Off Topic Immigration....What should we do ?

Hence why I've been taking the piss. Isn't it great when he posts about something he knows so much about only for it to be all wrong

 

I've worked next to military for decades so I can help you here Valley.

Bikini is the name of the system used to clarify, classify and define a degree of alertness based on information received. Red = High, Amber = Medium, Black = Less, White = Lesser

Its like a wicks colour chart with descriptions next to each colour, or a description of what '7' means in the Richter scale.

 

Check my post above yours mate. I have come across it in the past

 

Soz Valley

 

On a side note its one reason why I don't like red bikinis

 

Immigration for the nation ! social engineering is going well, how quick can we get to a hundred million here ?

 

Quicker than you think and I'd like , and you can thank good old Blair & cronies for starting the ball rolling

 

I think the vast increases started before Blaire but he definitely accelerated it probably trying to create new danger voters ? and to keep his mrs in even more business ! helped by the pc thought police, do gooders that he did a thoroughly good job in moulding, so much so they run most things now still trying to stamp out free thinking !

 

Interesting reading :http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pressArticle/83
"Labour added more than three million to our population.
At the same time nearly one million British citizens voted with their feet, some saying that they were leaving because England was no longer a country that they recognised.
How could all this have happened in the teeth of public opposition? Even the Labour government’s own survey last February showed that 77 per cent of the public wanted immigration reduced, including 54 per cent of the ethnic communities, while 50 per cent of the public wanted it reduced ‘by a lot’.
There are, of course, good arguments for controlled and limited immigration. Migration in both directions is a natural part of an open economy. And there are many immigrants who are valuable both to our economy and our society.
Mass immigration is an entirely different matter. The question now is how did it happen and what can be done about it. Was it all a Labour conspiracy? Was it sheer incompetence in government? Or was it wholesale retreat in front of the race relations lobby?
Landmark
The strongest evidence for conspiracy comes from one of Labour’s own. Andrew Neather, a previously unheard-of speechwriter for Blair, Straw and Blunkett, popped up with an article in the Evening Standard in October 2009 which gave the game away.
Immigration, he wrote, ‘didn’t just happen; the deliberate policy of Ministers from late 2000…was to open up the UK to mass immigration’.
He was at the heart of policy in September 2001, drafting the landmark speech by the then Immigration Minister Barbara Roche, and he reported ‘coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn’t its main purpose - to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.
That seemed, even to him, a manoeuvre too far.
The result is now plain for all to see. Even Blair’s favourite think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), commented recently: ‘It is no exaggeration to say that immigration under New Labour has changed the face of the country.’
It is not hard to see why Labour’s own apparatchiks supported the policy. Provided that the white working class didn’t cotton on, there were votes in it.
Research into voting patterns conducted for the Electoral Commission after the 2005 general election found that 80 per cent of Caribbean and African voters had voted Labour, while only about 3 per cent had voted Conservative and roughly 8 per cent for the Liberal Democrats.
The Asian vote was split about 50 per cent for Labour, 10 per cent Conservatives and 15 per cent Liberal Democrats.
Nor should we underestimate the power of ‘community leaders’ who have strong influence in constituency Labour parties and who, of course, benefit from a growth in numbers.
Other activists, nurtured in the anti-apartheid movement of the last century, had no difficulty promoting the interests of minority groups — almost, it seems, regardless of the impact on the white working class.
There were also economic factors. A collection of essays published recently by the IPPR underlined the role of Gordon Brown’s Treasury in this affair. A high level of immigration made economic growth look better and helped keep wages and, therefore, inflation down.
Others, too, saw economic benefits for themselves. The employers’ organisations kept their heads down, but there is little doubt that they were privately encouraging a supply of cheap labour which was good for profits, whatever its impact on society.
Then there were those members of the middle classes who found it convenient to have cheap exotic restaurants and even cheaper domestic help, but were blind to the wider consequences of this population inflow which were, of course, felt in the poorer neighbourhoods.
Another major factor was the attitude of the BBC and, in particular, its devotion to multiculturalism. For years it avoided discussing immigration if it possibly could.
Although in the autumn of 2005 official statistics for the previous year showed an increase of 50 per cent in net immigration, there was no mention of this on the BBC. Its own report into impartiality, published in June 2007, concluded that its coverage of immigration amounted to bias by omission "

 

Just to clarify the Bikini system hasn't been used in the UK since 2006 and was replaced by " UK Threat Levels" , The Bikini system was introduced during the early seventies and was widely used during the "troubles" where as another posted stated could vary between buildings and more likely military establishments such as barracks , for those who maybe interested because the Army policy during that period was to show a reasonably open house regime made the guarding of them more difficult without the traditional high walls and barb wire as a barrier .(anyone who had been to Aldershot or Tidworth during that period would agree ) .

 

Bapp you dont know what your talking about....sorry like but as a military man of long standing and had to work by these rules of war then its pointless talking about it as you would never understand....end of debate....

 

What rules of war are you discussing here ?

 

We suppose to be discussing The thousands trying to get into this country illegally and what should we do seeing as the country is in a high state of alertness.....

 

Again you have jumped in with both feet and made assumptions about me and my background. Lets just say I know exactly what I am talking about but don't feel the need to justify it by laying out my CV and background to a an arrogant ****wit like you and we can leave it at that. As you say end of debate

 

That's what I thought hence the query about a "war".

 

don't tell me you don't see the connection between terrorism on war bony..................dai is scared because we`ve done some dodgy sh.it in muslim countries and now they are coming for us and we cant stop them......

 

Should we all have guns now like the yanks to defend ourselves or is it to soon ?

 

^^^...swantastic I wonder if bush and blair would let us all stay in their secure dwellings for a few years until isis run out of bullets........or at least until we stop arming them init

anyway onto more pressing matters......why did this lot call themselves isis and ruin one of my favourite bob Dylan tracks....

 

ive always wanted 2 go 2 Mozambique purely on this track Dylan performs.........again thanks 2 isis Im not going away again

 

^^sorry wrong thread^^....I think!