Part of England has been invaded

Part of England has just been  invaded.  The Hampshire town of Aldershot has suddenly been treated to a an exceptionally large dose of “the joy of diversity” by the transformation of the town through a massive influx of Ghurkha soldiers and their dependants, viz:.

“ Rushmoor Borough councillor Charles Choudhary, who has responsibility for community support, said thousands of Gurkhas had moved in since those with four years service earned the right to UK residency. [Rushmoor Borough Council  includes Aldershot]

He said: “We welcome the Gurkhas, they have done a lot of service for this country and it is very much appreciated. I understand that it is because of their ties with Aldershot that they all come here.

“But it is the number of people arriving that is the problem. When you’ve got 6,000-9,000 coming to the town it’s bound to have an effect on all services, it’s quite natural.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8319201/One-in-ten-of-the-population-of-Aldershot-is-Nepalese-after-an-influx-of-Gurkhas.html

Here is the Daily Telegraph reporting on some of the effects as of 22 February 2011:

“Today, one in 10 of Aldershot’s 90,000 residents hails from Nepal. Gerald Howarth, the local MP and a defence minister, recently raised the issue with David Cameron, claiming that public services are at risk of being overwhelmed.

“One surgery in his constituency has had to take on an extra GP after Nepalese incomers, many of them elderly and unwell, swelled its patient list from 6,000 to 9,000. Some 800 children with Nepali as their first language have arrived in the constituency and must be accommodated in schools. Overall, there has been a 280 per cent increase in Nepalese households in the past year, with 20 new people arriving every week.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8339467/The-Gurkhas-in-Aldershot-Little-Nepal.html

The Telegraph misses out jobs and housing. What is truly amazing is that between 6,000-9,000 have been housed in a county which is one of the most expensive in the country for property? Many native Britons cannot find a home there. Here is   Rushmoor Borough Council   assessing the local housing situation in 2009:

“The HNS  [Housing Market Assessment] established a newly arising need from around 700 households per year, who are unable to buy or rent in the market. By deducting the annual supply of affordable housing, the total affordable housing need was identified in the region of 680 dwellings per year.

“This level of affordable housing need, combined with market demand, is significantly higher than the level of provision set out in the Draft South East Plan and, therefore, cannot be delivered.” http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/media/adobepdf/p/h/housingstrategyupdatemay09.pdf

Ironically, this report is topped with two photos, one of a white family and one of a white pensioner couple all beaming.  One rather suspects they are not smiling now.

Most of the Gurkhas will have arrived recently because they only got the right to settle in Britain with full entitlement to the welfare state  including social housing  in 2009.  How can Aldershot suddenly accommodate at least 6,000 extra people when they cannot meet the housing needs  of their own people?

Nor are the Gurkhas housed in sub-standard accommodation because as  Rushmoor Borough Council  stipulates  on their website:

“ Before this country allows immigration, the Home Office require confirmation from us that the accommodation provided for that person reaches a certain standard.

“In most cases, properties will be inspected to ensure that they are in a reasonable condition, that there are adequate kitchen and bathroom facilities and that the property will not be overcrowded with additional people living there.

“You will need to complete  Application for an Immigration Inspection form [46kb] to request an accommodation inspection and this service costs £109.57 plus VAT. Payment is required before an inspection can take place. Please ensure that all names on the form are spelt correctly and you have given the right dates of birth.

“If the property is owned by a private landlord or a housing association, you need to get permission from your landlord before you request the inspection.” http://www.rushmoor.gov.uk/index.cfm?articleid=9094

‘Mr Howarth’s intervention has unleashed a torrent of previously suppressed opinion, with 70 per cent of his constituents backing his decision to raise this sensitive issue at the highest level. On the website of the local newspaper, gethampshire.co.uk, one resident notes that it “reflects what very, very many people in Aldershot are saying under their breath”.’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8339467/The-Gurkhas-in-Aldershot-Little-Nepal.html.

How did this invasion come about?  In 2009  the actress Joanna Lumley led a campaign which forced the Brown Government into abandoning rules that prevented members of the Gurkha Brigade who had  retired before 1997 settling in Britain. This meant that Britain took on a considerable burden:

“In total there are 36,000 former Gurkhas: if their immediate families are included, then more than 100,000 Nepalese citizens are eligible to move to Britain. Since May 2009, the Government has issued more than 7,500 visas… Settlement costs for ex-Gurkhas could run up to £400 million…” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8339467/The-Gurkhas-in-Aldershot-Little-Nepal.html

Howarth does not mince his words regarding  Joanna Lumley. ‘”You have to be objective in politics,” he says. “And that campaign was a nakedly emotional tugging of the heartstrings. It completely failed to take into account what would happen afterwards.” Miss Lumley was not available for comment yesterday.’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8339467/The-Gurkhas-in-Aldershot-Little-Nepal.html

I’ll bet she wasn’t available and won’t be available for a very long time.   She has done  the classic liberal bigot thing of playing the bleeding heart in public whilst knowing she will not suffer the consequences of her actions.

Because she is rich it will not be Lumley who finds herself without decent accommodation because of the influx; it will not be Lumley who has to fight  her way through a crowded GP’s surgery; it will not be Lumley who has to send  her children to overcrowded schools where English is not the first language of the children; it will not even be Lumley who finds her immediate domestic  territory invaded by the mere presence of so many Ghurkhas because she lives in a house which will be well away from the mess she has created.  That is the plain obnoxious  truth.

But important as all those things are, they are details in a more fundamental loss; the loss of control of territory. Effectively, the Gurhkas have captured part of England.  They have done this with the collusion of the British government and the cohort of media liberals who amplify and fan the demands of foreigners to come to our land.

The permitting of mass migration is a criminal act.  It it is the most profound of all treasons, because unlike foreign invasion by force it cannot  negated simply by acts of war.  The immigrants or their descendants take or obtain through birth citizenship of this country and thus gain a legal legitimacy that no foreign invader can have. Nor can they be driven from the country as a foreign invader might be, because many  will not have a country willing to receive them.

How should Lumley be brought to a realisation of her  actions? I suggest this.  Her home and any other property should be confiscated and used to house native Britons in need of housing.  She should be forced to live in the most meagre of accommodation, preferably in a tower block where she is the only white English resident.  Her wealth should be seized and used to defray the costs of the Gurkha  invasion.  Ditto any  future earnings she receives which are above  the level of the state support for the unemployed.   (Well, a man can dream). Then she might just possibly understand fully what she has done.

As for the Gurkhas, I have long taken the view that the employment of mercenaries (for that is what they are) is simply inappropriate in post-imperial circumstances.  On that ground alone I would dispense with them.  Nor are all  Ghurkhas paragons of devotion to Britain. They may even be using the mass invasion of  Aldershot as a means to an end by suggesting that if the full British pension is  paid in Nepal many would return there:

‘”There are too many cultural and language barriers here,” says Mahendra Lal Rai, the director of the Gaeso centre, and a third-generation Gurkha (his father lost an arm in the Second World War). He lowers his voice and points at the quiet huddle glued to the television. “If they are given equal pensions, many will go back home and live with dignity.”’ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8339467/The-Gurkhas-in-Aldershot-Little-Nepal.html

As Gerald Howarth says  that smacks of blackmail: “I don’t like the implicit threat over pensions: ‘pay us more and we’ll go back to Nepal’. What am I meant to say to other servicemen? There’s huge competition to become a Gurkha, and they signed up on a pension that bought them a decent standard of living at home.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/8339467/The-Gurkhas-in-Aldershot-Little-Nepal.html

Amen to that.

This incident is dramatic because of  its  size,  speed and its concentration in one town, but it is symptomatic  of what has happened to England over the past 60 years (the vast majority of UK immigration is into England), namely,  the steady conquest of England by those who will not or cannot assimilate wholly into English  culture. Indeed, many immigrants make active attempts to remain  outside of English culture.  To accept for settlement  such people in vast numbers is to at best import racial and ethnic conflict where it did not exist before and at worst to sound the death knell of England.

The rate of  invasion is increasing. From 1997 onwards Labour in their period of government allowed three million   into Britain ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/8339075/More-than-three-million-migrants-under-Labour.html)  This is one of the two primary reasons for the present and growing housing shortage, the other being a failure of governments for over a quarter of a century to ensure that the rate of house building remained buoyant.  More fundamentally, many of those immigrants  have received British citizenship (which  these days given out as easily as  candyfloss at a cinema) and are entitled to vote. A million or  two new voters concentrated in city constituencies can have a big effect of a general election.  It is unlikely that these new voters  will vote for any party which stands on a platform of stopping mass migration and very likely they will vote for politicians who support its continuing. Thus is our political system and society corrupted.  

Those who are old enough to remember what England was before the post-war immigration really took hold – and I am one of them – will know what we have lost. England has gone from being a wonderfully homogeneous country with a great degree of personal liberty in deed and speech  without  any  racial and precious little ethnic conflict where the native population felt utterly at ease because they felt secure in their territory  to a land wracked with ethnic and racial disquiet where the imposition of the totalitarian ideology known as political correctness means a  man can lose  his livelihood or even suffer imprisonment simply  because he has either spoken frankly about the ill effects of immigration or simply expressed his frustration by racially abusing someone in an argument.

We have perhaps another generation to stop this madness.  After that ethnic minorities will probably form a quarter or more of the population and civil war will be the only remedy.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Culture, Immigration, Nationhood and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Part of England has been invaded

  1. efgd says:

    “the other being a failure of governments for over a quarter of a century to ensure that the rate of house building remained buoyant. ” Huge big big failure. That and the fact there are too many empty houses slowly going into disrepair. If such houses were accommodated to those on waiting lists you would be amazed at how many people would be housed: there were a total of 651,993 empty homes in 2009.
    http://www.emptyhomes.com/usefulresources/stats/2009breakdown.htm

    As for the homogeneous indigenous people of England, take a look at the number of English that go to Spain to live, taking up Spanish homes, raising the house prices, fail to learn Spanish and start up English ghettos all around the Spanish coast, the Spanish dislike us for the same reason you quote in your blog. The English do not assimilate and take up resident, causing drinking problems and cultural disagreements. Foreigners are foreigners regardless of race or culture. What we have been doing in Spain, Italy and France is being done to us. The number of failed businesses and the cost of health-care and education, as if you do not speak Spanish you have to go to an English speaking school. The Spanish do not accommodate us, though our benefits can be adapted through the EU agreement: “If you are unemployed, you can move to one or more EU countries to look for work and continue to receive the unemployment benefits you are entitled to in the country where you became unemployed.

    You can only do this if you are:
    an EU national wholly unemployed (not partially or intermittently) entitled to receive unemployment benefits in the country where you became unemployed.
    You would then be paid the same amount as before directly to your bank account in the country where you became unemployed. In principle, you can stay for up to 3 months in another country, but your home job centre might allow you to remain abroad for up to 6 months if you ask.” http://ec.europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/work/jobseeker/transferring-unemployment-benefits/eu-eu_en.htm

    We do the same in Spain as you say the immigrants are doing to England:
    http://www.byebyeblighty.com/1/british-immigrants-swamping-spanish-villages/

    Point is in a free country the movement of people could be offset by migration, by having a balanced migration and immigration – what goes out comes in. Also like Australia we could have strict immigration rules that apply to working and living in the UK.

    Of course if all the Gurkha’s and their families are deposited in one place – that like other immigration issues is one of the problems. If immigrants are found homes then it would be politically adept to spread them out, this is not the fault of the immigrants per say, it is also the fault of the system. We do not yet know if such immigrants, the Gurkha’s and their families, will or will not assimilate into our society. It would be prudent of all immigrants to so, but then so should we.

    Some interesting immigration – migration stats: http://www.scribd.com/doc/44598125/Migration-Statistics-briefing-November-2010

  2. Geoff, Worcester, England says:

    I hate to say this, but higher pensions for the Gurkhas might be cheaper in the long run, if they decide to return home. What our native born service personnel/veterans and their families, I wouldn’t like to say. It’s imperative that this scheme is not made available to future Gurkhas. better still, the Army shouldn’t be hiring mercenaries in the first place. However good they are at their jobs, mercenaries never have true loyalty to their employers. They are simply guns for hire, like most people are when they move from employer to employer.

    As for the pampered ‘liberal’ luvvie mob like Lumley, don’t get me started.

  3. John says:

    I live in Aldershot. Gerald Howarth cites a population figure for Rushmoor of approx 90,000. The figure for the population in the last census was 91000! We are not being overwhelmed, population loss sustained in recent years is being reversed. The local paper went to most local schools, doctors etc and the vast majority stated there was no big issue due to the immigration of Nepalese. (One surgery has employed an extra doctor, others report that some consultations take longer due to the poor english of the subject. Shame the governments have been cutting back English as a second language funding in recent years then .) This area has had an over-supply of schools places in recent years. (Hence the fact they are currently closing Oak Farm school, ironically in the area where many Gurkhas are settling. If there is such a crisis of supply why is this decision not being reversed? Rents are rising however that was happening long before the Gurkha’s turned up, this area has a high % of house ownership and the rental market is small. Whilst Hampshire may be an expensive place to buy you’ll find that plenty of cheap(ish) housing can be found in Rushmoor compared to most neighbouring boroughs and many who can’t afford to buy in other parts of Hampshire / Surrey buy here. (People who are now having their house price propped up by the extra supply generated by the Gurkha community incidentally. Many of those moaning about the incomers don’t seem to be too upset about that part.) Note too that the Aldershot Urban Extension is just about to commence (at long last.) This will provide a huge swathe of new housing, facilities etc. (It was the biggest urban regeneration in Europe at the time it was announced but they’ve spent so long messing around with it that may no longer be true.) Strange that the Telegraph didn’t even seem to realise this was happening?!

    Rushmoor Council – representing one of the poorest areas in southern England – has had one of the worst % cuts in government grant of any local council. This at a time when population is clearly expanding. If Gerald Howarth, a government minister, was serious about representing this area he would be kicking off about this and resigning if need be. Can’t think why he didn’t……………

    There have been minor issues within the local community. Sensationalist reporting claiming we are overwhelmed etc will not help. We have to live, and work, together to make a better Aldershot / Farnborough. Both are badly run down in many ways, hello Rushmoor Council, they run two towns and have made a bit of a mess of both of them. The changes will bring challenges however I’m confident that this area will emerge a better area for the changes it is undergoing.

    Sorry this doesn’t fit into your theories but hey I only live here, what would I know?

    • The real place you inhabit, John, is the fantasy world of the liberal who imagines that people are interchangeable vide, your idea that having up to 9,000 Nepalese moving to Aldershot is simply replacing English people who have moved away. People are self-evidently not interchangeable, hence the history of humanity being a history of war and oppression not one of peace and multiculturalism. Clearly the people of Aldershot are not as one in their response to 9,000 odd very alien people being dumped on them. Here’s a question for you, do you think that the native Aldershot residents should have had a legally binding vote on whether they had 9,000 odd foreigners invading their territory? If not, why not?
      Your comments on cheap housing are contradicted by Rushmoor Council’s assessment. You also rather give the game away by saying the influx of Gurhkas has kept property prices up. That is only beneficial to those with property who live in it or rent it out. It disadvantages those without property. Let me guess, you are a property owner. Am I right? Would you be willing to give up your home to house the Gurkhas? Would you be willing to give up your home to house native born Britons?
      As for the other costs they are inflicting upon the taxpayer such as those arising from medical and educational provision, are you willing to give any wealth or property you have and any future earnings above subsistence to defray them?
      If you are not willing to do all that, you are just like Lumley; willing to play the bleeding heart advocate, but not to pay for the consequences which flow from that role.

      • John says:

        “The real place you inhabit, John, is the fantasy world of the liberal who imagines that people are interchangeable vide, your idea that having up to 9,000 Nepalese moving to Aldershot is simply replacing English people who have moved away.”

        Actually many of them would not have been English. A lot of that population loss is due to the army moving people out of Aldershot. (The Gurkha’s included as it happens.) Check out what % of our army is not British born. Besides my point was actually that the population here is less than it was ten years ago so it’s ludicrous to suggest the area has been overwhelmed. A very different point to the one you are replying to.

        “Clearly the people of Aldershot are not as one in their response to 9,000 odd very alien people being dumped on them. Here’s a question for you, do you think that the native Aldershot residents should have had a legally binding vote on whether they had 9,000 odd foreigners invading their territory? If not, why not?”

        No I don’t. It would be ludicrously expensive to hold a referendum on anything and everything. We elect a government / local government etc and hold politicians to account via that method. (Besides the immigration policy of Great Britain really shouldn’t be decided by the 90000 residents of Rushmoor alone.) Incidentally can you prove that figure of 9000? In reality no-one knows for sure. (There are various estimates flying around locally, 9000 is at the high end. My gut reaction is that is a little high but not by much.) They say the current arrival rate is 20 a week, if that has been consistent you’d need a lot longer than the Gurkha’s have had rights to hit 5000 mind. (There were already about 4000 living here prior to Joanna Lumley getting involved. I agree the fact no-one really seems to know the figures is a disgrace. Also the 9000/90000 figure is usually cited as for Rushmoor not Aldershot though I accept you probably picked that up from the Telegraph who don’t seem to realise that Rushmoor and Aldershot are not interchangeable and that many of the Nepalese are settling in Farnborough not Aldershot.)

        “Your comments on cheap housing are contradicted by Rushmoor Council’s assessment.”

        I’m talking about housing being cheap in relation to surrounding areas not cheap per se. You won’t buy a house here for 25k. (We have the likes of Elvetham Heath, Farnham, Cobham, Walton, Weybridge, Woking, Guildford etc within easy striking distance of here. Prices are far cheaper here than in any of those. Partially due to the poorer public transport connections not appealing to buy to let investors you’ll probably be pleased to hear which is one of the reasons for a shortage of rental property.)

        “You also rather give the game away by saying the influx of Gurhkas has kept property prices up. That is only beneficial to those with property who live in it or rent it out. It disadvantages those without property. Let me guess, you are a property owner. Am I right? Would you be willing to give up your home to house the Gurkhas? Would you be willing to give up your home to house native born Britons?”

        I own a small flat. I bought three years ago after 10 years renting rooms in a shared house to save the money for a deposit etc. I’d rather do that then expect the state to pay for a house for me. Of course I won’t give it up for anyone of any nationality as that would be making myself voluntarily homeless which has rather serious consequences. (Unless perhaps you are willing to give up your house for me under such circumstances given I’m English born and bred?) As for the spare room, someone whose marriage has collapsed is currently using that so I can’t fit anyone else in. Oh and my property is worth less than I paid for it so don’t think we are cashing in through booming prices due to the Gurkhas.

        “As for the other costs they are inflicting upon the taxpayer such as those arising from medical and educational provision, are you willing to give any wealth or property you have and any future earnings above subsistence to defray them?”

        I’m a taxpayer and yes I will happily pay an element of taxation. The suggestion I should pay beyond that is ludicrous. Your apparent belief that I make government policy and thus should be liable for funding it is both deeply flattering hugely wrong.

        “If you are not willing to do all that, you are just like Lumley; willing to play the bleeding heart advocate, but not to pay for the consequences which flow from that role.”

        Sticks and stones dear boy……….

        If you go back to my original reply you will find I set out several areas where your premise is wrong. (Population down over the last ten years, hardly overwhelmed. Local public services being closed down due to a lack of demand – Oak Farm School, or reporting no substantial impact to date – see http://www.gethampshire.co.uk for detailed comments by schools, doctors etc, that rising rental levels were occuring before the Gurkha’s arrived etc.) You haven’t answered any of those points, instead choosing to suggest I should single handedly pay for it all and taking pops at me for allegedly being a liberal. (I’m deeply flattered you know so much about me after just one post by the way.) Sadly this illustrates the reason why I posted here. Gerald Howarth has picked a very unfortunate word in “overwhelmed”. Apart from being plain wrong it drags the debate down to a pretty tacky level. The Gurkha arrival in Rushmoor does pose questions and raise issues that need to be explored, resolved etc. Sadly hurling names around doesn’t do anything to help anyone. The debate is needed but not one couched in such terms. Gerald is supposed to represent Aldershot, actually what he has succeeded in doing is get people thinking the place is a dump in a total crisis. (I’m not a native of Aldershot and have taken several calls today from old friends up north asking what is going on here due to the publicity. Cheers Gerald, just what the area needed.)

  4. Michele says:

    I have worked with the Gurkhas and they are fantastic people, loyal and proudly British. They have served the crown brilliantly and are one of OUR veterans to be treated as such and given the same status. I know that when they were in Borneo during the sixties they put the fear of god up the Indonesians! I was associated with the 6th Battalion Gurkha Rifles, The Princess Margaret’s Own I believe.

    So of course I, like many others who appreciated their worth, supported Joanna Lumley’s fight to make the then Labour Government accept the fact that their service to this country gives them far more right to settlement here than the thousands of other immigrants that they hustled in by the trainloads. Daughter of a Gurkha Officer she also knew their worth, I was proud of her.

    I find this post sad – sad that you either do not understand the service they have loyally given us over centuries not years; or that you do not seem to care – these are not just ‘any immigrants’ they are loyal soldiers of the British Crown.

    I am glad to see that those that live in Aldershot (A town only recently described as ‘dying’) are well aware of the debt the British people owe to these brilliant little fighters. How many of us have heard ” Jai Mahakali, Ayo Gorkhali” and breathed a sigh of relief!

    Sorry but you got this wrong.

  5. I see your heroine Lumley has shown her “heroic” face by hiding it from the consequences of her actions.

    The Gurhkas are simply mercenaries. They fight for Britain because it gives them status and a very good living in their extremely poor country. Moreover, to gain the immense privileges of living in Britain, they now have to have served only a paltry 4 years in the British army.

    Are you willing to make the sacrifices I suggested to John? If not, why not?

  6. Michele says:

    I would be very willing to give up my home to a Gurkha – one saved my life in Borneo, without him I wouldn’t need one, Robert. And I would welcome his family too, because I wouldn’t have one of those either but for them.

    And you show you bias when you claim they are merely mercenaries – the Gurkhas have served the British Crown as part of our Orbat since the 19th century. I am neither left wing or particularly liberal – but I am loyal to those I served with, and the Gurkha have proved their loyalty to Britain over many years.

    You seem to think you know exactly what others should believe, and I am sure that John is delighted his opinion has been corrected – and by the way have you served even the ‘paltry’ four years in the British Army then? If so you learned nothing about respect and loyalty to your fellow soldier. But somehow I doubt it – and I am afraid I have nothing further to say to you.

    • How about giving up your home to one of the locals who has not been able to find decent accommodation because of the influx of Gurlhas?

      How about giving all your wealth in money or other form to pay for the cost of Gurkhas?

      How about having your future earnings taxed to leave you with just enough to subsist on with the rest going to offset the cost of the Gurkhas?

      I presume from your reply that you haven’t as yet even given uop your home to the Gurkhas. Am I right? If I am, when will you do so?

      It is just too easy to be sentimental, Michele, when you don’t suffer the consequences of your sentimentality.

  7. efgd says:

    Robert said, “It is just too easy to be sentimental, Michele, when you don’t suffer the consequences of your sentimentality.” Consequences of sentimentality?
    Most people suffer consequences of their sentimentality – their love for their country, that’s sentimentality, their love for their family and friends, that’s sentimentality and their love for those who have fought for this nation and the freedom it has.
    There is no doubt that towns accommodate people with services etc., as indeed they should under the present government run country.

    Immigrants should be free to come and go as they please, if a group of people have been deemed to have provided us with a service so great that it is worth recognising then so be it. I still prefer ‘balanced immigration’, as depicted by Frank field etc.
    Were you perturbed about Aldershot et al per say or immigration in particular Robert? Maybe if the government of the day had ‘deposited’ mass immigrants around the UK, or in those areas where they were working – 1950s> – were dispersed accordingly, then huge ghettos would not have sprung up. The ghettoizing of peoples is the worst thing that can happen. Even those of a wealthy nature huddle themselves behind looked gates and walls in their own little ghettos. Breathe people, reach out a tad.

    It would help of course if immigrants were to assimilate more so that language is not the barrier, if they were to live by our nations laws, their religious beliefs or cultural way of doing things, they are their own beliefs, for which they should be allowed to hold, but may I suggest that the law and ethics of this country must come first. It would also help if we offered them help instead of hostility of course.

    English should be taught in schools, as someone else mentioned, but as a first, come on a lot of us Brits have language problems, lets get back to the basics of the English language being the dominant language, and second language, especially developing such teaching in classes that have language difficulties, no excuse for living here and not learning the language. Civics and citizenship should be taught to all in education, as in the USA. Difference is good, diversity gives colour, but subversion and disrespect is not.

    As I said before, I believe the Brits should do that when they migrate; neither the Brits who have migrated or the immigrants in the UK are on holiday. You want to live here, so do I, assimilate, learn the language, learn about the nation you are now living in and hopefully working in. We love diversity, but not ghettoised and subversive agendas, tribal gangs or political insurgents of terror. Rant over. The Gurkha’s are not any of those things, to the best of my knowledge. Like I said, breathe people.

    • ” Consequences of sentimentality?
      Most people suffer consequences of their sentimentality – their love for their country, that’s sentimentality, their love for their family and friends, that’s sentimentality and their love for those who have fought for this nation and the freedom it has.”

      That has nothing to do with a case such as this where someone adopts an ostensible cause then fails to accept its consequences. It’s called being a hypocrite.

      “Immigrants should be free to come and go as they please,”

      I put the same questions to you as I put to John and Michele, are you willing to pay out of your pocket for the consequences this mentality has for not only you but for everyone else? Are you willing to surrender your home? Give away your savings and so forth?

      “I still prefer ‘balanced immigration’, as depicted by Frank field etc.”

      You make the same mistake as John of believing that human beings are simply atoms who can be shuffled at will.

      “Were you perturbed about Aldershot et al per say or immigration in particular Robert? ”

      Too right I am. It is a form of conquest.

  8. John – your latest answer merely confirms what I have been saying. You are clearly unwilling to face the consequences of your avowed beliefs. You won’t give up your flat and move into some of that miraculously cheap housing you say is in abundance in one of the priciets counties in England or allow your savings/future income to be used to defray the costs of what you advocate.

    ” (Unless perhaps you are willing to give up your house for me under such circumstances given I’m English born and bred?). ”

    You forget that I am opposed to mass immigration.

    “I’m a taxpayer and yes I will happily pay an element of taxation. The suggestion I should pay beyond that is ludicrous.”

    Ah, the true voice of the white liberal happy to spend anyone’s money but their own.

  9. efgd says:

    “Consequences of sentimentality?
    Most people suffer consequences of their sentimentality – their love for their country, that’s sentimentality, their love for their family and friends, that’s sentimentality and their love for those who have fought for this nation and the freedom it has.”

    “That has nothing to do with a case such as this where someone adopts an ostensible cause then fails to accept its consequences. It’s called being a hypocrite.”

    I believe the word sentimentality it has everything to do with a case such as this – we base our arguments using a sentimental reflection – if you did not love your country you would not care who came into it and from where from. If you did not love your family you would not care what services were available for their well-being, and if you did not have love of freedom you would not care for those who have fought for your freedom. Sentimentality plays its part in this case too. You are sentimental about the fact that we ‘are being invaded’ – for the above reasons maybe? You, like me, are sentimental about the nature of our country. The opposite of sentimental is hard-hearted, indifferent, pragmatic, unemotional, unromantic, unsentimental. Robert you too are being sentimental. But may I suggest trying to be pragmatic through sentiment for our country?

    “Immigrants should be free to come and go as they please,” from here you ask, “Are you willing to surrender your home?” In what way is anybody surrendering their own home? Nobody is being asked to surrender ‘their own home’. Do you mean to say surrender vacant homes to immigrants rather than British nationals? If so say so. The Ghurkha’s or other immigrants are not being housed by forcing someone out of theirs, they are being housed in vacant properties; which could be used to house homeless British nationals. So the question you ask has no meaning. It is a red hearing. Would anybody on this site give up their home to anybody else who needs one, British national or not? Of course not. They would be homeless then and off we go on a silly roundabout. Or do you mean ‘home’ to mean ‘country’? Would I surrender my country? No. But I do believe in freedom of movement, with the curtailing of movement under an agreement of balanced migration/immigration.

    You add and, “Give away your savings and so forth?” Who is asking anybody to give away their savings? I am not sure what criteria comes under “so forth” so I cannot answer it. Again, if you are asking would I give away my savings to a homeless, jobless British national then no I would not. Nor would I too an immigrant. I would however give to not-for-profit organisations or charities that help such people. Such is their ‘luck’ and mine is better.

    Also, in answer to the above, I do pay out of my pocket, via taxes. Are you asking would I voluntary do so if their were no taxes? One assumes no taxes for the provision of homes, education, health care, utilities etc., for immigrants also means none of the above for British nationals? Or are you saying that only British nationals should get such benefits? Thus our taxes should only go through the system and out again for British nationals? If taxes were abolished, or reduced to paying for defence and legislature and the judiciary only, would I be willing to give voluntary to not-for-profit or charitable organisations to provide for the British nationals who are now in a position of no welfare provision, never mind housing provision? Indeed I would. Would I want a set amount to help those immigrants who have come over here to look for work, and are in dire straight, to come out of such a voluntary giving? Yes I would. People are people not different species depending on what country or continent they come from.

    “I still prefer ‘balanced immigration’, as depicted by Frank field etc.”

    “You make the same mistake as John of believing that human beings are simply atoms who can be shuffled at will.”

    Robert I am not suggesting we shuffle anybody, or even put forward a notion that people actually can be shuffled, well actually they can. The Nazis shuffled ‘undesirables’ out of Germany by mainly extermination and imprisonment, then exterminated. The USA can turn back undesirables from their boarders, even Brits have been known to be put back on a plane because they did not meet a particular requirement, and they were going on holiday. We turn back ‘undesirables’ if they do not meet a set criteria or their passport, visas, finances or living accommodation plans do not match up to a set criteria. Undesirables are always seen by some to be all immigrants and or those of a non conformed national identity.

    Balanced migration, I called it balanced immigration, is, as quoted from: http://www.balancedmigration.com/ourcase.php
    “That there should be a limit – not on the number of people who come to work here, but on those permitted to live here permanently.
    This would be a major step towards bringing down the number of immigrants who are given permission to settle here to approximately the number of British citizens who are emigrating. That is what we mean by Balanced Migration“, and, “Economic migration is not the problem. The problem is “family migration” where the dependents of an economic migrant are granted residency. These are often a permanent financial drain on a country, especially if they are elderly, or are non-English speaking spouses who cannot work.”
    http://www.economist.com/node/17522626/comments

    For information;
    Germany has the highest number of foreign citizens in Europe: 7.2m.
    The UK is third with just over 4m
    Latvia has the highest number of non-EU citizens: 17.5%
    In most countries foreign citizens are younger than nationals – only in Poland, Latvia and Estonia is the opposite the case.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/07/immigration-europe-foreign-citizens & http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/ihs0910.pdf
    (Though I question the number of those who took part in the latter survey.)
    http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/charts/6.1.shtml
    http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/07/cameron-cap-immigration-cable & for a good discussion http://www.ippr.org.uk/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=797

    “Were you perturbed about Aldershot et al per say or immigration in particular Robert? ” . You answer by saying, “Too right I am. It is a form of conquest. ”

    From 2000 – 2009 Immigration was 567,000, Emigration was 371,000, therefore Net Migration was 196,000:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306323/Number-immigrants-living-UK-long-term-soars-20-1-year.html & http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=260
    Population of the UK is just under 62 million, with net migration accounted for 45 per cent of the UK population growth, with gross flows of migrants remaining at the levels seen over the past five years. http://www.yorkshirefutures.com/news/uk-population-approaches-62-million
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/pop0610.pdf

    Thus may I suggest you comment that you see immigration as a form of conquest as being a tad sentimental? I am not disagreeing with you that something should be done, but lets not pretend you are not also being sentimental, even if trying to come over as a pragmatist, in your arguments: Would you ban all immigration? Some immigration but especially from certain countries; those of the EU have a ‘right’ under the EU agreement, as have those with British Passports or who are deemed British Citizens – though they may not be of the indigenous homogeneous kind you may be referring to – or what do you suggest?

    • I have not said that sentiment is wrong, merely that this is an instance where its consequences have not been accepted by those ostensibly espousing it.

      The latest official statistics for 1997 to 2010 have a net immigration figure of 3 million which is collossal just in terms of numbers let alone the alien nature of most of the immigrants.

      Even on the numbers you cite since 2,000, you make the error yet again of assuming that those coming in simply replace thiose going out. They don’t. We lose cultural and ethnic weight from those of our own people who leave and the fracturing of our society increases.

      As for asking you to surrender your home and wealth to accommodate and pay for the immigrants you say should be here, all I am doing is saying that you should pay for the social consequences of what you say you believe in and not simply sit back and say I have a house, I don’t have to pay for their costs , I don’t have to compete with them for medical treatment, jobs and education for myself and my family. Those who do suffer – the working class in the main to date, but that is changing as the children of the middle classes struggle to get their own houses and find good jobs – have a right to be compensated by those who support the free movement of peoples.

  10. efgd3833 says:

    Cheers Robert – thanks for the clear up about sentimentality.

    3 million over 13 years as you stated is just over 230,769 immigrants a year (if my maths is correct).

    You said that, “Even on the numbers you cite since 2,000, you make the error yet again of assuming that those coming in simply replace those going out. They don’t. We lose cultural and ethnic weight from those of our own people who leave and the fracturing of our society increases.”

    I am not saying or assuming that those who are coming in are simply replacing those who are leaving. I am saying that we should not let any more immigrants in till the amount left equals the amount coming in. In other words balanced migration should be enforced – it is not at the moment. Of course there is the problem of starting at the equilibrium number in the first place. As Nicholas Soames said in 2009, “… it is to time to re-frame the entire debate about immigration. It is not about who comes, but who stays. And we need to answer a simple question: if we do not want the UK’s population to soar to 70 or even 80 million, what are we going to do about it?”

    The real problem for you seems to be with the type of immigrant coming into the UK, you say they are of a “cultural and ethnic weight [which differs] from those of our own people who leave”, therefore implying that:
    * The majority of those leaving are indigenous (native) homogeneous (harmonised) people.
    * The majority of those coming in are not of the same “racial and ethnic culture” and that therefore, to “accept for settlement” of “such people in vast numbers is to at best import racial and ethnic conflict where it did not exist before and at worst to sound the death knell of England.”

    I personally have no problem with immigration of any nationality – I do however feel that we need a balance. Maybe a halt to all immigration is what some people feel would be best – though that is not practical – as we would, for instance, have to leave the EU or tear up the agreement of free access to work and live between EU nationals.
    Emma Wright and Fiona Aitchison have some interesting data:
    http://www.methods.manchester.ac.uk/events/2010-09-10/wrightaitchison.ppt &
    https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tka0nvP9qG60328hPnRqaIA#gid=0
    & Ethnic background of the foreign-born population, 2009

    A conclusion could be that:
    * White is the largest ethnic group among foreign-born people in all regions and countries, except for the West Midlands where the largest ethnic group is Asian.
    * The largest percentage of both the foreign- and UK-born populations in each region and country are Christian; the Muslim population is also of a notable size in some regions. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/RegionalTrends/rt43-regional-foreign-born.pdf
    & http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/jun/26/non-eu-immigration-uk-statistics#data

    “As for asking you to surrender your home and wealth to accommodate and pay for the immigrants you say should be here, all I am doing is saying that you should pay for the social consequences of what you say you believe in and not simply sit back and say I have a house, I don’t have to pay for their costs , I don’t have to compete with them for medical treatment, jobs and education for myself and my family. Those who do suffer – the working class in the main to date, but that is changing as the children of the middle classes struggle to get their own houses and find good jobs – have a right to be compensated by those who support the free movement of peoples.”

    Point taken so:
    Compensated by whom? The individuals who support the free movement of peoples? How? By taxing them extra? By setting up a ‘mandatory payment scheme’ for pro free movement of peoples adherents (PFMPAs) to pay into? With the money funded going only to non-British nationals, because ‘adherents’ want them, and therefore it is to them that the money collected from the PFMPAs should go to, as British-nationals have the welfare state to look to. Of course this scheme goes two ways with non-British nationals getting funded from it and not getting money from the State fund – social amenities of welfare being provided by the PFMPAs by the use of vouchers for health care, housing and education, through either the PFMPAs ‘benefits’ provided provision and or through an insurance scheme set up by the PFMPAs to be paid into jointly by the immigrants and the PFMPAs, for non-EU immigrants, as immigration law stands at the moment, to claim from to get such amenities.

    I know I have turned your statement on its head by saying instead of compensating the majority – which are still the British-nationals – we take non-British nationals out of the system to be funded by private and or charitable individuals or organisations. Using vouchers for homes and other social amenities. It would be ironic if non-British nationals received more through consequential adherent payments than they are now. Then you would say not fair change the system. All this is hypothetical of course because you have not suggested how the PFMPAs should compensate British-national, the majority group in this country by as it is easier to compensate a minority than a majority.

    The social consequences of what I say is that why should I compensate anybody? Nobody has a right to be compensated? Free movement of peoples means that they all jostle along to compete. No one gets better treatment just because they are a British national or not as they case may be. If that is the case then whose fault is that? There are many ministers and other interested groups sounding alarm bells and instigating changes to the working of the system.

    * Employment: The labour market regulates employment uptake, however as Field and Soames said in 2008: “…the Government is not working hard enough to ensure its policy of “British jobs for British workers”. Everyone knew that the Government could do nothing to stop EU citizens from applying for UK jobs. What isn’t known is that, for the last few years, tens of thousands of non-EU citizens have been given jobs in the UK – and there has been no obligation for any of these jobs to be advertised here first”. I do believe that ALL jobs should be open to both non-British nationals and British nationals, remembering though, if the number of British nationals do not apply for the job compared to the number of foreign nationals, then whose fault is that? Take away the foreign national element from this particular equation and you will still have low application of British nationals applying for work. There are more British nationals than foreign nationals looking for work, and it is a large percent of foreign nationals of a particular race who cannot get work, more so than British nationals per say. Cannot have the argument both ways. British nationals do not need to be compensated. If enough said they applied and were turned down because foreign nationals took their place we might have a different debate here. In which case what causes the British national to be rejected in the first place? That is what needs to be looked at, as I think Field and Soames are suggesting.

    * Social Housing: Needs must when it comes to the right provision of social housing, plenty of empty houses out there that could be refurbished and given over to social rent. The lack of social housing being built over the last three decades has been a huge problem. If foreign nationals meet the needs must criteria then there is not a lot one can say to that except that those houses provided by welfare to foreign nationals are either not taken up by British nationals by dint of it being in the wrong area or size or ambiance or in state of disrepair, or British-nationals are being ‘deliberately‘ ignored. The number of British-nationals who will not move to my area, for instance, because it is considered ‘dodgy’ (crime rate, history of problems, not racially linked I might add, we have a low immigration population in our area so racial tastes are not applicable here) means they market themselves out of the equation, so a foreign national takes it. It has been stated that, “Immigrants live in more deprived areas in cities, or poorer areas in the country as a whole, [because they are prepared to go there or are shunted there] thus reinforcing the social deprivation which is an unintentional by-product of the welfare state. A question that should be asked prior to allowing immigrants into Britain is whether we have enough houses and hospitals for British nationals, it would seem, if immigrants are having to live in poorer / deprived areas of Britain, that we do not have enough housing.” I disagree, we have enough housing, but not enough ‘available’ housing, because of the number of empty private and dilapidated social housing not being available or not being taken up by [British-national?] applicants. What is one to do?

    You could say that if the non-British national was not there then the private or council sector would have to do something for the British-national. Think again. Lack of housing and long term empty housing has been a sore point before immigration got into main stream debates. There will always be someone who is considered the ‘other’ who takes the option of poor housing in deprived areas. The working class underclass, the working class middle class, and that still leaves a group of people, all British-nationals maybe, saying, why do they get that? Answer, because you would not take it. Back to Beveridge’s desire to eliminate the five giants of society: Want, Disease, Squalor, Ignorance and Idleness. We still have those five issues, and they were there before mass immigration.

    * Education provision is not so overfull that British nationals cannot get educated. With the marketing of so-called free schools parents have a chance to influence the educational system. If we revert back to State provided and run schools then a pro-qua method could be adopted by rule with the emphasis being on British culture. But the State historically has allowed the education system to fall into dispute by interfering with the local provision and running of schools through near and short-sighted ideology, money, status and sweeteners are all part and parcel of the educational system via the State. With the losers being the pupils and their parents. The same can be said of private schools – but they actually have more to account for and to.

    Of course if you are saying that the society we live in stacks the odds in favour of the non-British national through the use of our taxes we pay, that social housing is given just because they are a foreign national, or that health and educational resources are bypassed the British national then that is a different thing altogether; with the needs must equation and the costing of provision being taken into account there should be no need to bypass anyone, just needs must.

    [We are talking about immigrants here and not refugees right? Refugees come under a different category, I hope to God I never have to flee my country and be treated in a derogatory way or shunted about like cattle or put into a detention centre that resembles a prison, that’s if I’m lucky. I could just end up homeless and hiding in the backstreets, or dead.]

    I expect this issue to become a major debating point as time moves on. I hope so as there are many issues that we in the UK, never mind England, need to debate and discuss. And as an Island we have to be aware of land mass and provisional economic facilities and commodities. Thanks for the information and debate Robert.

    https://spreadsheets.google.com/lv?key=tka0nvP9qG60328hPnRqaIA&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&page=2&rowsperpage=250

    • The three million since 1997 is net immigration. Far more than that have been foreign incomers and most of those leaving have been our own people.

      “I am not saying or assuming that those who are coming in are simply replacing those who are leaving. I am saying that we should not let any more immigrants in till the amount left equals the amount coming in. In other words balanced migration should be enforced ”

      Balanced immigration isn’t balanced. It shifts the ethnic advanage from us to the immigrant. Again you treat human beings as interchangeable.

      “The social consequences of what I say is that why should I compensate anybody? Nobody has a right to be compensated? Free movement of peoples means that they all jostle along to compete”

      That is you forcing your views on everyone else. You want this, you suffer the consequences.

      “Maybe a halt to all immigration is what some people feel would be best – though that is not practical – as we would, for instance, have to leave the EU or tear up the agreement of free access to work and live between EU nationals.”

      Leaving the EU is entirely practical.

      Immigrants increase competition for housing, the NHS, education, jobs and terrirtory. Fact. For example, if there had been no immigration of over the past 13 years, the three million addition people in the country would not have to be housed and the housing they are taking would go to our own people.

      Those posing as refugees – very few can be deemed so because they have to pass through many other Western states before they claim asylum here – are simply part of the immigrant problem. Asylum should be ended.

  11. efgd says:

    Thanks for reading my comments.
    Since you quoted the net figure I thought that was where you were at.
    The maximum number of immigrants could be 6 million, 6,000,000 at approximately 600,000 a year.
    http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0211.pdf

    The UK population is at 61 million, 61,000,000 leaving 55 million, 55,000,000 British-nationals. By 2051 the number of British people classed as white is predicted to be 79%, compared with 92% now: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10607480

    According to the most up-to-date figures published, for every eight immigrants arriving into Britain, only one is a worker from outside the EU.

    And, far from taking British jobs, the official stats suggest 8,000 more non-EU workers left the UK than came to live here in 2008. However, 46,000 more EU-workers came than left – the latest official figures are for 2008 and suggest it is about 48% – 258,000 EU and returning British citizens out of a total of 538,000 immigrants.: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/04/immigration_by_numbers.html

    I cannot believe we are debating over such a small percentage of the population – even if yo say 80/20 that is still such a small percentage. The percentage of foreigners living in the UK is, according to OECD data is 10.8%, lower than Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Canada and the USA. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/why_are_we_so_concerned_about_im.html
    In 2008 the EU Member State recording the largest number of immigrants was Spain (726 000). Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy also received more than half a million immigrants each. These four countries took more than two thirds
    (67%) of all immigrants to any of the EU Member State in 2008. Germany reported the highest number of emigrants (738 000, resulting in negative net migration), followed by the United Kingdom with 427 000 and Spain with 266 000
    http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-11-001/EN/KS-SF-11-001-EN.PDF

    These numbers are marginal. Though I can see concern with integration of said immigrants into our society.

    I too think we should leave the EU, not just relating to immigration or protectionist and mercantilist economic and political philosophy, which could be used to prosper the UK, but the conception that we have to be always answerable to the EU is bothersome to say the least.
    http://www.infernalramblings.com/articles/Economics/732/

    Once again thank you for reading my comments.

  12. Gerald says:

    How about all the Somalis who come to UK, get all the facilities by our government to raise their seven kids? What about all the other foreigners coming to our country? What about the hundreds of thousands of Polish people coming to our country? Who knows better to mess up our system then them? They are every where…
    Poor Gurkhas, proud for being a part of English history, what have they done to deserve the targeted attack such as this?

  13. Mr Howarth – Rest assured that I am resolutely against mass immigration generally and have been since the 1960s. It is an insidious form of conquest which politicians of all stripes have connived at since 1945. I urge you to use your position in Parliament to speak unequivocally against its continuence.

    The Gurkhas are an imperial left-over. Brave and loyal soldiers undoubtedly but an anachronism. Their position is that of simple mercenaries now. The honourable way to discharge them is to give those still serving a decent pay-off, send them back to Nepal and set up a fund of, say, £100 million to provide assistance to the children and other dependants of of Gurkhas with things such as education and healthcare. That will ease the transition.

    I doubt whether your constituents, especially those in the areas settled by the recent Gurkha influx, will be so sanguine as you appear to be. Apart from changing the nature of their immediate world, the pressure put on housing and other goods and services must be intense.

    As for Britain’s future military needs, I think you will find this of interest:

    http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/armed-forces-to-defend-britain-not-to-serve-the-new-world-order/

    Best wishes

    Riobert Henderson

  14. Pingback: Part of England has has been invaded part 2 | England calling

  15. Pingback: It isn’t a crisis of capitalism but a crisis of globalism | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  16. sandra says:

    My aunt and i went to the aldershot crematorian today and there were 3 white tents on the grounds filled with ghurkas eating and drinking, lots more sitting on the ground in the car park, when we went over to where my uncle is buried a ghurka man came over and put his hand up and told us we could not go to there funreal and to go away. What on earth has happened to this town and country, my aunt who is 84 was in tears, we were near the grass where anyone is allowed to walk. Do gooders say this is the ghurkas right and they do thi sand that in their country, well they are not in their country now they are in our country. I have never known the crematorian allowing any english person to put up tents in their grounds and have lunch there. A elderly man i know said he was coming out of tescos with his wife and a ghurka women was squatting by his car emptying her bowels and he phoned the police who said they cannot do anything about it. it cannot go on what is happening here and for all the people who do not live here and have not experienced daily the disturbing and disgusting things some of these people do, come and live here first before you make a judgement.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s