³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Dear Newsnight

I’m sure the issue of the execution of Saddam Hussein will feed into the US Elections. A lawyer claimed on the ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ this afternoon that the timing of the judgement was political and aimed to coincide with the elections, though no smoking gun in the form of a memo to that effect has yet come to light. The issue also is relevant in that it gives some insight in the way the US will conduct itself in Iraq and in the mindset of the current President.

I do not believe in the death penalty under any circumstances for Religious reasons. It is not because I do not believe that Saddam Hussein is a vile mass murderer, he clearly is, but because I do not believe we have the right to take the life of another person. That said I would fight but only if I had to.

You cannot kill this person 10,000 times nor can you ever punish him in a way that accords with the extent of his wickedness. A far worse punishment awaits unless a person repents and the Bible says that “Its is mine to avenge, I will repay, The Lord will judge his people’. ‘It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God . Hebrews, Chapter 10, verses 30-31 (New Testament) I have to say there is in my faith redemption for anyone. This is what I believe the Gospel says.

I do believe in life imprisonment and perhaps that many more criminals deserve this than receive it, maybe I’m wrong about this?

We need to consider if killing him will cost a single life, and if there is a chance it will, we must not do this.

If our leaders are still unable to act morally, mindful that a far worse punishment may await Mr Hussein than they could ever devise, after all the lessons I hope even they have learned from attacking Iraq against the specific advice of their intelligence services, they really must start thinking situations through logically and stop reacting emotionally to them. It is I suggest the duty of a leader to always do this, even if the entire country is baying for revenge or to send soldiers to war in anger. They must think out problems without emotion. What will the effect of the action, what is the best thing to do to achieve the desired objective.

Killing Saddam Hussein is nothing less than a gamble the long-suffering Iraqi people cannot afford us to take. We are supposed to showing a different way forwards for their nation. At best it may not cause further deaths, but the probability is that it will. So why do it? It doesn’t bring a single person back from the grave it may well just puts more people into one.

Finally if this is not enough, perhaps Newsnight could use its sources to ask the security services in both this country and the US, what their recommendation is on this matter.

My instinct is that they would recommend strongly against killing Saddam Hussein. They will have almost certainly taken a position on this (likewise against war on Iran).

If you can persuade someone in the shadows to tell your programme -what I would guess- they have probably told the leaders of both country in the clearest terms, that it is not a good idea to kill Hussein and the reasons why this would increase problems, and yet our leaders proceed to carry out this sentence against Saddam Hussein, the follow up question will have to be, why are you still ignoring the advice of the intelligence services with all the knowledge and expertise they have? They were right before when they advised against attacking Iraq why are you, and on what basis are you ignoring their advice again?

It’s just a thought

Best wishes

Bob Goodall

What? I'm surprised the Editor didn't insist on Newsnight carrying a package Spurs victory over Chelsea...

Looks like another robust programme nevertheless...

whats wrong with you all?
why are you bothering to
inform the public about the
plight of the assylum seekers
at large in our country.
those who dont know must be
blind or else not care.
they should not be here and
must be sent back to there
homeland. thats the answer
to all our illegal imigration
problems.i dont care if there shot or hung on there return. the
whole world is up in arms over
the war in the middle east.
(sorry police action).
so lets stop interfering in the
policies and actions of other
countries and send these people
home.OR IS THAT THE WRONG THING TO SAY FOR SOME PEOPLE. you must choose do you go off around the world being the not so local policeman. or do you mind your own buisness and if you do surely that requires you to turn a blind eye to the outrages commited every day of every year all around the world. political correctness is the ball and chain which drags our once great nation to its knees with each and every passing day the halls of power fill with these poor misguided politicians who try to please all the people all the time. what we need is a black white red brown yellow christian shinto muslim budhist lesbian homosexual staight transexual pensioner to head our parliment who is wearing the EMPORERS NEW CLOTHES.
i think many mps have lost touch with the people they are supposed to represent.
i live just outside liverpool in a district called knowsley (harrold wilson and robert kilroy silk country)people here wait days even weeks to see a gp they wait months on long hospital lists the old are afraid afraid to venture out at night infact so are some of our young people lawlessness rules many parts of liverpool and the surounding districts.the police and hospitals lack proper funding they say .and the powers that be say theres no left in the pot so how can we afford to send troops to far flung parts of the globe for months or years. now i am only a simple man and dont pretend to understand the complexities of forien policy. but i can add up and it must have cost the people of this country millions to chase around the globe holding the hands of our brothers across the atlantic. now as i recall last time we had a really big shindig in europe they came to our rescue and we have been repaying the debt we incured during our little trip into europe ever since.
its funy dont you think that a few short years ago while we the "english" where being shot at and bombed by the people who live the other side of the irish sea the americans allegedly funded some of there "political activities ??".
i wonder how they would react to us doing the same fo mr bin laden.
its a funny thing terrorism the leap from freedom fighter to terrorist is but a short hop.
not until it touches your heart and mind can you comprehend the damage it does to the common man. the world was outraged by 911 and rightly so.
but i was not the first atrocity commited by a singularly misguided group of people in the name of justice/freedom and it will not i am afraid be the last.
whats happened to common sence has it been lost in some strange shift in public awareness or perhaps it was stolen from us while we slept.

Maybe Barot is just a fanatical Walter Mitty-ish character who has lots of plans but no intent to implement...hard to sentence unless they have proof other than published!

DETAIL - or the lack thereof:

Cameron & the Conservative have been accused of not providing the detail & alternative policies, but are on the road to electoral recovery.

Blair has been accused of 'not doing detail'

The Democrats certainly have not published or promoted any alterative strategies to Iraq but look likely to do well in mid terms *

* Iraq being the issue they hope to regain power about, but they will not decamp post haste from that country with their flag between their legs.

Lesson? lack of detail is does not prevent you getting elected or keeping power - poor performance does :(

vikingar

ASYLUM SEEKING:

In this age of mass transportation & recent economic treaties & resulting flows of population - experiences since Post WWII.

The hard reality - that in order to preserve mainstream public support for acceptance of foreign nationals (legal immigration and/or asylum seeking) that government has to be seen to be acting & making real differences.

A cross referencing of captured details will enable real detections & help too prevent fraudulent applications (even if caught later) & multiple ID theft etc & other acts of crime.

MEASURES:

1. A Foreign Office campaign of advertising our rules & attitudes towards illegals & legal's, in Top Ten of countries where Asylum Seekers come from? use real stories of successful/failed applications (so the alternatives & consequences of failure - approx 80% fail?) *

2. Secure Borders: Home Office need to reinstate controls ASAP knowing who enters & who leaves the country (esp biometric data) but in the meantime capture of finger prints & photos will do (face & body)

3. Airlines, rail & ferry & freight carriers should be made accountable to record the travel & personal details of passengers: travel docs; finger prints & photos will do (face & body) & passed to Home Office (double check) - given premise they get here somehow.

4. Employees heavily penalised for employing illegals (advertise prosecutions) & also any resulting tax/security laws broken.

5. Incentives for illegals to informing on others, esp traffickers.

6. Failed asylum seekers to be processed ASAP & if failed application, then immediate evaluation of flight risk should be made, detain if necessary **

7. Government packages to deport & help with travel/incentives (if Easy Jet can do it for a tenner …..)

8. Any trafficker who is successfully prosecuted, who has been granted British Citizenship, should have it revoked & if merited deported.

9. Government to pursue assets of foreign traffickers abroad.

10. Incentives for other countries to take our illegals, including prisoner exchanges (Brit prisoners in return for illegals).

* esp as 80% of people claim asylum in country (arrive here then apply often destroying documentation, overstay/change status then claim). If people arrive without documentation, they should fail automatically (premise, if they are travelling across Europe they must have had documentation in most cases and if they are escaping persecution, they must have had documentation of existence/citizenship/reason for persecution). If travelling 100% illegally (back of van/boat) then FO advertising campaign sufficent legal basis to cover this possibility.

** clearly communicated to any asylum seeker, that if during the process they 'do a runner' will be automatically denied all state assistance, any access to appeal & we be deported as a priority/jailed then deported.

Q. is a failed asylum seeker classed as an illegal immigrant if they stay after the decision? *

* single or double counted.

Terminology:
- illegal immigrant
- failed asylum seeker
- what else?

vikingar

So... any reference to Bush & Blair has been ousted by the moderator , ...

how are we supposed to debate?

Following undercover operations.. Is the Home Office now saying the Probation Service is not fit for purpose? OR will those that initiate such a system fall on their swords!! Good job we have these independent revelations, otherwise the true situation would never surface .

Paul from Knowsley.

You go on about people waiting to see GP's yet you live in an area with a small immigrant community. You also fail to see the failure in your argument. Without immigrants we would have even less doctors and Nurses. People do not wait weeks that is a deliberate exageration.

Anthony Walker was murdered in Knowsley by people who share your ideology.

You do not care about other humans beings, that is frightening. That you would see people murdered rather than give them sanctury is terrifying. How would you feel if you had to flee for your life to a strange country, then get returned to the people who want to murder and torture you, would you like that to happen?

Vikingar the solution is to allow anyone who wants to work to come here and work. Then they cannot be employed illegally. A £10.00 minimum wage would prevent any erosion of peoples wages.

Most Asylum seekers get a raw deal. Because of the racists in our society, the system is stacked against them.

The government have ensured that it is difficult for Asylum Seekers to get legal representation. If their legal representative loses over half of their cases they lose their funding and jobs, therefore only the very strongest cases get represented. Asylum Seekers often only have five days to prepare a case and get representation.

Asylum seekers that apply foe asylum after they have arrived in the UK get NO help whatsoever and have to beg or even work illegally rather than starve to death. No Asylum Seekers are allowed to work. They either get £35.00 a week or nothing.

Many asylum seekers suffer from severe mental health problems due to their treatment in the UK. Many Asylum Seekers commit suicide rather than return to their countries of origin.

The top ten countries were Asylum Seekers come from are the top ten countries for war and oppression.

You say the government should legislate against illegal immigrants but they already do that is why they are called illegal immigrants, you cannot make it doubly illegal thats absurd. Penalising employers for employing people illegally would be good as it would stop exploitation both of immigrant and indigenous workers. There are many companies that employ people illegally, not all illegal employees are foriegn born. I know of many people working on the side because their employers will not pay a living wage. When they get caught they go to Prison, the employer just gets someone else illegally instead. It is employers that want to lower wages not workers, legal or illegal workers want the most they can get. Immigrants only come here because there is work. During the Thatcher Years immigration was low as there were no jobs. We were the immigrants both legal and illegal working abroad. Many British workers worked illegally on the Continent and the US. Many still do work illegally in the US, Australia, South africa etc.

Vikingar how will the foriegn Office advertise in places like Iraq, the Congo, China, Afghanistan, Darfur etc. Most of these countries have no infrastucture. I cannot see North Korea even admitting that anyone would even want to leave. I doubt if advertising in Darfur would work, many cannot read or write and they don't have any hoardings. The whole world isn't like here. The vasy majority of Refugees in these places end up in camps in nieghbouring countries. Why would those that are oppressed take any notice anyway. If someone is going to be murdered then I doubt they would care what the adverts said. Why should they believe them anyway the information could just be lies. You also forget, omit or don't know, Asylum Seekers tend to end up in lots of places not just the UK. Most don't exactly have a choice were they end up.

Most Asylum Seekers that arrive here are well educated, it is expensive to travel to the UK even legally. The numbers have reduced since the war in Kosovo. It was easier for Kosovan's to get here as they already lived in Europe so travel was easier and cheaper.

Peace, Love and Equality

Regarding Mr Blair's regular news conferences, it might be a good idea for someone to ask him about the meeting between Messrs. Olmert and Abbas, that he was supposed to be arranging following his trip to the Middle East.

Following the trip, the British public were assured that Mr Blair would be investing some political capital in the region, but, not surprisingly, this has failed to materialise. It looks like Mr Blair's trip was yet another example of brazen populism on his part with no real commitment to getting actual results on the ground.

The Israeli's and Palestinians are not going to do anything other than shell each other unless the western powers kick start the peace process. Western foreign policy in the Middle East revolves around fire-fighting instead of getting to the root of the problems. Everyone knows the shape of the final dispensation between Israel and Palestine, but there is a chronic lack of leadership on all sides to make it happen. Mr Blair is just faking leadership.

The conflict with al-Qaeda could potentially be resolved very easily indeed. All they have asked is that western forces withdraw from the Holy Lands. Before the intervention in Iraq, this simply meant withdrawal of British and US forces from Saudi Arabia. Why did Britain and America imperil their nations' security for the sake of having a few bases in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia? A bit of knowledge and respect for the sensitivities of foreign cultures is long overdue.

Ref 'anarchosurfer' #10

OBSERVATION:

1) you seem to class anyone who classes themselves as Asylum Seekers as ....

- truthful
- wonderful people (ref please)
- highly educated (ref please)
- all wishing & willing to work (ref please)

2) You seem to want the state to:

- allow anyone in the world who wants to work here do so.
- give full unqualified support to all classed as Asylum Seekers (regardless of cost).

3) You condemn the failures of AS as being down to:

- racism in the UK
- faults in the system
- their mental health problems (caused by other two)

4) Nowhere do I see you acknowledge that:

- there needs to be an actual limit to how many people are allowed onto this overpopulated island.
- there is impact to society, culture, economy, welfare & social services (negative & positive).
- people might actually tell 'porky pies'
- people actually might have not positive good motivation & personal traits.
- people actually might have not qualifications or credible/relevant experiences.
- people actually might not wish to work or able to.
- people (AS & illegals) take up significant amount of services from the welfare state, health & education etc.

5) You attribute AS influx down to Kosovian war (nothing else?)

6) You readily dismiss the notion of promoting & advertising UK policies abroad & deny there is an opportunity for UK government to impact the desire of people to see the UK as an attractive destination. Something needs to be done & UK has a global presence via ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ & can use any local media to advertise AS & immigration policies (radio, newspapers, leaflets, advertising on food stuffs). If nothing else, it will save people spending their merge savings & finances travelling through & bypassing other countries (who may assist them) rather than then banking all with the UK, the reality is 80%+ get rejected. We should not leave the reality check of challenges of entry into the UK down to the vested interests & spin of People Traffickers & illegals already here.

SOME STATS & FACTS & OPINIONS:

Approx 1 in 300 people in world classed as refugees (according to some) [1]

Population of the world is approx 6.6 billion + [2]

Therefore, based on those figures, at any time there are approximately 22 million+ people in circulation globally (38% of UK current population)

This excludes, illegal immigrants & economic migrants, in respect of the UK.

Two conclusions which I draw:

1) every state has a right to control & limit foreign population influxes (by & from any source/cause)

2) those states targeted & significantly impacted by asylum seekers have a right to act internationally i.e.. beyond its own borders (diplomatic, economic & other measures) to influence root causes of such migrations of population.

The same doubly applies to economic migrants & illegal immigrants.

SUMMARY:

All in all yours is a pretty dismissive & weak set of denials that do not relate to real problems which the UK or EU faces (naivety or disingenuous purposes?)

You are not alone amongst other of the left, who are most definitely out of step with the majority of mainstream society, media & politicians, in respect to the large unmanageable influx of foreign nationals to the UK, its impact to economic, welfare, health, education, services, environments, housing, infrastructure & most importantly societal & cultural cohesion in The United Kingdom [3]

A minority in denial to the challenges of reality, do not get to influence & determine the nature of change.

btw - pretty sure you would support arguments of Global Warming & Environmental Concerns, acknowledging there is a consequence to over use of resources & lack of regulation & control, short term use with no/little thought to the long terms consequence of such decisions.

Similarly there is a consequence & impact on any society, where significant numbers of non indigenous peoples (various sources) come into a country over short period of time, have negative impact (short/long term) on a society (to date 1,000,000+ person addition to in a national population of 60 million) ref [4] & you expect people not to do anything in response to protect their personal, communal & national interests.

- YES to immigration
- YES to Asylum Seekers.
- NO, to no controls.
- NO, to no limits.

Our country, Our limited resources, Our values, Our jobs, Our communities, Our Services, Our society.

People who complement British society (in manageable numbers) - welcome (we determine this criteria).

Those who pose a threat to social cohesion & undermine long term economic & social stability - not welcome (or tolerated)

Q. care to speculate which arguments ref non indigenous populations in the UK, mainstream society would sign up to… yours or mine?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] my #123 /blogs/newsnight/2006/08/immigration_questions.html

Ref 'anarchosurfer' #10

OBSERVATION:

1) you seem to class anyone who classes themselves as Asylum Seekers as ....

- truthful
- wonderful people (ref please)
- highly educated (ref please)
- all wishing & willing to work (ref please)

2) You seem to want the state to:

- allow anyone in the world who wants to work here do so.
- give full unqualified support to all classed as Asylum Seekers (regardless of cost).

3) You condemn the failures of AS as being down to:

- racism in the UK
- faults in the system
- their mental health problems (caused by other two)

4) Nowhere do I see you acknowledge that:

- there needs to be an actual limit to how many people are allowed onto this overpopulated island.
- there is impact to society, culture, economy, welfare & social services (negative & positive).
- people might actually tell 'porky pies'
- people actually might have not positive good motivation & personal traits.
- people actually might have not qualifications or credible/relevant experiences.
- people actually might not wish to work or able to.
- people (AS & illegals) take up significant amount of services from the welfare state, health & education etc.

5) You attribute AS influx down to Kosovian war (nothing else?)

6) You readily dismiss the notion of promoting & advertising UK policies abroad & deny there is an opportunity for UK government to impact the desire of people to see the UK as an attractive destination. Something needs to be done & UK has a global presence via ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ & can use any local media to advertise AS & immigration policies (radio, newspapers, leaflets, advertising on food stuffs). If nothing else, it will save people spending their merge savings & finances travelling through & bypassing other countries (who may assist them) rather than then banking all with the UK, the reality is 80%+ get rejected. We should not leave the reality check of challenges of entry into the UK down to the vested interests & spin of People Traffickers & illegals already here.

SOME STATS & FACTS & OPINIONS:

Approx 1 in 300 people in world classed as refugees (according to some) [1]

Population of the world is approx 6.6 billion + [2]

Therefore, based on those figures, at any time there are approximately 22 million+ people in circulation globally (38% of UK current population)

This excludes, illegal immigrants & economic migrants, in respect of the UK.

Two conclusions which I draw:

1) every state has a right to control & limit foreign population influxes (by & from any source/cause)

2) those states targeted & significantly impacted by asylum seekers have a right to act internationally i.e.. beyond its own borders (diplomatic, economic & other measures) to influence root causes of such migrations of population.

The same doubly applies to economic migrants & illegal immigrants.

SUMMARY:

All in all yours is a pretty dismissive & weak set of denials that do not relate to real problems which the UK or EU faces (naivety or disingenuous purposes?)

You are not alone amongst other of the left, who are most definitely out of step with the majority of mainstream society, media & politicians, in respect to the large unmanageable influx of foreign nationals to the UK, its impact to economic, welfare, health, education, services, environments, housing, infrastructure & most importantly societal & cultural cohesion in The United Kingdom [3]

A minority in denial to the challenges of reality, do not get to influence & determine the nature of change.

btw - pretty sure you would support arguments of Global Warming & Environmental Concerns, acknowledging there is a consequence to over use of resources & lack of regulation & control, short term use with no/little thought to the long terms consequence of such decisions.

Similarly there is a consequence & impact on any society, where significant numbers of non indigenous peoples (various sources) come into a country over short period of time, have negative impact (short/long term) on a society (to date 1,000,000+ person addition to in a national population of 60 million) ref [4] & you expect people not to do anything in response to protect their personal, communal & national interests.

- YES to immigration
- YES to Asylum Seekers.
- NO, to no controls.
- NO, to no limits.

Our country, Our limited resources, Our values, Our jobs, Our communities, Our Services, Our society.

People who complement British society (in manageable numbers) - welcome (we determine this criteria).

Those who pose a threat to social cohesion & undermine long term economic & social stability - not welcome (or tolerated)

Q. care to speculate which arguments ref non indigenous populations in the UK, mainstream society would sign up to… yours or mine?

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] my #123 /blogs/newsnight/2006/08/immigration_questions.html

Vikingar:

1. I never made out all Asylum Seekers are truthfull, I merely pointed out that the system is stacked against them. Kosovan Refugees were not granted full refugee status but given, extraordinary leave to remain. This is reviewed every year and means they do not have any real security.

No ones going to travel half way accross the world to live in NASS accomadation on £35 aweek. Every Asylum Seeker I have met wants to be able to work and support themselves.

It seems that a large number of asylum Seekers I come accross are very clever and sincere.

I never said Asylum Seekers were perfect, after all they are human beings I wanted to show they are real people with a lot to offer not some kind of monsters. You may resent other people getting a better quality of life but I don't. Immigration is a fact of life, it's about time you got used to it

2.I actually want Asylum Seekers to be able to support themselves if possible and pay taxes.

3. The system is stacked against Asylum Seekers, that is the truth.

4.You talk about limits for the size of the population, I find that very scarey. If the population gets above a certain level do you advocate euthenasia and enforced contraception and abortion to keep below whatever limit you deem neccessary. If the people in 1801 had thought like you there would only be 12,000 people in the country. I think you will find it is circumstance that will dictate the size of the population. If you stop people coming to the UK legally then they will come illegally instead.

Illegal Immigrants do not take anything off the state as they are illegal, they pay tax both through VAT and often through PAYE, but are not entitled to any returns.

Also see answer No1.

5. I never said that Kosovan's were responsible for most Asylum Claims, I merely pointed out that Asylum levels fell as a consequence of the war ending.

6. I suppose we could send them copies of the Daily Mail that should put them off. In the real world, everyone knows that western nations are affluent. When you exist in poverty, you don't care what dangers you face to survive.

If you really want to limit immigration you need to share the planets resources equally, then people won't need to search for a life away from all they love. Obviously poverty is not the only reason people emigrate, sometimes it's to flee persecution, sometimes it's because they are in Love, there are many reasons. According to you it's mainly economic so an equal distribution of resources would solve that problem. Maybe we could develope that idea to help reduce carbon emissions too.

How mant millions would you spend on this advertising, More than £2.8 billion, thats the net worth to the economy of immigration, not counting the income generated from illegal immigration, who are not entitled to services they pay towards.

Europe gets about 5% of the worlds refugees. In Africa over Half of the Worlds Refugees are Children, 35%in Asia. There were 22% more internally displaced people than in 2004. 2.1 million in Iraq.

It's terryfying that the equivelent to over a Third of the British population are refugees.

1. What leads you to draw that conclusion. You have failed to make any arguments to that affect. You have only given your opinions and some figures on world refugee levels and pointed out that Asylum Seekers are not perfect people.

2.Worryingly you seem to imply that instead of having Asylum Seekers we should invade their countries and not only kill countless innocent people as in Iraq but also sacrifice the lives of young British men. This sort of action only helps to exasperate things and leads to an increase in refugees not a decrease.

I think my ideas are far more realisticas they are much nearer the status quo, only the illegal Immigrants would be legal and pay full taxes. Currently immigrants are denied recourse to public funds. This usually applies for five years for immigrant workers. Those immigrants that have married a British citizen cannot have recourse to public funds for two years. It is different for refugees but as you pointed out only a tiny minority are granted that status.

I think most people would find your slogans about Our country, Our limited resources, Our values, Our jobs, Our communities, Our Services, Our society would scare most people. I do not share your values, we get most of our "limited" resourses from OTHER countries, immigration creates employment, as the population has increased Britain has become wealthier, Scrapping privitisation and doing away with things like tax havens for rich British people who want to take but not give would help improve our services. Making the rich Africans pay Tax in their countries rather than hide it in mainly British owned offshore accounts could play a major part in doing away with some reasons for migration. Society means different things to different people, Black and Asian people are a large part of my experience of British Society. Britain has allways been diverse, with five different indigenous languages being spoken as well as numerous dialects. Immigrants play an important economoic and cultural role.

Support for the BNP is diminishing, The party is fragmenting with splinter groups sprouting up and the likelyhood is that Nick Griffin will end up behind bars. He should feel right at home. I think thats your answer. You appear to be a threat to social cohesion whatever that is. It's you that should not be tolerated.

Oh, and what makes you think I'm left wing, are you right wing?

Peace, Love Equality.

Ref 'anarchosurfer' #14

"Illegal Immigrants do not take anything off the state as they are illegal ..... "

Q. you mean it never occurs to 310,000 - 570,000 illegal immigrants in the UK to acquire & exist on false ID's & play the welfare system? [1] *

* let alone obtain such fraudulent documentation from the very criminal types that got them illegally into the UK in majority of cases.

"I think my ideas are far more realisticas they are much nearer the status quo"

Q. again I'll ask the question - care to speculate which arguments ref non indigenous populations in the UK, mainstream society would sign up to… yours or mine?

"…… You appear to be a threat to social cohesion whatever that is. It's you that should not be tolerated"

Yep, usual intolerant default response of the Liberal Left and/or Left who as ever wrongly & arrogantly deny the scale of the problem, the part they play in its roots & who is 'entitled' to discuss issues regarding society, culture, race & religion - no surprise there :(

"Oh, and what makes you think I'm left wing, are you right wing?"

Left? I thought anarchists were off the scale from the Left perspective.

Ref me, I'm centre right & a liberal conservative. We enjoy society & are firmly nestled in the mainstream, that's why we get so much out of life, largely content with our lot (unlike the brooding extremes).

vikingar

SOURCES:

[1]