Sunday 25 October 2009

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.


alanorei said...

Thank you again, Sarah, much appreciated. I've commented on other aspects of last Thursday's programme on Lee Barnes's blog but you make excellent points about immigration, the economy and the NHS.

Ashley Mote in Overcrowded Britain made the observation that (in 2003) the 8% BME population contributed only 4% of GDP (£37,000,000,000 p.a. at the time).

In other words, they made only a 50% effort and the country suffered an equivalent £37,000,000,000 p.a. loss of GDP.

So much for economic 'enrichment' from overseas populations descending on these isles.

Re: the NHS, a lot could be said on the inferior standards of foreign medics, e.g. Muslims who won't wash properly but it is clearly a fact that the old gangsters (Straw, Warsi etc.) are quite callous about allowing 3rd-world patients to suffer and die through lack of such medical care as they may have, by poaching the best foreign staff to be employed here.

On the cheap, no doubt. That is a condition imposed by senior NHS medicos, I believe but the politicians are complicit.

Anonymous said...

The economics of pensions is but a smokescreen to hide "their" real intentions at race-mixing Briton's indigenous people with the mass influx of non-white, low-skill immigrants. Any student with a modicum of math skills could determine a net loss is the end result when importing high-maintenance people into a modern welfare state.

If Britain was a business corporation hiring the worst employees possible, it would soon be bankrupt. Needless to say, it probably has already reached that nadir.

"Their" money is easily run off the printing presses whenever needed, so what's the real game plan?

Divide and conquer-- without using too many words.

I do hope your words land hard on some of the un-initiated -- instead of us choir members.