mr contrite

Just to clarify your position, how many unemployed do we have in Britain? Whose figures are correct?

I dont see how we would still be half a million short, perhaps we could use the 800,000 unemployed not entitled to claim JSA, you know the ones, the under 18s, those not entitled to claim JSA because their partners earn too much to be able to claim, they are still classed as unemployed, so in future lets be truthful about unemployment.

If the 1.2 million migrant workers did leave there would be a natural reduction in the amount of jobs required to service them. For example (and im sure my figures will be corrected if wrong) Population 60 million, of which say 20 million work, so for every 3 people in the country, one job is created, now we remove 1.2 million migrant workers, resulting in 400,000 less jobs needed. Slowly but surely the argument for unlimited immigration unravels.

Dont you ever learn? govt figures show 1.7 million unemployed (and expected to rise substantially. 650,000 job vacancies 1.7 million unemployed 1.2 million migrant workers So assuming we didnt have these workers, who would fill the vacancies created (650,000+1.2 million - 1.7 million)

Just one point, arent unemployment figures currently at 1.7 million, expected to rise to 2 million by christmas, and 3 million by the end of next year?

So unlimited immigration from Eastern europe is not unlimited immigration, because they are entitled, under EU law, to be here? Im glad you mentioned the fact that jobs being created being a good thing, because now jobs are being lost, the argument for immigration has to go the other way, and surely if importing labour during a boom is good, then removing immigrant labour during a recession must also be a good thing?

Once again, there were as many vacancies years ago as there are now, so the argument that immigrants fill vacancies that nobody else wants falls flat. Secondly, by having that many immigrants, it follows that more jobs are created to cope with the many immigrants we have, a situation that wouldnt have arisen without unlimited immigration. Thirdly, unemployment figures have been shown to be incorrect, owing to things such as those below a certain age not being included in unemployment figures, inflated numbers of people being on incapacity benefits when even govt advisers admit that the majority on incapacity benefits are incorrectly classified. Try and keep up with current thinking, instead of repetitively rolling out outdated and discredited figures.

And im sure it will be done again, it is a very contentious issue, and put simply people feel aggrieved that they have to work 40-50 or more hours a week, only to see scroungers able to fleece the govt ( which in effect is us the taxpayer), and still have the front to complain that they dont get enough, thankfully there are enough workers who have too much pride and self esteem to sit on their asses and screw the system.

Because if the govt fail to act on the immigration ministers comments, and visibly reduce the number of migrants coming to Britain, they will have scored an own goal of a massive magnitude, bringing immigration to the forefront of the political debate and failing to act, allowing the BNP to make huge inroads into the public perception of the BNP. A genuine attempt to take decisive action by the Govt., or the words of one minister, without Govt. approval? only time will tell.

I dont think it is only religion which feels it can tell you how to live, our whole lives are lead by others telling us how to live.

As i said, there is no definitive proof either way, this from the Telegraph rebuts some of the unions claims on immigration. For those of us who have felt unsettled, or even alarmed, by the exceptional scale of recent immigration to the United Kingdom, there has been one argument that has been difficult to rebut. It was, indeed, the very justification for the Government's immigration policy, if it deserves to be so described: without the foreign workers who have poured in over the past 10 years, both legally and illegally, economic growth would have stalled and we would be a less prosperous nation. The highest levels of immigration by far in our history may well have had other deleterious impacts, including that on the country's cultural cohesion and, self-evidently, on the public services and infrastructure, strained by the rising population, and even the reintroduction of some serious diseases, such as TB, which had all but been eradicated. But we were assured by ministers and proponents of large-scale immigration, including business leaders and union bosses, that these were more than outweighed by the economic benefits that have accrued to the nation. The problem with this argument is that it is not true, but it was difficult to prove its falsity because no authoritative study able to command widespread acceptance had been undertaken to test its veracity. Well, now one has. The economic affairs committee of the House of Lords will report tomorrow after a three-month inquiry. This committee includes Lords Lawson and Lamont, former Chancellors of the Exchequer; Lords MacGregor and Wakeham, former cabinet ministers; Lords Layard and Skidelsky, eminent economists; Lords Turner and Paul from the world of commerce and industry; and other former Labour ministers and senior politicians. They took voluminous quantities of evidence from a wide variety of parties, ranging from the Government to academics, demographers and pressure-group campaigners. Anyone who attended the hearings can testify to the rigorous nature of their investigation. We already know the general tenor of their report, and it would be a surprise, given the evidence, if they were to conclude anything other than that the economic benefits of immigration to the country as a whole have been marginal, even non-existent. This is not to say that nobody benefits. Clearly an immigrant who earns far more than at home gains, and his remittances will help his family and his country's economy. So, too, do householders who pay a plasterer/nanny/plumber half the amount they would to a domestic worker. So, also, does the employer whose costs are cut by using cheaper labour. I have never understood the enthusiasm of the trade unions for large-scale immigration since it depresses wages, but they may judge that more low-paid workers mean more members. Furthermore, there is obviously a need for foreign companies based in Britain to bring in their own skilled workers and managers to run their operations, which also adds to immigration, though these incomers rarely settle, but move back home or to another country. While all these factors can be said to point to the advantages of immigration in specific spheres, it is not the same as saying that immigration benefits the country as a whole because some, usually the poor, lose out to the competition; and, as output rises, it is consumed by the larger population. Taking all this into account, the Lords committee is expected to conclude that "the economic benefits of net immigration to the resident population are small and close to zero in the long run". This key conclusion demolishes the Government's case for large-scale immigration. If it has not been to the economic benefit of the resident population, what has been its purpose? The truth is that the Government simply lost control and then sought to make a virtue out of doing so by concocting a spurious economic case in its defence. Last autumn, in evidence to the committee, a joint study by the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics said immigration boosted GDP by £6 billion in 2006, which sounds impressive but is irrelevant since it also added to the population. On a per capita basis, the increase in economic output could be measured in pence. The Government report also said that migrants are more diligent and more reliable than British-born workers. This may be true and a lot of employers will concur. Yet with more than one million young people on benefits and out of work, should ways not have been found to get them into jobs first, by reforming welfare so that it does not pay to stay at home while a job is taken by a migrant worker? Most of the jobs created in recent years have gone to foreign workers, many of whom, since 2004, have been from the new EU countries in eastern Europe to which Britain opened its labour markets, unlike other major economies. The only other justification for large-scale immigration is that it is good to have lots of different - and often very enterprising - people in the country from all over the world because they enrich our society. I would go along with that, though it is not difficult to do so living in London, which has always been one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities. On a small and crowded island, boosting the population from 60 million to 70 million by 2030, almost entirely as a result of immigration, as official figures forecast, is a serious matter (especially when, as we report today, decision-making is hamstrung because we can't be sure it hasn't already happened). Did the Government take a decision in 1997 that the British population was not growing rapidly enough and that, for the long-term economic betterment of the country, it had to be boosted by roughly one sixth in just over 30 years? If so, it passed everyone by. It was never debated by Parliament or put to the people in a general election. When there was an attempt to raise the issue in the 2001 election campaign, the Government cynically played the race card to close the debate down. Yet it could be argued that the changes to Britain engineered by mass immigration will be Labour's most enduring legacy.

I believe there have been many reports of people losing their jobs, with migrant workers accepting lower wages, or reports stating that the NHS are spending large amounts on immigrant treatment which has a detrimental effect on other parts of the NHS, and of course the drop in crime rates would have been considerably better without immigrant crime, and as for personal wealth..... surely it is dropping? However there is no definitive proof to link immigration with that, but in the same vein, there is no definitive proof that shows that immigration is NOT the cause, yet you seem to believe there is, simply dismissing out of hand anybody who claims otherwise.

I remember an incident years ago, involving a fellow bus driver, the driver was on a break and using the public toilets in Oxford, and followed out a man who had failed to wash his hands after urinating, only to find the man in the queue to catch his bus. When the man boarded the bus and offered over a ten pound note for the fare, the driver refused to accept it, stating loudly for all to hear his reason for not wanting to accept tthe note, the passenger walked off in total embarrasment.

Which western laws are we talking about?

I wonder if he will comment on the story itself, rather than simply slagging off the Daily Mail?

And in the 21st century we dont jail people for 3 months for having sex on a beach, as in Dubai. Whether we agree with the sentence, or not, it is the law of that country, and this couple broke the law, or perhaps they should demand that the laws of western countries be applied to their case?

It is a story which crystalises the dubious values encouraged by the British welfare state. While hardworking Sean and Anne Tate scrimp to afford a few little luxuries for their ten children on his £15,000 lorry driver's salary, a family of the same size two miles away take things a little easier. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1078246/Families-12-difference-One-lives-Dads-15-000-wage--neighbours-32-000-benefits-complain.html

Then welcome to place of safety. Oxford looks set to become a 'city of sanctuary' after councillors voted in support of making the city a place of safety for asylum seekers and refugees. http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/headlines/3753588.Oxford_to_be__city_of_sanctuary_

As long as you dont rely on the BBC to be impartial, regarding Islam. BBC programme-makers tackle Islam differently from Christianity, its director general has admitted http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1077816/The-BBC-tackle-Islam-differently-Christianity-admits-Director-General.html

I assume the last comment was concerning me? As i have pointed out previously, my opinions were shaped by incidents before i joined the BNP, thus finding that the BNP were the political party with policies closest to my own thoughts it seemed a natural progression to join the party, and as for getting tied up in knots, that is simply wishful thinking on your part, i post my opinions on here, not those of the BNP. If my opinions overlap with official party policy, that is simply that i feel in accord with the BNP, i have also posted opinion that may well go against BNP policy, or the public perception of what BNP policy is, and i can assure you i have never been censured in any way, shape or form by any member of the BNP, and would be very surprised if that was ever to happen.

So what are the benefits of the example used of family from Afghanistan? And i doubt that to compare somebody from Britain retiring to Spain, buying their own property, living of their pension and savings can in any way be compared to a family of 9 coming to Britain and costing the taxpayer a fortune, or do you not see any difference between the two?

But surely that is impossible to prove either way?

Actually divine intervention (if it existed) could stop you dying if you fell of a cliff.

I seem to remembeer hearing recently (prior to the banking problems) somebody within the SNP praising the success of smaller independant countries, i believe he used Iceland as an example, i wonder if he is choking on his words now.

Lets not forget the other costs, has it not been said that all 7 of her children are in full time education, now i seem to remember a figure of something like a grand a week to educate a child, if that is correct she is costing the taxpayer 7 grand a week.