Thursday, 11 March 2010

Asylum Seeker Deaths

Three Russian asylum seekers, a mother, father and son, have jumped to their death from the 15th floor of a block of flats in Glasgow.

They recently had their asylum request rejected after arriving from Canada.

Yes, you read that correctly, they arrived from Canada where they had been granted asylum and left there to claim asylum in Britain.

Canada is not the most obvious country to have to flee from. Maybe it was too cold for them or they didn't like the food!

Of course to genuinely be claiming asylum in Britain they must have been persecuted in Canada. They were one very unlucky family. Not only persecuted in Russia but also in Canada!

More likely, their claim for asylum in Britain was not genuine and the decision to reject their claim was correct.

They were yet another group of people who wanted to migrate to the UK and tried to use the asylum rules to do it.

How many more economic migrants are there in Britain claiming to be asylum seekers?

We need to stop allowing people into our country just because they say the word 'asylum'. The only genuine cases of asylum should come from our neighbouring countries. If you've travelled through one or more safe countries or, as in this case, you've already been granted asylum elsewhere, then you're not a genuine asylum seeker. If you were you'd have been glad to stay in the first safe country you reached.

In 2008 the Greater London Assembly backed calls for a scheme to allow illegal immigrants to earn UK citizenship. The motion was put forward by the Green Party and backed by the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. Only the BNP and the Conservatives opposed it. This just encourages more people from poorer countries to abuse the asylum rules and come to the UK. Even if their bid for asylum is turned down there is the chance of an amnesty and that's a chance that a lot of them will think is worth taking.

Let's make it clear and simple.

If you were not persecuted in one of Britain's neighbouring countries then you will not be allowed to claim asylum in Britain.

If you've been granted asylum elsewhere then you will not be allowed to claim it again in Britain.

If you were not living in your country of birth when you fled persecution then you will not be allowed into Britain.

If these rules had been in place already then the tragic deaths of the three Russians would never have occurred.

Monday, 8 March 2010

Punish The Pigs

Last week it was announced that MP's would be getting a 1.5% pay raise which amounts to £1000 a year. This comes at the time when the rest of us are having our pay frozen or even cut.

From April a backbench MP will get a basic salary of £65,737.

During the same week North Wiltshire Conservative MP James Gray was demanding that MP's be allowed to travel first class on the railways. Funded by the taxpayer, of course.

So it's okay for us serfs to pay their train fares as long as they don't have to sit anywhere near us?

Not that Labour MP's are any better.

The parliamentary Labour Party Woman's committee is demanding that taxpayers should pay for their childcare, up to £18,000 a year. The rest of us have to pay for our own child care, why should MP's be any different?

After all the scandals over MP's expenses you'd think that they might have learnt that ripping off the taxpayer is a bad idea. But no.

You have to ask why it is that these people decided to stand for parliament in the first place? Was it to help to create a better society for everyone or was it just to feather their own nests?

I think we know the answer to that one.
This year we have a general election and the chance to show them what we think of them.

The problem is that increasing numbers of voters will think "stuff the lot of you" and not bother voting. That won't hurt the greedy pigs. They don't care how many people vote or don't vote as long as enough of those that do vote re-elect them.

At the general election make sure you cast your vote, but not for the greedy pigs from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. Vote against them. Vote for any other candidate who may be standing.

If some of the smaller parties were to be elected in place of the old gang then not only would they care but they'd be very worried and might actually change their ways.

Friday, 5 March 2010

Miners strike, the unions and workers co-operatives

This year is the 25th anniversary of the end of miners' strike in 1985. I was in my teens when it was taking place and knew very little about the causes but do remember seeing people with buckets in the city centre collecting money for the miners and their families.

Looking back it's clear that Margaret Thatcher was trying to destroy the power of the unions and in the process destroyed local communities and a vital industry.

The UK used to produce the vast majority of its coal requirements; for example in 1980 it produced 130 million tonnes and imported 7½ million tonnes. Imports were mainly of coking coal or other grades that the UK’s mines could not readily produce. As the UK’s coal production declined, imports rose steadily and a milestone was reached in 2001 when more coal was imported (35½ million tonnes) than was produced in the UK (32 million tonnes). Imports have continued to increase as more coal handling capacity has been installed at British ports and imports reached a record 44 million tonnes in 2005. UK coal production in 2005 was 20½ million tonnes. Britain consumed 62.7m tons of coal in 2007 and of that total 43.3m tons were imported, mostly from Russia and South Africa

During the 1970's the unions were at the height of their power.
There were endless strikes afflicting the Post Office, steel industry, the ferries, steelworks and much more. Car and truck-maker British Leyland was repeatedly brought to a standstill in the Midlands. In 1979 public sector workers went out on strike for weeks. Uncollected mountains of rubbish piled high in the cities, Green Goddesses were on the streets, and bodies remained unburied. The latter only happened in Liverpool, but became an emblem of the chaos inflicted on the public by the unions.

WINTER OF DISCONTENT: Rubbish in Leicester Square, London, in the council workers' strike of 1979

Rather than simply representing their members in the workplace the unions, with their Communist leadership, wanted to bring the country to its knees. The mass industrial action was not for the benefit of their members but an attempt to impose a Communist revolution.

Bringing the unions down was necessary but Thatcher didn't care what else she destroyed in the process. Her destruction of
industries and communities was a tragedy. Let's not forget, though, that the union leadership was just as guilty as Thatcher.

I've never been a member of a union. They just perpetuate the class struggle, workers against bosses. It's in the unions own interest to have an enemy, of course, without the enemy they would be unnecessary and their dreams of Communist revolution would disappear along with their leaders six figure salaries.

Wouldn't our working life be much more pleasant if workers and bosses worked together for the benefit of all instead of this constant battle?

Of course that ideal world doesn't yet exist and there are still bosses out there who exploit their workers at every opportunity. So what's the answer?

How about workers co-operatives?

Worker co‑operatives are businesses that are owned and controlled by their employee members using co‑operative principles. Each of the members - from the manager to the office junior - owns a share of the business. Decisions are made democratically and profits are shared among the members or put back into the business. Conflict and strife are minimised because workers and owners are one and the same.

Isn't that a better way than left wing class war unions or the capitalists' exploitation of workers?

Wednesday, 3 March 2010

Haiti, Madeira and Cumbria

Recently we've been inundated with appeals to give money to Haiti following an earthquake on 12 January. Britons have given £23 million in aid. A charity single has been released and there are still people queuing up to ask for our money.

On 20 February mudslides and flash flooding on the Portugese island of Madiera lead to the loss of 42 lives including 1 Briton. This hasn't had the same impact with the media. No appeals and no charity singles.


In November there were floods in Cumbria. 1 person died and more than 200 people had to be rescued in Cockermouth. Again there were no aid appeals or charity singles.


Why the difference?

Is it that the people of Madiera and Cumbria are white and so not as important as the blacks in Haiti?

It would certainly appear so as far as the charity single is concerned. Simon Cowell, the man behind the song for Haiti, is well known as a race mixing piece of filth. No surprise that he did nothing for Cumbria or Madeira.

Does anyone actually know where the £23 million has been spent?

In 1984-1985 there were appeals for the victims of the Ethiopian famine. The UK public gave £5m in three days, there was a Band Aid single, which raised £8 million, and huge Live Aid concerts in London and Philidelphia which are estimated to have raised £150m. We've only now found out that $100 million of aid money went through rebel groups trying to overthrow the government. 95% of it was spent on buying weapons and building up a hard-line Marxist political party within the rebel movement.

If you've considering giving money to relieve the suffering in a third world country because of emotional images you've seen on the TV, do you actually
know where your money is going? Are you funding a war? And isn't it time to look after our own people first?

Tuesday, 2 March 2010

The Smoking Ban

On 1 July 2007 one of the very few decent pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour government, the ban on smoking in public places and workplaces, came into effect.

Previous legislation was to have a non smoking area but this didn't work very well as the smoke simply difted over.

What a pleasure it has been to sit in the canteen at work and eat my lunch without being surrounded by clouds of smoke.

What a joy it is to go to a pub for a drink and a meal and not have to breathe in the fumes from other people's cigarettes nor to have to go home with my clothes stinking of them.

My mum has smoked ever since I can remember, and still does, and I always hated the smell of fags (that's British slang for cigarettes for any Americans reading this). I still remember my first driving lesson. I got into the car and the first thing the instructor said to me was "Do you smoke?". He could smell cigarettes on my clothes.

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 different chemicals. At least 50 are known carcinogens (cause cancer in humans) and many are poisonous. Smoking causes heart disease, cancers of the lung, larynx, oral cavity and esophagus, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Smoking is also a contributory factor for the development of cancers of the bladder, pancreas, and kidney. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma.

So it's a surprise to me that the ban still seems to be so controversial. Why would anybody object to a law that stops people being forced to breathe in these chemicals?

I've read about landlords of pubs being fined and imprisoned for ignoring the law, the most recent I read on the Derby Patriot. True, lots of pubs are closing down but is it really the smoking ban that is to blame?

I think that is much too simplistic. People's lifestyles have changed. The days of the men leaving work and heading straight for the pub while the wife sits at home are long gone. If you want a drink you can buy it much cheaper from supermarkets and the fact is that there were simply too many pubs in this country, a legacy of days gone by when the pub was the only place for socialising.

One idea I've heard put forward is to have smoking and non smoking pubs. Sounds okay until it's examined in more detail.

When a group of people go out the liklihood is that at least one of them will be a smoker. Naturally the smoker will want to go to the smoking pub and his or her friends will go along to keep them happy. Thus starving the non smoking pub of customers.

It also doesn't take into account that pubs are also workplaces. Why should the bar staff in the smoking pub have to breathe in all their customers smoke?

They could choose not to work in the smoking pub but that would restrict their employment opportunities.

I really don't see why stepping into the fresh air for 10 minutes while they smoke is such a problem.

Nationalists believe in a healthy body and a healthy nation and should support the smoking ban.

I look forward to the day when nobody wants to put cancer causing toxins into their bodies through smoking and totally support ASH.