Friday, 15 January 2010
Mercure Hotel Conversion: Protest at Crawley Council Meeting, 25th January
On Monday 25th January No Borders Brighton and London No Borders are calling for a protest outside Crawley Town Hall (The Boulevard, Crawley, West Sussex RH10 1UZ) at 6.30pm to protest against Arora International's plans to turn the four-star Mercure hotel at Gatwick into yet another immigration prison.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
Ku Klux Clan
The front page of the leftist Italian newspaper Il Manifesto sums up the background to the riots in Italy succinctly. In Italy 'clan' refers to a criminal gang, so they are basically saying that the 'Ndrangheta are racists and they provoked the riots in order to induce the police to evacuate the migrants and sort out their problem of having too many foreign fruit pickers in the area for too little work. And they got to save money as well because the migrants left without picking up their wages.
And here is a video of some of the conditions that the fruit pickers were forced to live in. Very reminiscent of Calais.
In a typical denialist fashion, Andrea Ronchi, Italy's European affairs minister, was quick to jump to the defence of his country in the face of severe condemnation of the United Nations, the EU Commission and even the Pope. Here's what he had to say:
"In Italy, there is no racism. It does not exist. It is an accusation made by people who do not know Italy."
"We will give them (those making the accusation) a free tour, at our expense, to show them what there is in Italy: solidarity and welcome. But it is true there is a violent phenomenon - illegal immigration."
"These accusations are the fruit of a left-wing culture no longer in step with citizens. Italy is the most welcoming country in Europe, and anyone accusing us of racism is stupid."
"Italy has been alone on the economic and political front, facing the urgent problem of illegal immigration. I criticise Europe for wasting time in creating a refugees' rights agency."
Condemned by his own mouth.
Rabid Journalism
The Express seems to have gotten too caught up in the fervour of its own xenophobia, so much so that the paper appears, in the guise of Leo McKinstry's article 'Immigrants Squat In Your House And You're Powerless', to be essaying the journalistic equivalent of foaming at the mouth. And like any mad rabid dog, he should really be taken out and shot, the poor thing.
In case you cannot bring yourselves to read the damned thing, here is our precise of the paper's rapidly cooling bile:
Good God! What's the world coming to? Gypos over here stealing our homes (a man's home is his castle, dontcha know?). And those namby pamby police, pussyfooting around, too tied up in Bolshevik red tape to do anything. Calling Mr Mosedale (the owner of the house) a racist too boot, simply because he, as a hard-working tax-paying British citizen, challenged the right of some foreigner right to live in Britain on benefits (they were living on benefits, weren't they?) or something. And then the damned gypos had the audacity to leave before he coud get them in court. Swine.
Absolute bloody disgrace if you ask me. (Cough, cough, splutter, splutter) Where is the iron discipline of a right wing dictatorship or an army coup when you need it?
Footnote: By the way, Marx did not spread the idea that “property is theft”. You are mistaking him for Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who, in the book 'What Is Property?: or, An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government', was in fact referring to capital and private property, and not personal property (things created by one's own labour, the clothes one wears, etc.). Unfortunately, "If the police carry on failing the public" the result will not be anarchy.
In case you cannot bring yourselves to read the damned thing, here is our precise of the paper's rapidly cooling bile:
Good God! What's the world coming to? Gypos over here stealing our homes (a man's home is his castle, dontcha know?). And those namby pamby police, pussyfooting around, too tied up in Bolshevik red tape to do anything. Calling Mr Mosedale (the owner of the house) a racist too boot, simply because he, as a hard-working tax-paying British citizen, challenged the right of some foreigner right to live in Britain on benefits (they were living on benefits, weren't they?) or something. And then the damned gypos had the audacity to leave before he coud get them in court. Swine.
Absolute bloody disgrace if you ask me. (Cough, cough, splutter, splutter) Where is the iron discipline of a right wing dictatorship or an army coup when you need it?
Footnote: By the way, Marx did not spread the idea that “property is theft”. You are mistaking him for Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who, in the book 'What Is Property?: or, An Inquiry into the Principle of Right and of Government', was in fact referring to capital and private property, and not personal property (things created by one's own labour, the clothes one wears, etc.). Unfortunately, "If the police carry on failing the public" the result will not be anarchy.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
SHOCK HORROR: Daily Mail Gets A Headline 'Right' For Once...
...it's just the rest of the article that is a tissue of lies.
Ian 'Dim' Sparks, co-author of that other tissue of lies 'Calais migrants ambush holiday Britons at knifepoint in terrifying 'highway robberies'',* has just published an article headed 'Bulldozing of Calais Jungle immigration camp was a 'publicity stunt aimed at placating the British public', based on an interview with Vincent Lenoir of the Salam association** carried out by the French weekly news magazine l'Express in an article 'L'emprise des passeurs s'est renforcée sur les migrants' ('The influence of the smugglers on the migrants has increased'). When I say "based on", I mean it in the loosest possible sense of the phrase.
The Mail claims to have extracted a series of M. Lenoir's 'quotes' from the l'Express article, which it then proceeds to use to bash the French with and ultimately M. Lenoir and his humanitarian efforts in supporting the Calais migrants, all to push its own anti-foreigner agenda.
Here are the quotes it claims are from M. Lenoir:
"publicity stunt aimed at placating the British public" (from the headline) and another version of the same thing - [The destruction of the Jungle migrant camp in Calais aimed at stemming the tide of illegal immigration to the UK was a publicity stunt to] "placate the British public";
[The operation to bulldoze the squalid woodland camp was branded a] "total failure";
"Our immigration minister Eric Besson's claim that destroying the Jungle would solve the problem is false";
"Nicolas Sarkozy made the same claim when as interior minister he closed down Sangatte in 2002, and promised we'd never have migrants on the Channel coast again";
"We estimate there are around 400 migrants in Calais";
"But other camps are also springing up elsewhere, even in Belgium";
"And more seriously, the people smuggling gangs are back too, when Mr Besson had claimed his policy would put a halt to their activities";
"The only purpose of the Jungle operation was to appease the public in England. It was an Anglo-French publicity stunt that had no effect at all."
And for good measure, they threw in: Mr Lenoir's claims come as Calais residents are becoming increasingly frustrated at the French government's lack of action to take their town's migrant problem.
And here is our translation of the article, see if you can find where the Mail's quotes come from?
England remains their dream. The foreigners in irregular situation have come back around Calais, 4 months after the evacuation of their settlements by the police. The response of Vincent Lenoir, association Salam.
Salam helps illegal migrants in the form of distribution of food or medicines. On September 22, 2009, a vast police operation ended in the closure of the "jungle", the place of concentration near Calais of these people waiting for passage to England. "The problem is solved," said Eric Besson, Minister of Immigration and National Identity in Le Parisien, 12 January. Fabrication (fantasy) replied Vincent Lenoir.
How many migrants today wait in Calais for passage to England?
We estimate there are about 400. We distribute a little more than 320 meals, but we know that all do not come to stock up with us. One year ago, we counted 600 migrants. During the summer of 2009 a peak at 1,400 was recorded. But the Minister Eric Besson chooses the figures today which suit him. I know the night of the police intervention in the "jungle", we served 200 meals, and the next day onwards we have been seeing newcomers. The migrants want at all costs to get to England, a police operation will not be sufficient to discourage them.
Are the places where they gather the same as before?
Calais remains the main place. But it is true that we have seen more and more small settlements that nobody knows about. I have an example: we just discovered between Calais and Boulogne, about twenty kilometres away, a new place almost by accident. A dispute between residents there provoked the intervention of gendarmes. Belgium is in turn affected. The worst? The influence of smugglers has increased amongst the migrants. Yet the minister assured us that his action would make the situation worse for them.
What do you think was the real meaning of the operation?
In my opinion it was primarily intended for the British public opinion. It was a kind of communication operation outsourced to France by England. Three British channels also broadcast live the police action September 22, 2009 with support from helicopters! The Governments staged a display of their firmness. In 2002, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy had done the same thing in Sangatte (Pas-de-Calais) and we had promised never to hear about it again! [i.e. it would be the end of the situation]
Your humanitarian work, is it more difficult to conduct?
No. We have agreements with the city of Calais and the region. They have improved the reception conditions. So a building was built where we distribute food. The place is also accommodation in case of severe cold.
So, let's have a quick look at the Mail's rather slack translation.
"Publicity stunt aimed at placating the British public" - clearly a very rough paraphrase. Yes, he did say that it was aimed at British public opinion but the words (in French of course) for 'stunt' and 'placating' did not pass his lips, and we shall be asking him to confirm this.
"Total failure" - nowhere to be seen.
"Our immigration minister Eric Besson's claim that destroying the Jungle would solve the problem is false" - a very free rendering of ""The problem is solved," said Eric Besson, Minister of Immigration and National Identity in Le Parisien, 12 January. Fabrication (fantasy) replied Vincent Lenoir."
"Nicolas Sarkozy made the same claim when as interior minister he closed down Sangatte in 2002, and promised we'd never have migrants on the Channel coast again" - not too many liberties taken there.
"We estimate there are around 400 migrants in Calais" - short of adding an extra zero, not even Spark could get that wrong.
"But other camps are also springing up elsewhere, even in Belgium" - yes Lenoir mentions Belgium and the fact that they "have seen more and more small settlements that nobody knows about", including one "we just discovered between Calais and Boulogne", but "camps ... springing up elsewhere" is pure invention. This is the translation of a magazine article not a piece of prose poetry!
"And more seriously, the people smuggling gangs are back too, when Mr Besson had claimed his policy would put a halt to their activities" - very inventive translation this one: "The worst? The influence of smugglers has increased amongst the migrants. Yet the minister assured us that his action would make the situation worse for them." He didn't sat "put a halt" to the smugglers and he never said or implied that the smugglers had gone away. You can't have it both ways Sparky, if the clearance of the 'Jungle' drove the traffickers away, then that's one up for Besson. If he didn't, then they can hardly have come back.
"The only purpose of the Jungle operation was to appease the public in England. It was an Anglo-French publicity stunt that had no effect at all." - What he actually said (allowing for our poor translation: "In my opinion it was primarily intended for the British public opinion. It was a kind of communication operation outsourced to France by England." Nowhere doe Lenoir say that the destruction of the 'Jungle' had no effect what so ever. To argue that is a gross distortion of what he said.
And the last bit about: "Mr Lenoir's claims come as Calais residents are becoming increasingly frustrated at the French government's lack of action to take their town's migrant problem." Spark must be even more rabid than we have always taken him to be to come away from having read the l'Express article and thought that that was what Lenoir was arguing. Vincent as a representative of the Calaisiens, in answer to the question "Your humanitarian work, is it more difficult to conduct (since the clearance of the 'Jungle')?" has one word to say. "Non!"
D- This is a very poor attempt at your French homework Spark. You really should be doing much better by now and I am seriously thinking of not letting you sit your 'O' Level at the end of the year. Have you thought about switching to the creative writing course?
* NB This article was first published on 21 July (see) but was the subject of a complaint (along with a large number of other Mail articles) on the paper's coverage of Calais. The paper had to publish a 'clarification' ( see foot of the article).
** One of the organisations that provides humanitarian aid to the migrants in Calais.
Ian 'Dim' Sparks, co-author of that other tissue of lies 'Calais migrants ambush holiday Britons at knifepoint in terrifying 'highway robberies'',* has just published an article headed 'Bulldozing of Calais Jungle immigration camp was a 'publicity stunt aimed at placating the British public', based on an interview with Vincent Lenoir of the Salam association** carried out by the French weekly news magazine l'Express in an article 'L'emprise des passeurs s'est renforcée sur les migrants' ('The influence of the smugglers on the migrants has increased'). When I say "based on", I mean it in the loosest possible sense of the phrase.
The Mail claims to have extracted a series of M. Lenoir's 'quotes' from the l'Express article, which it then proceeds to use to bash the French with and ultimately M. Lenoir and his humanitarian efforts in supporting the Calais migrants, all to push its own anti-foreigner agenda.
Here are the quotes it claims are from M. Lenoir:
"publicity stunt aimed at placating the British public" (from the headline) and another version of the same thing - [The destruction of the Jungle migrant camp in Calais aimed at stemming the tide of illegal immigration to the UK was a publicity stunt to] "placate the British public";
[The operation to bulldoze the squalid woodland camp was branded a] "total failure";
"Our immigration minister Eric Besson's claim that destroying the Jungle would solve the problem is false";
"Nicolas Sarkozy made the same claim when as interior minister he closed down Sangatte in 2002, and promised we'd never have migrants on the Channel coast again";
"We estimate there are around 400 migrants in Calais";
"But other camps are also springing up elsewhere, even in Belgium";
"And more seriously, the people smuggling gangs are back too, when Mr Besson had claimed his policy would put a halt to their activities";
"The only purpose of the Jungle operation was to appease the public in England. It was an Anglo-French publicity stunt that had no effect at all."
And for good measure, they threw in: Mr Lenoir's claims come as Calais residents are becoming increasingly frustrated at the French government's lack of action to take their town's migrant problem.
And here is our translation of the article, see if you can find where the Mail's quotes come from?
England remains their dream. The foreigners in irregular situation have come back around Calais, 4 months after the evacuation of their settlements by the police. The response of Vincent Lenoir, association Salam.
Salam helps illegal migrants in the form of distribution of food or medicines. On September 22, 2009, a vast police operation ended in the closure of the "jungle", the place of concentration near Calais of these people waiting for passage to England. "The problem is solved," said Eric Besson, Minister of Immigration and National Identity in Le Parisien, 12 January. Fabrication (fantasy) replied Vincent Lenoir.
How many migrants today wait in Calais for passage to England?
We estimate there are about 400. We distribute a little more than 320 meals, but we know that all do not come to stock up with us. One year ago, we counted 600 migrants. During the summer of 2009 a peak at 1,400 was recorded. But the Minister Eric Besson chooses the figures today which suit him. I know the night of the police intervention in the "jungle", we served 200 meals, and the next day onwards we have been seeing newcomers. The migrants want at all costs to get to England, a police operation will not be sufficient to discourage them.
Are the places where they gather the same as before?
Calais remains the main place. But it is true that we have seen more and more small settlements that nobody knows about. I have an example: we just discovered between Calais and Boulogne, about twenty kilometres away, a new place almost by accident. A dispute between residents there provoked the intervention of gendarmes. Belgium is in turn affected. The worst? The influence of smugglers has increased amongst the migrants. Yet the minister assured us that his action would make the situation worse for them.
What do you think was the real meaning of the operation?
In my opinion it was primarily intended for the British public opinion. It was a kind of communication operation outsourced to France by England. Three British channels also broadcast live the police action September 22, 2009 with support from helicopters! The Governments staged a display of their firmness. In 2002, Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy had done the same thing in Sangatte (Pas-de-Calais) and we had promised never to hear about it again! [i.e. it would be the end of the situation]
Your humanitarian work, is it more difficult to conduct?
No. We have agreements with the city of Calais and the region. They have improved the reception conditions. So a building was built where we distribute food. The place is also accommodation in case of severe cold.
So, let's have a quick look at the Mail's rather slack translation.
"Publicity stunt aimed at placating the British public" - clearly a very rough paraphrase. Yes, he did say that it was aimed at British public opinion but the words (in French of course) for 'stunt' and 'placating' did not pass his lips, and we shall be asking him to confirm this.
"Total failure" - nowhere to be seen.
"Our immigration minister Eric Besson's claim that destroying the Jungle would solve the problem is false" - a very free rendering of ""The problem is solved," said Eric Besson, Minister of Immigration and National Identity in Le Parisien, 12 January. Fabrication (fantasy) replied Vincent Lenoir."
"Nicolas Sarkozy made the same claim when as interior minister he closed down Sangatte in 2002, and promised we'd never have migrants on the Channel coast again" - not too many liberties taken there.
"We estimate there are around 400 migrants in Calais" - short of adding an extra zero, not even Spark could get that wrong.
"But other camps are also springing up elsewhere, even in Belgium" - yes Lenoir mentions Belgium and the fact that they "have seen more and more small settlements that nobody knows about", including one "we just discovered between Calais and Boulogne", but "camps ... springing up elsewhere" is pure invention. This is the translation of a magazine article not a piece of prose poetry!
"And more seriously, the people smuggling gangs are back too, when Mr Besson had claimed his policy would put a halt to their activities" - very inventive translation this one: "The worst? The influence of smugglers has increased amongst the migrants. Yet the minister assured us that his action would make the situation worse for them." He didn't sat "put a halt" to the smugglers and he never said or implied that the smugglers had gone away. You can't have it both ways Sparky, if the clearance of the 'Jungle' drove the traffickers away, then that's one up for Besson. If he didn't, then they can hardly have come back.
"The only purpose of the Jungle operation was to appease the public in England. It was an Anglo-French publicity stunt that had no effect at all." - What he actually said (allowing for our poor translation: "In my opinion it was primarily intended for the British public opinion. It was a kind of communication operation outsourced to France by England." Nowhere doe Lenoir say that the destruction of the 'Jungle' had no effect what so ever. To argue that is a gross distortion of what he said.
And the last bit about: "Mr Lenoir's claims come as Calais residents are becoming increasingly frustrated at the French government's lack of action to take their town's migrant problem." Spark must be even more rabid than we have always taken him to be to come away from having read the l'Express article and thought that that was what Lenoir was arguing. Vincent as a representative of the Calaisiens, in answer to the question "Your humanitarian work, is it more difficult to conduct (since the clearance of the 'Jungle')?" has one word to say. "Non!"
D- This is a very poor attempt at your French homework Spark. You really should be doing much better by now and I am seriously thinking of not letting you sit your 'O' Level at the end of the year. Have you thought about switching to the creative writing course?
* NB This article was first published on 21 July (see) but was the subject of a complaint (along with a large number of other Mail articles) on the paper's coverage of Calais. The paper had to publish a 'clarification' ( see foot of the article).
** One of the organisations that provides humanitarian aid to the migrants in Calais.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
The FT's Sweet & Sour Take On Cameron's Immigration Call
The Financial Times* gave Dave™ a bit of a lecture on the politics and economics of migration yesterday, pointing out his erroneous logic and arguments but also unfortunately slipping into lazy solipcisms themselves.
"David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is wrong to back calls for capping the UK population at 70m over the next 20 years through immigration controls. The target and time frame are arbitrary. And it would be dangerously frustrating to try to limit population size by managing immigration when bigger forces are at work, notably a rising birth rate." So far, so good.
"That said, Mr Cameron is right to put immigration on his agenda. The issue matters to voters" Roughly on the par with the restoration of capital punishment, but we haven't heard him talking much about that recently (to be honest we hadn't heard him talking much about immigration recently but then again the yellow press haven't been trying to set the agenda on that recently, so we can't expect him to have thought about it).
"It also matters hugely to Britain’s future social and economic well-being." Why has no one mentioned the age-time bomb recently? All the Tory press go on about the 'problem' of the high numbers of children being born to 'immigrant' mothers (relative to the 'native-born' population), except of course when it doesn't fit their arguments about immigration cuts. Yet they fail to realise that someone is going to need to be around to care for them (or their children) in their old age, either through their taxes or as employees of the care industry. And given the rate at which the 'grey' population is swamping the country, they should be encouraging young migrants to come hither and multiply.
"While the country has seen many migrants over the centuries, recent immigration levels are unprecedented. About 10 per cent of Britons are now foreign-born, and about 30 per cent of Londoners." Unprecedented since when? Roman times? The end of the last Ice Age?
"Immigration is mostly an economic benefit, providing the UK with workers, diversifying skills (eg in languages) and expanding global contacts. Claims that immigrants as a whole are a burden on the state are wrong: the young people who predominate contribute more as taxpayers than they absorb in welfare. Moreover, the flows tend to be self-regulating, dropping in economic downturns and growing in boom years." Sound stuff.
"But there are serious social costs." Sounds ominous. "First, local authorities in high-immigration areas are swamped (sic)" - why do they always resort to the use of the pejorative phrase, why not say 'becoming overstretched' or 'oversubscribed' - "with demand for public services and housing. Next, some immigrant groups have integrated poorly (i.e. not been assimilated) into British society, notably Pakistani Muslims. Finally, some native-born (sic) groups feel swamped by the speed of recent inflows." Very Mail/Express?Telegraph-lite.
The FT's answer? "Increasing cash support for high-immigration areas (even at the expense of other localities); extending powers to inspect housing to cut over-crowding" - bit of social engineering there! - "liberalising antiquated planning laws to allow more house-building" - deregulation, ra ra! - "and tightening up on welfare fraud" - good old standby, and of course its always those pesky foreigners who are carrying out all the welfare fraud.
Then comes an argument for "stronger (targeted) immigration control policies" rather than quotas, tougher rules on the ability to speak English before entry, student visas, arranged marriage, etc.
To round it all off, the FT throw in something that no No Borderer would argue with, "In principle, migration is good. People should have the right to move around our globalising world." However, they go and spoil it all by stating, "But these rights have to be balanced against the rights of those choosing to stay put." How exactly does one balance the rights of people to totaly change their lives by moving to a completely new country with those who wish to stay where they are in a country where they wish things had never changed from when they grew up?
* Beware, the FT now have a subscription only on-line service and you will only be able to view the one article for the next 30 days without subscribing or paying for the privilege of reading their collective thought's.
"David Cameron, the Conservative leader, is wrong to back calls for capping the UK population at 70m over the next 20 years through immigration controls. The target and time frame are arbitrary. And it would be dangerously frustrating to try to limit population size by managing immigration when bigger forces are at work, notably a rising birth rate." So far, so good.
"That said, Mr Cameron is right to put immigration on his agenda. The issue matters to voters" Roughly on the par with the restoration of capital punishment, but we haven't heard him talking much about that recently (to be honest we hadn't heard him talking much about immigration recently but then again the yellow press haven't been trying to set the agenda on that recently, so we can't expect him to have thought about it).
"It also matters hugely to Britain’s future social and economic well-being." Why has no one mentioned the age-time bomb recently? All the Tory press go on about the 'problem' of the high numbers of children being born to 'immigrant' mothers (relative to the 'native-born' population), except of course when it doesn't fit their arguments about immigration cuts. Yet they fail to realise that someone is going to need to be around to care for them (or their children) in their old age, either through their taxes or as employees of the care industry. And given the rate at which the 'grey' population is swamping the country, they should be encouraging young migrants to come hither and multiply.
"While the country has seen many migrants over the centuries, recent immigration levels are unprecedented. About 10 per cent of Britons are now foreign-born, and about 30 per cent of Londoners." Unprecedented since when? Roman times? The end of the last Ice Age?
"Immigration is mostly an economic benefit, providing the UK with workers, diversifying skills (eg in languages) and expanding global contacts. Claims that immigrants as a whole are a burden on the state are wrong: the young people who predominate contribute more as taxpayers than they absorb in welfare. Moreover, the flows tend to be self-regulating, dropping in economic downturns and growing in boom years." Sound stuff.
"But there are serious social costs." Sounds ominous. "First, local authorities in high-immigration areas are swamped (sic)" - why do they always resort to the use of the pejorative phrase, why not say 'becoming overstretched' or 'oversubscribed' - "with demand for public services and housing. Next, some immigrant groups have integrated poorly (i.e. not been assimilated) into British society, notably Pakistani Muslims. Finally, some native-born (sic) groups feel swamped by the speed of recent inflows." Very Mail/Express?Telegraph-lite.
The FT's answer? "Increasing cash support for high-immigration areas (even at the expense of other localities); extending powers to inspect housing to cut over-crowding" - bit of social engineering there! - "liberalising antiquated planning laws to allow more house-building" - deregulation, ra ra! - "and tightening up on welfare fraud" - good old standby, and of course its always those pesky foreigners who are carrying out all the welfare fraud.
Then comes an argument for "stronger (targeted) immigration control policies" rather than quotas, tougher rules on the ability to speak English before entry, student visas, arranged marriage, etc.
To round it all off, the FT throw in something that no No Borderer would argue with, "In principle, migration is good. People should have the right to move around our globalising world." However, they go and spoil it all by stating, "But these rights have to be balanced against the rights of those choosing to stay put." How exactly does one balance the rights of people to totaly change their lives by moving to a completely new country with those who wish to stay where they are in a country where they wish things had never changed from when they grew up?
* Beware, the FT now have a subscription only on-line service and you will only be able to view the one article for the next 30 days without subscribing or paying for the privilege of reading their collective thought's.
Suckered
The veneer is peeling off Dave™ and the brand-spanking-apparently-new version of a very modern post-Major Tory (it should really be post-Thatcher, but the pun wouldn't work) to reveal the same old tired reactionary party pandering to the prejudices of mittle England. Yes, Dave™ has bowed to the pressure in recent days from the Tory yellow press and swallowed the myth of the 70 million, dodgy statistics and all.
And just like the yellow press, he does not know what he is talking about. For a start he can't even get the terminology right: “In the past decade, net immigration (sic) in some years has been sort of 200,000, so implying a two million increase over a decade, which I think is too much." The correct term is net migration (immigration - emigration = net migration). As this figure can be both positive (immigration > emigration) or negative (immigration < emigration), the term net immigration makes no sense whatsoever. Also his facts are WRONG. In the past decade net migration has been approximately 1.75m, not 2m.
The above quote continues: "I don't think that's unrealistic; that's the sort of figure there was in the 1990s and I think we should see that again." Or as the Express helpfully puts it, "He wants annual net immigration to return to the “tens of thousands” seen under the Thatcher and Major governments. Between 1991 and 1995 – when John Major was prime minister – it was 37,000 compared to 163,000 in 2008." In fact the total net migration for the 90's was 645,000, about 37% of the rate during the past decade. Also, the figures for the Thatcher and Major years were: '91- 43,000. '92 - 10,000, '93 - -1,200 (i.e. emigration exceeded immigration), 94 - 76,800 and 95 - 75,400. And the figures for the first full year of Nu Labour, 60,000.
Cameron also gets it wrong in a number of other ways. For example, he completely ignores the fact that the figure for the net natural population change (births - deaths) now exceeds the figure for net migration. The figures show that a similar situation existed throughout the Tory years of the 90's but the change to a Nu Labour government also saw the net natural population change exceeded by net migration. This situation reversed again last year.
Other things likely to put a spoke in the wheels of Cameron's anti-immigration policy. For a start he cannot limit the number of EU nationals that come to live and work in the UK without wrecking the basic commitment to the free movement of labour and jeopardising the UK's EU membership. He could of course restrict access for nationals from any new EU member countries (Iceland, Macedonia, Croatia, and Turkey are currently prospective members), as Nu Labour did recently.
Then there are all the many UK citizens living abroad who might just suddenly develope a sudden urge to avail themselves of the National Health Service that the Nu Tories' have recently pledged to protect. Prospective employers are also very worried about the potential effects on the ability to move workers around their multi-national empires and to be able to recruit from abroad. The there are the 39,000 people a year who come to the UK on spousal visas after marrying British citizens abroad. The list goes on...
All this is of course predicated by the Office for National Statistics projections of a UK population of 70m by 2029, which itself was based on a net migration figure peak between 2005-08. The only way this could be sustained for the next 20 years is if a country the size of Poland joined every 3 years AND Cameron did not avail himself of the 7 year restriction of movement derogation.
Naturally, Cameron also sought to try and protect his 'nice chap' image, after all he couldn't be seen to be too racist. "I'm in favour of immigration – we've benefited from immigration – but I think the pressures, particularly on our public services, have been very great. I think we should be focusing on the pressure on our public services, on health and education and housing." So why was he focusing so much on the distant sepia tones of the Thatcher and Major eras?
That's what Cameron actually had to say, what about how the papers covered it?
Almost all fell in line with Cameron's misuse of the term net (im)migration. The Guardian also managed to screw-up the ONS figures: "Office of National Statistics figures suggest that the population will rise by 9 million to reach 70 million by 2028." That was the projection released in 2008, the latest figure put back hitting the magic 70m mark to 2029.
The Times appeared to be the only paper to pick up on the net natural population change issue, except the do not know what they are talking about too. "The overwhelming majority of this growth will be driven by rising fertility — partly linked to immigrant mothers being younger and having larger families — and immigration." Come again? What else is the growth going to be driven by but immigration and the birth rate. Emigration and deaths can only decrease to population. They also fail to show that natural growth would exceed migration in the projections, but they could hardly do that considering the in a companion opinion piece from MigrationBotch's Alan Green (a conceit considering that effectively Alan Green = MigrationWatch) that contained a whopping great lie.
The piece, entitled ‘If the Tories are serious about immigration it will be in the manifesto’, replete with a Daily Mail-style photo of a Calais migrant, was a giant piece of wish fulfilment on Green's part. "This is a significant development. He does not make stray remarks on this subject. Indeed, he has hardly mentioned it since a major speech on population two years ago." "He has definitely moved the debate forwards. Instead of the usual accusations of racism* there is now a more reasoned acceptance by the political class that current rates of immigration into Britain are unsustainable." Says who?
The lie: "The latest population projections from the Office for National Statistics show that the United Kingdom’s population will reach 70 million in 20 years’ time and that just over two thirds of this increase will be because of immigration." There is absolutely no way, even with MigrationBotch's usual 'flair' for manipulation/selective use of statistics, that this is true. To directly quote the ONS' National Population Projection 2008-Based, "Of the 4.3 million projected increase in the UK population over the next 10 years, some 2.4 million (56 per cent) is a result of projected natural increase (more births than deaths) while the remaining 1.9 million (44 per cent) is the assumed net number of migrants. Similarly, of the 10.2 million projected increase in the population by 2033, 5.6 million (55 per cent) is due to projected natural increase and 4.6 million (45 per cent) is due to projected net migration."
This is a lie he has peddled before, back in October last year when the ONS released its statistics, and one which the Mail swallowed wholesale. What he is conflating here is the population growth due to net migration AND the projected natural increase by births to those people he labels as immigrants i.e. not what he would label as 'British by birth'. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.
The one other thing that the Times did, which the other dailies didn't, was to quote Alan Johnson's spokesman. "David Cameron cannot meaningfully commit to keeping Britain’s population below 70 million. Chinese-style family controls don’t exactly fit with his stated aim of rolling back the influence of the State.” Precisely, for someone who aims for a minimal state and constantly espouses delegation of central powers to local government, he is talking about an awful lot of micro-management that begins to butt up against the margins of eugenics here.
The Telegraph was of course in seventh heaven, with a slight warning note attached: "Mr Cameron is right to recognise that immigration levels should be sensitive to the requirements of a free market. Indeed, he must be careful that he does not put a cap on net inflow that stops British industry responding quickly to a sudden need for skilled workers."
"It is a shame that Mr Cameron did not discuss Europe yesterday. Our control over immigration is enormously limited by the law of the European Union, leading to scandalous abuses," referring to Pakistani men are "contracting marriages with European women they barely know." Aaargh!
Today's prize (actually yesterday's, but we had an awful lot to do yesterday) goes to the Star (Simply the best what 7 days a week?) for its coverage of events. In 'David Cameron: I Will Stem Tide Of Migrants', not only do they put words into his mouth but they can't even get the 'myth' right. "The Daily Star has already revealed the Office For National Statistics predicts the total could hit 74 million by 2029", except that they didn't. "The UK population is projected to increase from an estimated 61.4 million in 2008 to 71.6 million in 2033", it's 70m by 2029 you idiots. However, the piece de resistance was their comment 'Cameron Talks Immigration Sense'. A pity they don't.
"Hundreds of thousands of foreigners have been flooding to Britain every year. Public services like the NHS and council housing cannot cope. The whole national infrastructure could collapse. We need to close our doors. That’s what the nation wants. And that’s the pledge we’ll expect from ALL party leaders come election time." Nuff said.
* On a recent Radio 4 program Iconoclasts, he threatened to sue Philippe Legrain if he did not withdraw the comment that he (Green) was a racist. Unfortunately Legrain did. Greens argument was that because he has spent most of his life abroad living and working amongst foreigners. Surely that is exactly what all those bureaucrats and army officers did during the British Empire and no one would seriously argue that they weren't racist?
And just like the yellow press, he does not know what he is talking about. For a start he can't even get the terminology right: “In the past decade, net immigration (sic) in some years has been sort of 200,000, so implying a two million increase over a decade, which I think is too much." The correct term is net migration (immigration - emigration = net migration). As this figure can be both positive (immigration > emigration) or negative (immigration < emigration), the term net immigration makes no sense whatsoever. Also his facts are WRONG. In the past decade net migration has been approximately 1.75m, not 2m.
The above quote continues: "I don't think that's unrealistic; that's the sort of figure there was in the 1990s and I think we should see that again." Or as the Express helpfully puts it, "He wants annual net immigration to return to the “tens of thousands” seen under the Thatcher and Major governments. Between 1991 and 1995 – when John Major was prime minister – it was 37,000 compared to 163,000 in 2008." In fact the total net migration for the 90's was 645,000, about 37% of the rate during the past decade. Also, the figures for the Thatcher and Major years were: '91- 43,000. '92 - 10,000, '93 - -1,200 (i.e. emigration exceeded immigration), 94 - 76,800 and 95 - 75,400. And the figures for the first full year of Nu Labour, 60,000.
Cameron also gets it wrong in a number of other ways. For example, he completely ignores the fact that the figure for the net natural population change (births - deaths) now exceeds the figure for net migration. The figures show that a similar situation existed throughout the Tory years of the 90's but the change to a Nu Labour government also saw the net natural population change exceeded by net migration. This situation reversed again last year.
Other things likely to put a spoke in the wheels of Cameron's anti-immigration policy. For a start he cannot limit the number of EU nationals that come to live and work in the UK without wrecking the basic commitment to the free movement of labour and jeopardising the UK's EU membership. He could of course restrict access for nationals from any new EU member countries (Iceland, Macedonia, Croatia, and Turkey are currently prospective members), as Nu Labour did recently.
Then there are all the many UK citizens living abroad who might just suddenly develope a sudden urge to avail themselves of the National Health Service that the Nu Tories' have recently pledged to protect. Prospective employers are also very worried about the potential effects on the ability to move workers around their multi-national empires and to be able to recruit from abroad. The there are the 39,000 people a year who come to the UK on spousal visas after marrying British citizens abroad. The list goes on...
All this is of course predicated by the Office for National Statistics projections of a UK population of 70m by 2029, which itself was based on a net migration figure peak between 2005-08. The only way this could be sustained for the next 20 years is if a country the size of Poland joined every 3 years AND Cameron did not avail himself of the 7 year restriction of movement derogation.
Naturally, Cameron also sought to try and protect his 'nice chap' image, after all he couldn't be seen to be too racist. "I'm in favour of immigration – we've benefited from immigration – but I think the pressures, particularly on our public services, have been very great. I think we should be focusing on the pressure on our public services, on health and education and housing." So why was he focusing so much on the distant sepia tones of the Thatcher and Major eras?
That's what Cameron actually had to say, what about how the papers covered it?
Almost all fell in line with Cameron's misuse of the term net (im)migration. The Guardian also managed to screw-up the ONS figures: "Office of National Statistics figures suggest that the population will rise by 9 million to reach 70 million by 2028." That was the projection released in 2008, the latest figure put back hitting the magic 70m mark to 2029.
The Times appeared to be the only paper to pick up on the net natural population change issue, except the do not know what they are talking about too. "The overwhelming majority of this growth will be driven by rising fertility — partly linked to immigrant mothers being younger and having larger families — and immigration." Come again? What else is the growth going to be driven by but immigration and the birth rate. Emigration and deaths can only decrease to population. They also fail to show that natural growth would exceed migration in the projections, but they could hardly do that considering the in a companion opinion piece from MigrationBotch's Alan Green (a conceit considering that effectively Alan Green = MigrationWatch) that contained a whopping great lie.
The piece, entitled ‘If the Tories are serious about immigration it will be in the manifesto’, replete with a Daily Mail-style photo of a Calais migrant, was a giant piece of wish fulfilment on Green's part. "This is a significant development. He does not make stray remarks on this subject. Indeed, he has hardly mentioned it since a major speech on population two years ago." "He has definitely moved the debate forwards. Instead of the usual accusations of racism* there is now a more reasoned acceptance by the political class that current rates of immigration into Britain are unsustainable." Says who?
The lie: "The latest population projections from the Office for National Statistics show that the United Kingdom’s population will reach 70 million in 20 years’ time and that just over two thirds of this increase will be because of immigration." There is absolutely no way, even with MigrationBotch's usual 'flair' for manipulation/selective use of statistics, that this is true. To directly quote the ONS' National Population Projection 2008-Based, "Of the 4.3 million projected increase in the UK population over the next 10 years, some 2.4 million (56 per cent) is a result of projected natural increase (more births than deaths) while the remaining 1.9 million (44 per cent) is the assumed net number of migrants. Similarly, of the 10.2 million projected increase in the population by 2033, 5.6 million (55 per cent) is due to projected natural increase and 4.6 million (45 per cent) is due to projected net migration."
This is a lie he has peddled before, back in October last year when the ONS released its statistics, and one which the Mail swallowed wholesale. What he is conflating here is the population growth due to net migration AND the projected natural increase by births to those people he labels as immigrants i.e. not what he would label as 'British by birth'. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands.
The one other thing that the Times did, which the other dailies didn't, was to quote Alan Johnson's spokesman. "David Cameron cannot meaningfully commit to keeping Britain’s population below 70 million. Chinese-style family controls don’t exactly fit with his stated aim of rolling back the influence of the State.” Precisely, for someone who aims for a minimal state and constantly espouses delegation of central powers to local government, he is talking about an awful lot of micro-management that begins to butt up against the margins of eugenics here.
The Telegraph was of course in seventh heaven, with a slight warning note attached: "Mr Cameron is right to recognise that immigration levels should be sensitive to the requirements of a free market. Indeed, he must be careful that he does not put a cap on net inflow that stops British industry responding quickly to a sudden need for skilled workers."
"It is a shame that Mr Cameron did not discuss Europe yesterday. Our control over immigration is enormously limited by the law of the European Union, leading to scandalous abuses," referring to Pakistani men are "contracting marriages with European women they barely know." Aaargh!
Today's prize (actually yesterday's, but we had an awful lot to do yesterday) goes to the Star (Simply the best what 7 days a week?) for its coverage of events. In 'David Cameron: I Will Stem Tide Of Migrants', not only do they put words into his mouth but they can't even get the 'myth' right. "The Daily Star has already revealed the Office For National Statistics predicts the total could hit 74 million by 2029", except that they didn't. "The UK population is projected to increase from an estimated 61.4 million in 2008 to 71.6 million in 2033", it's 70m by 2029 you idiots. However, the piece de resistance was their comment 'Cameron Talks Immigration Sense'. A pity they don't.
"Hundreds of thousands of foreigners have been flooding to Britain every year. Public services like the NHS and council housing cannot cope. The whole national infrastructure could collapse. We need to close our doors. That’s what the nation wants. And that’s the pledge we’ll expect from ALL party leaders come election time." Nuff said.
* On a recent Radio 4 program Iconoclasts, he threatened to sue Philippe Legrain if he did not withdraw the comment that he (Green) was a racist. Unfortunately Legrain did. Greens argument was that because he has spent most of his life abroad living and working amongst foreigners. Surely that is exactly what all those bureaucrats and army officers did during the British Empire and no one would seriously argue that they weren't racist?
Monday, 11 January 2010
Mercure Hotel Protest - Statement By Participants
Today a group of 10 people from Brighton No Borders took part in a peaceful protest at the Mercure Hotel, Povey Cross Road, Crawley, demonstrating against Arora Hotels International Ltd.’s plans to turn the 254-bed four-star Mercure hotel into the third immigration detention centre in the Gatwick area.
The anti-detention campaigners unfurled banners calling for an end to detention and deportation inside the hotel’s main lobby and distributed leaflets to both staff and customers explaining their reasons for opposing the application. On arrival, the demonstrators asked to speak to the Manager, who arrived quickly but refused to give any comment. Most staff seemed surprised to hear of the proposals and both customers and some staff were initially willing to listen to the demonstrators. However, the management quickly adopted heavy handed and threatening behaviour, attempting to seize banners, leaflets and cameras and on at least three occasions pushing the demonstrators. They repeated demands to leave and then called the police. The demonstrators remained in the lobby, although senior staff became increasingly abusive and began to escort passing customers out through a side door to prevent demonstrators from engaging with them or handing out leaflets.
After about 30 minutes three police vehicles arrived, at which point the demonstrators calmly left the building. They were then detained by police, while the manager made false accusations of damage to property and anti-social behaviour. The police tried to force the demonstrators to give their personal details, threatening arrest, but after a brief stand-off seemed to realise the disproportionate nature of their response and let them leave.
This demonstration was successful in drawing the hotel management’s proposals to the attention of customers and staff. Following a similar demonstration outside the Manchester branch of the hotel chain last week, it showed the company management that there is considerable opposition to the application and to their disgusting attempt to profit from the detention of children and families, the harmful impact of which has been widely reported. As the first application of this kind, we also wanted to send a clear message to the hotel industry more widely that this type of proposal will be met with strong opposition.
The application is due to be considered by Crawley Borough Council on 25 January and there will be a larger demonstration on this day.
The anti-detention campaigners unfurled banners calling for an end to detention and deportation inside the hotel’s main lobby and distributed leaflets to both staff and customers explaining their reasons for opposing the application. On arrival, the demonstrators asked to speak to the Manager, who arrived quickly but refused to give any comment. Most staff seemed surprised to hear of the proposals and both customers and some staff were initially willing to listen to the demonstrators. However, the management quickly adopted heavy handed and threatening behaviour, attempting to seize banners, leaflets and cameras and on at least three occasions pushing the demonstrators. They repeated demands to leave and then called the police. The demonstrators remained in the lobby, although senior staff became increasingly abusive and began to escort passing customers out through a side door to prevent demonstrators from engaging with them or handing out leaflets.
After about 30 minutes three police vehicles arrived, at which point the demonstrators calmly left the building. They were then detained by police, while the manager made false accusations of damage to property and anti-social behaviour. The police tried to force the demonstrators to give their personal details, threatening arrest, but after a brief stand-off seemed to realise the disproportionate nature of their response and let them leave.
This demonstration was successful in drawing the hotel management’s proposals to the attention of customers and staff. Following a similar demonstration outside the Manchester branch of the hotel chain last week, it showed the company management that there is considerable opposition to the application and to their disgusting attempt to profit from the detention of children and families, the harmful impact of which has been widely reported. As the first application of this kind, we also wanted to send a clear message to the hotel industry more widely that this type of proposal will be met with strong opposition.
The application is due to be considered by Crawley Borough Council on 25 January and there will be a larger demonstration on this day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)