Race realism grws - Blunkett says Britain is a "coiled spring"
Robert Henderson
David Blunkett, claimed that Britain is a "coiled spring" because of
fear about terrorists amongst asylum seekers. He worried that people
would take the law into their own hands unless "the facts were made
available to them", namely that not all asylum seekers are terrorists.
Ho, ho. RH
--
Robert Henderson
phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk
Blair Scandal web site at http://www.geocities.com/blairscandal/
Personal web site at http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
Jon°
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
maria.thomson
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In a magazine article (sorry magazine not known) the Home Secretary,
>David Blunkett, claimed that Britain is a "coiled spring" because of
>fear about terrorists amongst asylum seekers. He worried that people
>would take the law into their own hands unless "the facts were made
>available to them", namely that not all asylum seekers are terrorists.
>Ho, ho. RH
They must have known all along that that would happen..even an idiot
like me could see it coming.
Ever had the feeling you have been done up like a kipper?
Jon°
superb. With a good malt vinegar, brown crusty toast and a little
pepper.........What more could a white indigenous Brit want.
"maria.thomson" <pl...@plonk.com> wrote in message
MikeinCamden
'The vast majority of our people recognise the enormous contribution made by
immigrants in creating the vibrant multicultural society we enjoy in Britain.
They condemn totally the attitude of intolerance preached by a tiny minority of
extremists.'
Jon°
Joe
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In a magazine article (sorry magazine not known) the Home Secretary,
>David Blunkett, claimed that Britain is a "coiled spring" because of
>fear about terrorists amongst asylum seekers. He worried that people
>would take the law into their own hands unless "the facts were made
>available to them", namely that not all asylum seekers are terrorists.
>Ho, ho. RH
You mean, Mr. Blunkett, that was just an ordinary rucksack that little
Mohammed was wearing on his way to school this morning, and not
a suicide bomb? What a revelation!
But seriously, I think this "coiled spring" feeling relates to a
general angst that's boiling to the surface and not just the current
news reports linking asylum to terrorism. The problem is that people
see no light at the end of the tunnel with regards to mass
immigration. They see more crime, more social tension, and vast
amounts of taxpayers money spent managing (or more accurately,
fire fighting) race relations and the asylum system. Not surprisingly,
the natives are restless.
Our liberal overlords can keep chanting the mantra "strength through
diversity", but I think there are fewer and fewer people who believe
them.
Joe
blue
>
> In a magazine article (sorry magazine not known) the Home Secretary,
> David Blunkett, claimed that Britain is a "coiled spring" because of
> fear about terrorists amongst asylum seekers. He worried that people
> would take the law into their own hands unless "the facts were made
> available to them", namely that not all asylum seekers are terrorists.
> Ho, ho. RH
Didn't we tell people this before wiping them out with
our coughs and colds.
ÇØl
look forward to the day when we have an Asian Prime Minister', then there's
not much hope.
"Jon°" <jon_j...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kWUX9.1740$J46.12...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Jon°
suppose we can expect anything.
"ÇØl" <blueb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:b0p6ug$ru5th$1@ID->
"Jon°"
Robert Henderson
<pl...@plonk.com> writes
I have been pointing out the sheer, unalloyed madness of mass
immigration since the mid sixties. RH
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> In a magazine article (sorry magazine not known) the Home Secretary,
> David Blunkett, claimed that Britain is a "coiled spring" because of
> fear about terrorists amongst asylum seekers. He worried that people
> would take the law into their own hands unless "the facts were made
> available to them", namely that not all asylum seekers are terrorists.
> Ho, ho. RH
You forgot the next bit - that the Daily Mail will have to restricts its
inflammatory comments and cease posting statistics in the interests of
public safety.
Naturally, only for 'the duration'.
Dirk
welsh witch
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8TpBeKArt$L+E...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
*****************************
Thanks be to Jon I found the article below if you would like to rad
it!
Copyright 2003 New Statesman Ltd
New Statesman
January 27, 2003
LENGTH: 1683 words
NS Interview - David Blunkett; Britain, says the Home Secretary, is
now 'like a coiled spring', febrile and tense, and ominously on the
lookout for scapegoats. David Blunkett interviewed by John Kampfner
John Kampfner
Pity anyone whose daily in-tray begins with terrorists making weapons
in bedsits, continues with asylum-seekers being housed in hotels and
ends with gangs on shooting sprees in city centres. David Blunkett is
confronted with danger. But he has identified something worse - a
danger coming from our minds.
'I am deeply worried. I am worried because genuine fears and concerns
can so easily turn to a desire to find scapegoats.'
It's hard to know which problem to begin with, when interviewing the
Home Secretary. I ask him about the link people now make - and
newspaper editors make in their name - between immigrants and
terrorists, about residents talking of burning down a hotel in
Sittingbourne if asylum-seekers are housed there. 'I'm worried about
tension and frustration spilling over into the disintegration of
community relations and social cohesion,' he says. 'I'm worried about
people taking the law into their own hands.'
Blunkett is taking on both sets of critics at once - from the left
that he is riding roughshod over civil liberties, from the right that
he is a soft touch on asylum; that as the Conservative leader Iain
Duncan Smith said during Prime Minister's Questions, 'the lunatics
have taken over the asylum policy'. The death of Detective Constable
Stephen Oake in Manchester, as the police searched for a terrorist
suspect who, it turned out, had been an asylum-seeker, has conflated
the two issues. 'I want the debate in the open, I want people's fears
to be genuinely reflected, I want to be able to ensure they know the
facts, and get the information on which they can make a judgement,' he
says. The government should be held to account. It should be open to
suggestions from outside. If these suggestions are 'feasible', he will
take them on board; if they are not, 'I ask people not to demand them,
because I had a bellyful as others did 20 years ago when we were
dealing with the Trotskyites within the Labour Party - their
impossible demands with outrageous resolutions that they knew we
couldn't match or respond to, followed by denunciation of failure. I
don't want that in the new era, in terms of public policy.'
It requires some chutzpah at a time like this to liken editors of the
red tops to latter-day Trots. 'I'm not going to have a go at any
individual newspaper editor. I merely ask that they do not act in that
way, and that they accept that we're all responsible for our actions
and the subsequent outcome. It isn't criticism that I fear; it is
criticism without solution.' And just to rub in the point, he has a
little swipe at certain commentators: 'If I can bring trust and
security into the system, we might be able to cool the debate where,
bizarrely, people whose families survived only because they were able
to flee to Britain are actually writing about how we should stop
families fleeing to Britain.'
He is equally dismissive of the 'liberal left', who he believes are
just as guilty of traducing his motives. 'If you don't create a sense
of order and stability, if people do not feel secure, then progressive
politics is dead. That is a fact of history. The right has always
emerged supreme when destabilisation and insecurity prevail. The
liberal left have often misunderstood that, at their peril. My job is
not to lose the sense of purpose or of the long term. I was the one
who, this time last year, first said the party must take the BNP head
on in the elections. That was denounced in some parts of the liberal
left - vehemently.' Blunkett regards the legislation on nationality
and immigration and on anti-terrorism as 'balanced'.
My questions are littered with assumptions of a society ill at ease.
At no point does Blunkett challenge the premise. Why are we, I wonder,
so violent and angry? 'We are as a society like a coiled spring. We
are undoubtedly prepared to display that anger in different ways.
People in some cultures do a lot of shouting, but let it out. We
display much more anger from within.' We talk about Britons' suspicion
of the state, about the rights of the individual, delving into
Rousseau, John Stuart Mill and Hobbes. 'I did this at university. So I
had the undoubted pleasure of reading Leviathan. These long-standing
philosophical debates rest with us today.'
His is a conspicuously unromantic view of British society, admittedly
at a grim moment. That anger is exacerbated by a growing sense of
fear. I ask Blunkett to assess the level of threat we face from
terrorism. 'It fluctuates. Understandably, in terms of public psyche,
when there is an identification that is real enough for people to
understand, then the tensions rise. But the overall threat level
changes very little.' Are we looking for needles in proverbial
haystacks? He is careful not to pander to panic. 'No, we are looking
at extremely targeted approaches to specific evidence that emerges
over a period of time. What is not fully recognised here is that
similar raids, similar cells, similar identification of a potential
threat is taking place in all the big European countries, particularly
France, Germany and Spain.'
At least the Brits are on the case now, much to the relief of foreign
governments, especially the French, who - as the NS first revealed in
early December - had been warning us throughout the 1990s of a
potential threat from North Africans who had sought refuge in the UK.
Blunkett says he has seen intelligence read-outs and believes none of
his predecessors over the past decade - Labour or Conservative - was
remiss in his responsibilities. 'There is a dispute about how many
warnings were given. We took seriously any specific evidence.' Most of
it was general, but he adds: 'Such is the febrile nature of our
society at the moment that people will look for scapegoats, and no
one - the security services, the anti-terrorism branch, I suspect the
Home Secretary - can avoid that.'
After Oake's death, and the injuries suffered by officers with him,
what about the routine arming of our police? The commissioner of the
Met, Sir John Stevens, has said he reviews the issue each week.
Blunkett is categorical in his opposition. 'I'm in favour of a
sensible development of response units and their deployment in any
circumstance where there may be a risk to the officers themselves or
the neighbourhood they're in. I'm not in favour of a blanket arming of
the police. I do not believe that would help in terms of security or
the tackling of gun crime and gang crime. We need to be targeted, we
need to use intelligence-based policing.'
I ask him about calls, again from the tabloids, for the government to
deal with 'the noisy clerics', notably Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri, the
spiritual leader of the Finsbury Park Mosque, which was raided in the
early hours of 20 January. Blunkett says he cannot talk about
individuals, but suggests that people like Abu Hamza pose a lesser
problem. 'The bigmouths are dangerous and damaging to race relations,
social cohesion and understanding, but it isn't the bigmouths who are
the most dangerous. It's the ones you cannot see and you do not hear.'
Is it a matter of time before the terrorists strike? 'I hope not. I
live with a job that has changed dramatically. Previously, home
secretaries did obviously have the threat from Ireland hanging over
them, but the nature of the threat and the indefinability of the
opponent is materially different. It's just the nature of the job now.
You can't give a 100 per cent guarantee. And if you're not actually
thinking positively about your ability to stop these events, then you
would sink into an inevitability of acceptance - and I don't think you
can do that.' I remind him that only a few hours earlier his boss had
told MPs that it was 'inevitable' that al-Qaeda would try to launch an
attack. Blunkett hurriedly responds: 'An attempted attack is clearly
inevitable . . . I'm grateful to him for saying that.'
Is war with Iraq similarly inevitable? Blunkett does not stray from
the official line, but makes clear his concern at possible precipitate
US action. 'I wouldn't use the word inevitable. There is still a
choice for the regime of Iraq. The longer this goes on, the less
likely it is that they'll take the way out. But I believe there is a
real will to maintain a maximum support for UN-endorsed action. Blair
, as he did in relation to Kosovo and as he did in relation to
Afghanistan, has exercised influence way beyond the punching power of
the UK.'
Blunkett is fastidiously loyal to his boss. He has no reason not to
be: he's the current favourite in the 'Anyone But Gordon' stakes for
the Blair succession. But, after years of tetchy relations, he is
reported recently to have made up with the Chancellor. So I ask the
former education secretary about the current much-publicised rows over
tuition fees? 'I've worked to unite, to find a common approach to a
very big challenge about which I know more than most,' he says tartly.
And with an apparent piece of advice to the Chancellor, he adds: 'In
the end, we sink or swim by doing that.'
I cannot resist one quick try at the leadership question. Is it true,
now he and Gordon Brown are such friends, that he has agreed to stand
down, in the event of a contest, in his favour? 'I have never ever
addressed the issue of the likelihood of a vacancy or who would stand
for it. I am deeply committed to supporting and working alongside the
Prime Minister - and, of course, the Chancellor.'
For a man who has only just recuperated from an operation over
Christmas, Blunkett is in resilient form. I ask him, on leaving, what
with all this talk of death, destruction and disharmony, if he doesn't
get a bit down? 'There isn't a lot of fun and laughter around some of
the challenges. If you have a sense of irony or humour, you're usually
cut down as you're usually distorted or misinterpreted. So it does
lead to us being slightly more dour and staid and predictable than
would otherwise be the case, which I personally find quite
frustrating - because if you don't laugh occasionally in my job, you
cry most of the time.'
LOAD-DATE: January 23, 2003
Project Ref: OPEN UNIVERSITY
http://www.walk-wales.org.uk/muslimpreachingwar.htm
bee...@yahoo.com
Robert Henderson wrote:
Yes, but it keeps the labour costs down.
Beeswax
MikeinCamden
post
Alan
And there's me thinking a million and a half unemployed did that.
--
Alan G
"The corporate life [of society] must be
subservient to the lives of the parts instead
of the lives of the parts being subservient to
the corporate life."
(Herbert Spencer)
MikeinCamden
very high indeed as it was ten years ago. Foreign workers are far more
effective often initially simply trying to establish themselves and not too
concerned about the wages.
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
I was wittering on about asylum years ago, when the phoney Kosovans started
swarming over. At the time I was called a racist by the mung-bean munching
brigade, but I wonder how many of them are eating their words now?
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
stuartkinnea...@hotmail.com
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In a magazine article (sorry magazine not known)
You mean you didn't read it?
Not that you would - it was the New Statesman.
Stu
maria.thomson
I know I am a conspiracy theorist (apparently!) but the tone of
Blunkett's speech is scary; it almost sounds as if he is trying to
provoke the situation, almost subliminally giving 'consent' for that
coiled spring to uncoil itself. Anyone else get that impression, or is
it just me?
I wish in my heart of hearts that people could just lay down their
rifles for a while and think about it; is this by design?
If it is, the best response the British people *and* the immigrants
could have IMHO is to get along like a house on fire and take on the
government as a common enemy; (how can it be in their interest to
allow them to stay in a country where they are loathed?)
Really the Brits can't win this; if they took this approach, it would
appear that they were passively accepting the situation. If they fight
the immigrants, they might be playing right into the governments
hands.
These forums have shown for a long time now that the people think of
little else these days...meanwhile......?
I would opt for joining with the enemy against the government at the
moment; the immigrants are going to end up as screwed as we are.
But still with an open mind...
Mark
> But seriously, I think this "coiled spring" feeling relates to a
> general angst that's boiling to the surface and not just the current
> news reports linking asylum to terrorism. The problem is that people
> see no light at the end of the tunnel with regards to mass
> immigration.
Personally, I think objections to immigration are a symptom, not a
cause, and see little evidence of support for the kind of hard-line
anti-immigration policies many people push here. Among people I know I
don't think anyone would agree that letting scroungers in is a good
idea, but neither would they agree with keeping productive workers
out; not least because many of them are productive immigrants
themselves.
I think the real problem is more that for decades governments have
been extolling the virtues of democracy, socialism and, lately,
political correctness, and the end result has been a dismal failure in
almost every respect. I don't think this seething anger and resentment
is caused by any single issue, but by the total collapse of everything
that people have believed in for decades, with no politico offering
any viable path forwards, just the same tired old slogans that no
longer raise any real feeling in people. No amount of spin is going to
cure that, and it's been seething for so long now it's hard to see how
the political establishment can survive it in its current form.
Mark
Le Trôle
> I know I am a conspiracy theorist (apparently!) but the tone of
> Blunkett's speech is scary; it almost sounds as if he is trying to
> provoke the situation, almost subliminally giving 'consent' for that
> coiled spring to uncoil itself. Anyone else get that impression, or is
> it just me?
It's not just you.
As far as the motives of Blunkett, however,
"Never attribute something to malice, when stupidity will suffice".
Frank Matthews
Mark wrote:
> Joe <J...@the.office> wrote in message news:<tl603vgohes27ehn4...@4ax.com>...
>
>>But seriously, I think this "coiled spring" feeling relates to a
>>general angst that's boiling to the surface and not just the current
>>news reports linking asylum to terrorism. The problem is that people
>>see no light at the end of the tunnel with regards to mass
>>immigration.
>
>
> Personally, I think objections to immigration are a symptom, not a
> cause, and see little evidence of support for the kind of hard-line
> anti-immigration policies many people push here. Among people I know I
> don't think anyone would agree that letting scroungers in is a good
> idea, but neither would they agree with keeping productive workers
> out; not least because many of them are productive immigrants
> themselves.
I think that you are getting sucked into a trap set by the proponents of
uncontrolled immigration. Most of the complaints I hear in this group
are about asylum seekers and illegals who sneak in. The leftist view is
that any proposals to control immigration reflect an anti immigrant
attitude. If the UK were to control access to it's shores and retain
control of asylum seekers until their applications are approved, and
maintain strict standards for approval there would be a good deal of
space for productive immigrants.
Frank Matthews
The Enlightenment
> Mark wrote:
> > Joe <J...@the.office> wrote in message news:<tl603vgohes27ehn4...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >>But seriously, I think this "coiled spring" feeling relates to a
> >>general angst that's boiling to the surface and not just the current
> >>news reports linking asylum to terrorism. The problem is that people
> >>see no light at the end of the tunnel with regards to mass
> >>immigration.
> >
> >
> > Personally, I think objections to immigration are a symptom, not a
> > cause, and see little evidence of support for the kind of hard-line
> > anti-immigration policies many people push here. Among people I know I
> > don't think anyone would agree that letting scroungers in is a good
> > idea, but neither would they agree with keeping productive workers
> > out; not least because many of them are productive immigrants
> > themselves.
>
> I think that you are getting sucked into a trap set by the proponents of
> uncontrolled immigration. Most of the complaints I hear in this group
> are about asylum seekers and illegals who sneak in. The leftist view is
> that any proposals to control immigration reflect an anti immigrant
> attitude. If the UK were to control access to it's shores and retain
> control of asylum seekers until their applications are approved, and
> maintain strict standards for approval there would be a good deal of
> space for productive immigrants.
Legal or illegal immigration; the result for native british will be
the same
minoritization in their own homelands perhaps to the point of
anhialation, not by assimilation by the immigrats but simnply by the
pressure of it all: More and more 'managed opinions', more and more
competion for jobs; whether you work as a nurse, doctor, engineer, in
a Department store resturaunt you will face competiton. When buying
land, or house in London or the country you will face an infinite
supply of competition. There will never be a well paying job again
becuase that's a 'skills shortage' and a target for 'immigration'
(rather than vocational reskilling or apprenticeships)
The end will not be kind.
Aramis Gunton
<Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> writes
>In a magazine article (sorry magazine not known) the Home Secretary,
>David Blunkett, claimed that Britain is a "coiled spring" because of
>fear about terrorists amongst asylum seekers. He worried that people
>would take the law into their own hands unless "the facts were made
>available to them", namely that not all asylum seekers are terrorists.
>Ho, ho. RH
Equally not all dogs are rabid.
However concentrating exclusively on those that are whilst reinforcing
the mantra that the majority are not very neatly side steps the everyday
problems many have attendant to dogs generally, for instance barking and
shit on the pavements.
"Never mind [wiping shit from shoe yet again] at least Spot hasn't got
rabies eh?"
--
Aramis Gunton
Aramis Gunton
Frogbucket <edwina.f...@void.com> writes
> At the time I was called a racist by the mung-bean munching brigade,
>but I wonder how many of them are eating their words now?
They are probably still 'munching' just from a differently located
'enclave'.
--
Aramis Gunton
Aramis Gunton
<mma...@my-deja.com> writes
>I don't think this seething anger and resentment is caused by any
>single issue, but by the total collapse of everything that people have
>believed in for decades,
I think you may have meant "...The total collapse of everything that
people have been *told* to believe in for decades"
One does however benefit from age. If one has always been submerged to
one's groin in excrement there is a sense of expected resignation as it
encroaches to one's navel.
When however one recalls a relative absence of so much shit the degree
of the 'collapse' becomes rather more apparent.
Personally I witness much I recoil from daily as I juxtapose the 'is'
with the 'was'.
--
Aramis Gunton
Aramis Gunton
<MATT...@MATH.CL.UH.EDU> writes
> If the UK were to control access to it's shores and retain control of
>asylum seekers until their applications are approved, and maintain
>strict standards for approval there would be a good deal of space for
>productive immigrants.
Do you recall a time when every single insignificant venture into the
outside world was not besieged by a multitude of unwanted 'interfaces'
with the seething masses.
If one is devoid of such recollection how can one understand the heart
felt cries that "We are FULL!!!"
--
Aramis Gunton
Aramis Gunton
Enlightenment <bern...@yahoo.com.au> writes
>Legal or illegal immigration; the result for native british will be the
>same minoritization in their own homelands perhaps to the point of
>anhialation, not by assimilation by the immigrats but simnply by the
>pressure of it all: More and more 'managed opinions', more and more
>competion for jobs; whether you work as a nurse, doctor, engineer, in a
>Department store resturaunt you will face competiton. When buying
>land, or house in London or the country you will face an infinite
>supply of competition. There will never be a well paying job again
>becuase that's a 'skills shortage' and a target for 'immigration'
>(rather than vocational reskilling or apprenticeships)
>
Well stated!
>
>The end will not be kind.
The present is not particularly 'kind' either!
--
Aramis Gunton
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
>
> I know I am a conspiracy theorist (apparently!) but the tone of
> Blunkett's speech is scary; it almost sounds as if he is trying to
> provoke the situation, almost subliminally giving 'consent' for that
> coiled spring to uncoil itself. Anyone else get that impression, or is
> it just me?
>
> I wish in my heart of hearts that people could just lay down their
> rifles for a while and think about it; is this by design?
>
> If it is, the best response the British people *and* the immigrants
> could have IMHO is to get along like a house on fire and take on the
> government as a common enemy; (how can it be in their interest to
> allow them to stay in a country where they are loathed?)
Most sane people haven't got a problem with a regulated number of qualified
immigrants coming here and contributing to the UK, but the problem is the
vast amount who are abusing the asylum system to get in. The only economic
migrants we should take are those who can fill a specialist job a Brit can't
do and can't be trained for. They would then be seen on equal terms, and not
as spongers or potential terrorists.
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Dr. Sunil
Mung-dhal's OK. I prefer the yellow dhal (Urad dhal) personally.
Aramis Gunton
Sunil <sp...@bc.ic.ac.uk> writes
>Mung-dhal's OK. I prefer the yellow dhal (Urad dhal) personally.
..and channa?
--
Aramis Gunton
Dr. Sunil
Not bad, I suppose.
Robert Henderson
Frogbucket <edwina.f...@void.com> writes
>
>Most sane people haven't got a problem with a regulated number of qualified
>immigrants coming here and contributing to the UK,
How many do you think most people would be happy with? RH
>but the problem is the
>vast amount who are abusing the asylum system to get in.
This is the big con at the moment. Asylum seekers are merely part of the
general immigration by all means, legal and illegal. That is the
problem. RH
> The only economic
>migrants we should take are those who can fill a specialist job a Brit can't
>do and can't be trained for.
That definition does' help because here is no limit to the demands for
labour if private enterprise is allowed to set up what business it
wants. And how would he definition of specials be agreed? And can't you
just imagine he bending of he rules when employers called for more
labour? RH
> They would then be seen on equal terms, and not
>as spongers or potential terrorists.
>
>--
--
Dirk Bruere at Neopax
> In article <b0r983$sf9jb$1...@ID-58798.news.dfncis.de>, Baroness Edwina
> Frogbucket <edwina.f...@void.com> writes
> >
> >Most sane people haven't got a problem with a regulated number of
qualified
> >immigrants coming here and contributing to the UK,
>
> How many do you think most people would be happy with? RH
In total no more than about 30,000 per year.
Dirk
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MroNASAy...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
> Frogbucket <edwina.f...@void.com> writes
> >
> >Most sane people haven't got a problem with a regulated number of
qualified
> >immigrants coming here and contributing to the UK,
>
> How many do you think most people would be happy with? RH
I couldn't put a number on it, but I would say that immigration starts going
pear-shaped when, from being a little spice in the melting pot, they become
an overpowering flavour which detracts from the basic ingedients.
Sorry for being so arty-farty, but it's very difficult to come up with an
exact figure, isn't it?
--
Baroness Edwina Frogbucket
Robert Henderson
Frogbucket <edwina.f...@void.com> writes
>
>"Robert Henderson" <Phi...@anywhere.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MroNASAy...@anywhere.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <b0r983$sf9jb$1...@ID-58798.news.dfncis.de>, Baroness Edwina
>> Frogbucket <edwina.f...@void.com> writes
>> >
>> >Most sane people haven't got a problem with a regulated number of
>qualified
>> >immigrants coming here and contributing to the UK,
>>
>> How many do you think most people would be happy with? RH
>
>I couldn't put a number on it, but I would say that immigration starts going
>pear-shaped when, from being a little spice in the melting pot, they become
>an overpowering flavour which detracts from the basic ingedients.
>Sorry for being so arty-farty, but it's very difficult to come up with an
>exact figure, isn't it?
>--
Mine is zero when the immigrants have no chance of assimilating. RH
>Baroness Edwina Frogbucket