BBC likes to call “British muslims” to kill us, then I suggest that the price is too high.

However, there were members of the audience who supported Griffin. One man pointed out that Griffin was saying the same things as Enoch Powell. Straw pointed out that when Powell was Health Minister he advertised for nurses in the West Indies to come to Britain. Subject to proper visa controls (in and out), an upper limit population control policy and a strictly enforced immigration policy driven by national self-interest, foreigners are welcome. A work permit must not be seen as conferring an automatic right of residence. Foreigners who lied on visa applications forms must be subject to immediate deportation

One member of the audience asked Griffin whether he had travelled. This bone-headed question was presumably intended to show that Griffin’s presumed lack of travelling was what supposedly made him such a bigoted individual. Travel does not necessarily broaden the mind. During the 1930s many admirers of Stalin and hordes of wealthy socialists made the pilgrimage to the Soviet Union. These Terror-Famine Deniers then retuned to the prosperous West and extolled the joys of socialism at the very moment when Stalin was engaging in genocide. A generation later the same types went to pay homage to Mao and came back with all kinds of nonsense about the joys of Maoism. Note, however, that these leftists returned to the West: they decided not to stay in the workers’ paradise. I am reminded here of the diversophiles among us who insist that “diversity is our strength” and then flee it at the first opportunity.

The panel were asked to consider whether a misguided immigration policy has contributed to the BNP’s electoral success. Straw refused to answer the question. He then came out with the slogan that “diversity is our strength”. Straw should ask the Serbs, Croats and Bosnians whether they believe – whether they ever believed – that nonsense. For good measure he should also ask the ANC whether they appreciate the presence of white people in multiracial South Africa. This question prompted other panellists (Warsi and Huhne) to lay into Straw. There was a consensus that the Labour government’s immigration policy had been and still is a disastrous failure. Huhne pointed out the huge discrepancy between the Labour government’s estimates about the number of migrants that would come to Britain from the Eastern European states newly-acceded to the EU and the vast flood that actually came. When Straw tried to evade government responsibility and said that the government had introduced an Australian points-based system and were going to do this and that, one member of the audience shouted out: “Just do it” (indeed). During this phase of the programme it turned out that when visas are issued to foreigners to come to the UK the government does not know whether the visa holder has left the country when the visa has expired. One can assume that applicants intending to violate the conditions of the visa are aware of this lack of control as well. One black member of the audience (not the emotionally incontinent one noted above) made the measured and rational point that immigration has to be tackled. The failure to control immigration and the very high birth rate of immigrants is the main factor contributing to the dramatic rise in population. It was pointed out by Dimbleby that Frank Field had called for a population limit to be set and maintained. Straw argued that you could not stop people having children. Well, as a first phase you can cease to provide generous incentives. Here are some suggestions. First, stop all child benefits. Those who want large families have no right to expect those who are sexually responsible to subsidize their procreation experiments. Second, consider the compulsory sterilization of a man who deserts a woman he has inseminated and who has earlier refused when demanded to make financial contributions to the upkeep of his child. Women who decide quite deliberately to lead a life based on welfare by having children with multiple fathers should have to live in custodial hostels and be subject to a strict control regime. Third, immigrants who come from countries with a tradition of large extended families (polygamy) shall not be permitted to bring them to the UK and shall receive no financial assistance from the public purse. Fourth, recognise that in a country in an earlier age where the population was 8 million and the mean life expectancy was about 50 years, having lots of children was not a problem. In the same country with a population of 60,000,000 and an increased life expectancy, aggressive breeding, exacerbated by uncontrolled immigration is unsustainable. Having children under these conditions is no longer a right it has become a privilege. Governments can do something. If they do not act nature will impose her own solution. The outcome will be collapse and the descent into something very nasty and Hobbesian.

There is no doubt that the standard procedure for the conduct of Question Time was abandoned and that Dimbleby and the other panellists ganged up on Griffin. They may even have colluded with one another in advance. It was not a pretty sight; the BBC has some explaining to do. I was left with the impression that too many of the audience – the tree-huggers and save-the-whale types – would have been quite happy to see Griffin murdered. The BNP, often in the face of violence and vicious media lying, has consistently championed the cause of the white indigenous majority who are quite rightly alarmed – and should be – about the scale of legal/illegal immigration into the United Kingdom. This issue is now critical to the survival of the United Kingdom. For having doggedly exposed the catastrophic immigration policy of this Labour government (and previous Conservative governments as well) or rather the lack thereof and the damage this policy has inflicted on the indigenous population Nick Griffin and the BNP deserve our gratitude. However, Griffin was very obviously and clumsily evasive when challenged about the Holocaust. His answers to accusations of Holocaust denial were patently insincere. It may well be illegal in Germany and France to say anything controversial about the Holocaust but Britain, fortunately, has no such laws and Griffin should have come clean and apologised about having denied the Holocaust. Dimbleby was right to have reproached him for smirking. The Jewish lad who challenged Griffin was hurt and could not understand why Griffin wanted to deny what Hitler had done. It is a wicked thing to deny suffering on such a scale. The evidence for what the Nazis did is overwhelming: we know it happened; what good comes from denying the Satanic purposes of Hitler’s Final Solution? As a matter of urgency Griffin needs to issue an unreserved and sincere apology for past denials (BNP web site). So play the man, master Griffin and do it.

How do we rate the performance of the other panellists? Jack Straw looked and sounded nervous, even frightened. He was fatally wounded by Griffin’s devastating aside about his father and never fully recovered his composure. Chris Huhne’s was an average performance, no more. He seemed more concerned to demonstrate the purity of his anti-racist credentials and lacked the grasp of detail. The same can be said of Baroness Warsi, the affirmative action appointee. As for the delightful and engaging Bonnie Greer, she set a low standard and conspicuously failed to achieve it.

Frank Ellis
______________________

Editor's note: I am honoured that Dr Ellis is a contributor to Sarah Maid of Albion. As many will ba aware Dr Ellis was an eminent lecturer at Leeds University (now retired) who received considerable press coverage in 2006 on account of the outrageous way he was treated, and the efforts which were made to destroy him and his career, merely for having the courage to express unpopular and politically incorrect views.

Dr Ellis's review of Qustion time is reproduced here in full out of respect for Dr Ellis and for his right to free speech. I am also in strong agreement with the majority of what he has to say, however, this is a personal view, and Dr Ellis's views do not, in their entirety, represent the opinion of this blog.

Sarah: Maid of Albion

Revelations from a bear pit - Part three

The fact that the liberal elite have completely lost touch with the heart of this country and its people could hardly have been exposed more clearly than on Thursday night by the jeers of derision which greeted any reference to a native race of Britons, and the cheers of delight awarded to anyone who claimed that no such thing as an indigenous Briton existed. I am sure that such new world orthodoxy was welcomed with with Champers cork popping glee, in the wine bars of Hoxton, and the aromatherapy scented drawing rooms of Hampstead, however, I doubt it played so well in Preston, Burnley or Porthcawl.

The official line of the red clawed multiculturalists, currently holding prominent positions in our country is that the British Islands have no indigenous people and that we are a shifting race of intermingling immigrants with no ancestral roots into into the soil of our homeland. Similar arguments are made against the claims of many native people's across Europe, for instance , as Dr. D a regular commentator at Sarah Maid of Albion recently put it, it is now all but official policy in Sweden that “there is no Swedish identity, no Swedish history, no Swedish way of life. Everything is given over to the Other, the Other that is superior to all things native.” Sweden is an extreme case but the same is happening in country after country across the continent.

In the main, what is said about Britain is that as we have in the past taken in groups of foreign refugees from violence and oppression, we have somehow surrendered our right to sovereignty, rather in the same way that if you invite a vampire across your threshold, he has then the right to take your soul.

Furthermore, the impression given is that, just like the present, wave upon wave of immigrants have arrived on our shores, continually mixing their blood with the local population until there is no defined ethnicity or heritage. This is the official story, but, of course, being such it is not the truth.

Yes, we have taken in refugees, we are good, charitable. people, and now we are paying the price for that charity. However, contrary to the impression which is given, until the human tsunami of the last forty years, the numbers involved were relatively small, certainly not enough to change the bloodline of a nation.

The largest single group of refugees and the closest to compare with the current situation, were the French Huguenots, who arrived here in the 16th Century following persecution by the Catholics and incidents such as the Massacre of St Bartholomew. The Huguenot refugees dispersed across Europe, with some 50 thousand coming to Britain and 10 thousand going to Ireland.

50,000 people may seem a lot but it is less than a quarter of the current Somali population, and the Somalis, which are by no means one of the largest immigrant groups, have only been coming for the last ten years or so.

Furthermore, the French Huguenots were white. Christian, Europeans with strong ethnic and genetic blood ties to the people of Britain, it was certainly not as if a group from an ethnically separate culture had settled here. An equivalent might be for a group of Sioux Indians taking refuge with the Comanche following a tribal war with the Apache, they are people of the same ethnic origin, and nobody would expect either group to surrender their indigenous rights on account of an act of human kindness.

Prior to the 20th Century, the Huguenots and before them the Normans, who once again are part of the same ethnic and cultural groupings as the British people were the only people from across the channel to settle in Britain in any significant numbers in the last thousand years, yet, in terms of numbers percentage of the population they bore no comparison to what is occurring today.

The other groups which came were relatively tiny. The Jewish population of Britain is often used as an example of immigrants to our country, ignoring the fact that Jewishness in itself is not an ethnicity. There have certainly been Jews in this country for at least 1,000 years, give or take three centuries of expulsion, however, the numbers involved were relatively small, sixteen thousand souls when they were expelled in 1290 . Even today, despite being resident for over ten centuries and including those Polish and Lithuanian Jews who are alleged to have arrived in such multitudes in the 19th Century, their numbers do not even match one tenth of the current official Asian population (let alone the real Asian population) and the Asians have only been coming here in significant numbers for the last forty to fifty years.

In any event, the Jews have long held strong and admirable cultural beliefs against mixing their line with non-believers, hence their presence here has had little effect on the genetic heritage of the indigenous population.

There are many claims made that there have been Africans in Britain for many centuries, because some appear in paintings in stately homes, but, these were tiny numbers brought back as servants by Aristocrats who had travelled abroad, and one might as well claim that peacocks are indigenous to Britain because a couple of toffs had a few in their gardens.

Certainly despite the 19th century appearance small pockets of Africa immigrants in places like Cardiff's Tiger Bay or the East End of London, prior to the 20th century the numbers of non-Europeans residing in this country were insignificant, despite the impression which our overlords seek to present. In any event, a claim to indigenous status is not dependant on the fact that no other ethnic group ever visited your land, if it were, the indigenous peoples of Australia and America would have lost their status long ago.

We are being denied our claim to our native land because we have at times in the last few centuries been hospitable to people in need and that is an outrage.

However, let us go back even further into our past, and there we encounter the bizarre ramblings and weird fantasies of Question Time panellist Bonny Greer, in respect of whom I must take issue with Nick Griffin, who apparently believes that, unlike the other panel members, Ms. Greer acted with decency and integrity. In response to this I will merely say that only a man could fail to see the poison and two faced deceit in Bonnie Greer.

This Chicago born playwright and, Gordon Brown appointed. Deputy chairman of the British Museum, who has lived in England since the 1980's but speaks with voice resonating in mint juleps and Acacia blossom, in the apparent belief that an Antebellum note might give her the credibility of a Maya Angelou, whilst at the same time evoking images of slavery, is as fake as is her accent.

This third rate story teller and quango appointee sought to pose as a historian on the basis of an affirmative action appointment and lecture Nick and the audience on the subject of Ancient history, a subject she apparently learnt from a multicultural propaganda pop-up book for under fives.

I will not pay this charlatan the respect of addressing her assertion that Britain has no indigenous population because “the Neanderthals got here first” other than to say that so did the Velociraptors and what the hell have Neanderthals got to do with indigenous human beings you stupid fake?

Bonnie then rushed forward a few thousand years to state that Rome was a multiracial society (oh yeah?, and look where that got them!!) and that the Romans bought battalions of Asians and Africans here, many of whom were left behind to mate with the local population. On the basis of this statement she asserted that there was no such thing as an indigenous race of Britons, and that what there is some global blend of all humanity. (Click here to watch Bonnie speak of the Romans)

I have seen similar claims before, usually in large print and bright colours in publications praising the glories of diversity, and I have no doubt that there is a display of lifelike dolls at the British museum showing Rastafarian Romans arriving in Londinium. However, I have yet to find a serious historical source supporting Bonnie's version of British history. It may be therefore that she is relying on a source which applies a similar degree of poetic licence to British history as they does to black history.

However, let us give Bonnie G the benefit of the doubt and assume that her tale of African and Asian Romans is true and then lets consider the ramifications of this. To take Bonnie's analysis to its logical conclusion, there must also be no such thing as an indigenous African, after all, although it might not suit Bonnie's narrative to admit it, the Arab slave traders got to Africa long before the Romans got here, and they stayed a damn sight longer (in fact they were still there well into the 20th century) they most certainly raped and mixed their genes with the locals. Why doesn't the melodious Ms. Greer pop over to Kenya, Uganda, Zaire and Tanzania and tell them they are not indigenous?

Similarly, I seem to recall that Alexander the Great invaded India, and that he took himself an Asian bride. His lonely soldiers had been away from home for twelve years, so you can be damn sure they mixed with the locals. I am sure we would have a whip round to fly Bonnie out to the Punjab so she can tell the Punjabis they have to give up any claim to their homeland because they are part Macedonian. However, I suggest she makes sure her medical insurance, and will, are up to date first.

Oh my, young Alex got to Afghanistan too didn't he, they will really enjoy being told their country ain't their own!!

However, lets drop these ludicrous claims that a native people can cease to be so on account of rape and hospitality, it is all a smoke screen designed to hide the true agendas of the likes of Bonnie Greer and Jack Straw. They know damn well who the indigenous population of Britain are, because they have sent an adult lifetime conspiring against them.

The indigenous, native, population of Britain are the ones not protected by the race relations act, they are the ones who Greer and others have built entire careers on calling racists. The indigenous population are the ones who any other ethnic group can beat to a pulp whilst phoning three car loads of cousins as reinforcements, after which the police will say “Hate crime? what hate crime?”. They are the people who can be murdered by thugs who shout “That will teach a white man to interfere in our business” but who's killers are not charged with a racially aggravated crime.

The indigenous people of this country are the ones whom the establishment, the media and those behind that shambles on Thursday night have spent the last fifty years discriminating against and seeking to dispossess.

You know who we are Ms. Greer, we know who you are, we know what you are doing, and hear me now, we are not going to let you do it any longer.

Revelations from a bear pit - Part two of three

Following on from my earlier article, relating to the brutal and dishonest show trial which the BBC Question Time programme descended into on Thursday evening, I would now like to focus on some of the claims and allegations made during the show, but which were not fairly or accurately addressed largely due to the hostility of a politically stacked audience and the actions of an outrageously biased moderator.

The first of those which I was planning to address were the allegations of Holocaust denial levelled at Nick Griffin, and the subsequent claims made both on the programme and later by much of the News media, that he failed to answer these allegations. However, this point has already been addressed very eloquently by my good friend and fellow crusader the Green Arrow in an earlier article.

As the Green Arrow points out, Nick Griffin is an elected Member of the European Parliament, a position which requires him to travel to various countries within Europe, including some where the admission to having once expressed views which question the accuracy of the historical account, no matter how long ago, can render one liable to prosecution and a lengthy prison sentence. Griffin states that he no longer holds those views, however, to go into any further detail about what he once believed, and why he changed his mind, would be to put himself at significant legal risk, everyone else on the panel, with the possible exception of Bonnie Greer, who's grasp on reality (as I shall show in part three) seemed somewhat tenuous, knew that.

In the circumstances, UK Justice Secretary Jack Straw's assurance that Griffin would not be prosecuted, echoed by the staggeringly disingenuous moderator, David Dimbleby, were shamelessly dishonest. They knew full well that the risk to Griffin lay in other countries within the European Union, where the assurances of a British Justice Secretary carry as much weight as a cup of cold spit.

It should also be noted that at least two previous NuLabour Home Secretaries, who succeeded Jack Straw into that job, were once members of the Communist party. They have both made many appearances on Question Time, but have never been asked to explain why they once believed in an ideology responsible for the deaths of far more people than those who died in all of World War II , let alone in the Holocaust.

The alleged benefits of immigration

The second point I want to look at was one snarled at Griffin by an audience member of Afro Caribbean appearance, who claimed to be born in Britain, and attacked the BNP leader for failing to acknowledge the “benefits” which his immigrant parents had “brought to this country”. However, let us examine the truth or otherwise behind his assertion.

That Britain has “benefited” from immigration is a claim often made, but seldom quantified, however, is there any truth to it?.

It can not be disputed, even by the controlled media, that we have just lived through twelve years of unprecedented levels of immigration, bringing about a change in the racial demographic of this nation of a level unseen in the previous history of any European country, ever. Moreover, this was a change, which we now learn from a government insider, was allowed by the present government not for the good of the country, but for the adolescent purpose of “rubbing the Right's noses in diversity”. Quite an apt analogy, when one considers what it is that a puppy's nose is usually rubbed in.

At the end of this massive alien invasion, which we are told was of such great benefit to us, growth figures released this week reveal that Britain is experiencing the longest and worst period on recession on record, In fact, earlier this year the government admitted that our economy was in the worst shape it has ever been in our peacetime history, in fact the only time it has been this bad was at the end of the most financially crippling international war in world history.

In addition, two years after we finally paid off the debt left by that very war, we, as a nation, are now in greater debt than we have ever been in our history.

This dire state of affairs follows forty years of out of control immigration, which has escalated beyond measure since 1997. I am not an economist, but can someone please explain to me how this shows our economy to have benefited from migration?.

So if the state of our economy has not improved because of immigration in what other respects might the new arrivals have brought good news?

We are told that, as an ageing population we need immigrants to support the cost of future pensions. This argument might make some sense if we were to assume that all immigrants will either return home when they retire or have discovered the secret of eternal youth, experience shows neither to be the case. Certainly only a statistically minute number of third world immigrants leave the country when they become pensioners, and any day time journey on a South London bus will reveal one of the largest growing sections of our community, the immigrant pensioner.

They will all grow old, and most will retire here, Inevitably, this means that every immigrant entering the country today is a potential future pensioner whom our grandchildren will have to pay for.

To present this as anything other than a massive long term Liability is credit card economics, providing a brief short term benefit now, if benefit there is given the strain on other services, with the prospect of paying double later, or borrow / import more to cover the debt, thus creating further liabilities for the next generation. This is madness, pure and simple.

IN other areas, the health service is forever being held up as an example of how essential immigrants are to our society. However, the fact that there are many immigrants employed within the NHS proves only that we have employed a lot of immigrants in the NHS, it does not mean it is a good thing, or that there was no alternative. As we has seen over and over, the fact that employers, in this instance the Government, wish to import cheap labour does not mean that there is no local labour available, or that the service would not operate as effectively or even more so, were we to train our own people properly and pay them a living wage.

In addition there is also the question as to whether immigration has added to the strain on the health service, and to what degree we are importing immigrant nurses and doctors to care for immigrant patients, in the same way as we will soon be importing immigrant workers to pay the pensions of immigrant pensioners.

As I stated earlier, the claim that Britain, and indeed Europe, benefits from immigration is frequently made, but evidence supporting this claim is somewhat less clear cut, irrespective of how loudly and often it is shouted.
___________________________________________________

In the third and final part of this analysis of the Question Time ambush, I will assess whether or not there is merit to the allegations often made against the native Britons by our enemies and repeated last Thursday, namely that we do not exist.