..:: James.R.Skinner - South Wales (UK) ::..

Swine Flu - The Price of Immigration?

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:41:00 +0000

ITN has reported another victim of the swine flu outbreak around Britain. A nine-year-old girl from Dewsbury has recently died from the virus while suffering from an epileptic fit.
Granted it is a tragic event to occur, but have we as a society really taken swine flu too far? After all, common winter flu affects (and kills) many more people during the December-February months, yet no media coverage is ever made of the significant number of deaths there.
Furthermore, Sky News has released data suggesting that Britain is one of the worst hit countries in the world to be affected by the H1N1 virus, but why? Seeing as everyone is too afraid to say it, i'll go out on a limb and state my opinion; too much immigration into our country perhaps? I personally doubt its lack of educating the masses, especially as the government has invested millions into educating the population with the "catch it, bin it, kill it" campaign, so really, i cannot see any other culprit but our slack border controls.

Britain Needs To Become The New USA

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:15:00 +0000

America has its flaws of course, but its political & societal achievements far exceed our own, and we as a country need to be more like the US.
For example, their Constitution is actually written as an official document, and hence much more protected than our unwritten, conventional constitution. Their Bill of Rights is reflective of the protection of all citizens within the United States (unlike our Human Rights Act, which seems to solely benefit illegal immigrants, criminals, and the radical left who refuse to favour common-sense over political correctness). Their younger generation are taught the values of the “American Dream” and the importance of hard-work (unlike our younger generation, who realise that dole payments will sustain you for the rest of your life, without you having to lift a finger). And finally, their country is united under one, independent nation who are proud of their religious and nationalist roots (unlike our country, which is riddled with devolution, struggling under multi-culturalism, and governed by cowards who would rather surrender our independence to a country who, only 70 years ago, tried to wipe us from the face of the earth).

Yes, America may have corrupt politicians who sent us to war for no reason, but politicians can be easily changed...political ideologies however, cannot. We may rid ourselves of New Labour by the next election, but will it really make a difference? Even with Cameron at the reigns, our society will still suffer because of one simple problem...we lack the right political beliefs to make our country great again. Of course, we need the Conservatives to change our health service, we need the Conservatives to protect our borders, and we need the Conservatives to reform our education system...but fundamentally, we desperately need the Conservatives to instil the political ideologies of America. We need a written constitution so our rights cannot be infringed at will. We need to instil the importance of hard work within our younger generation, and we need to take pride in Britain and forget our divisions. Only then can we be the great country that we once were many years ago, and only then can we be the great country that is demonstrated by the United States.

Iran Violence - May It Continue...

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:11:00 +0000

Yes, as much as i dislike violence, i do hope the protests within Iran continue. Sky News have released a video (also available on YouTube) of a blooded teenage girl, who was caught up in the latest protests and tragically killed.
It is a very sad sight, but a famous political theorist named John Locke once stated that violence was justified in overthrowing a corrupt political regime, and i agree with him. It was actually his theories that led to the American Revolution, and truthfully, if the supporters of Mousavi use the same violence back, i cannot say i would look at their actions with distaste.
Of course, we then have to consider that overthrowing the President would be the least of Iran's concerns, but for what it's worth, i feel this is a situation where the ends justify the means, and violence justifies democracy.

a6byw57kzn

Brown - "We will win"

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:22:00 +0000

The News of the World has reported an ever-growing confidence from Gordon Brown. He stated that "it is because of my purpose in politics that I am determined to lead Labour to the next general election. We must and we will win".
Yet another lie i feel. If you're that confident Gordon, call the election that has been requested of you.

Two Seats Too Many?

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:08:00 +0000

The British National Party taking 2 seats in the European Election is far from breaking news, but even now, you cannot escape the media coverage surrounding the issue. Everywhere you go, you hear of people's disgust at the North-West voting in such a "thug-like, racist" party with Nick Griffin as its leader and new MEP.
However, regardless of what anyone thinks, i am actually happy that they managed to achieve those seats...yes....H a p p y.
Why? Simple really...how long has it been since this government (or any government in fact) has put effective measures in place to limit the flow of illegal immigration and asylum applicants into this country? Even Enoch Powell claimed we needed drastic reform, and that was back in 1968! Yet, no government has been willing to tackle the issue for fear of being branded "racist" and "xenophobic", and in my opinion, that is one cowardly approach to adopt. It is an issue that this country drastically needs to address, and even though the public has requested it on countless occasions (including the past 12 years), nothing has been done. I dont blame the voters of Yorkshire or Humberside for voting in the far-right...i blame the cowards in parliament for not addressing the issue sooner. If they had the guts to stand up and reform our dismal immigration system sooner, then the BNP would not be in the position of power that they are in now, and until the government actually listens to the people for once, then Nick Griffin and his party will only gain more votes.
The people have had enough Mr.Brown. If you want to stop the far-right from advancing, stop complaining and finally do something about it.

Immigration: Tories Need To Listen More

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 00:56:00 +0000

One of the latest YouGov polls has indicated that people are not satisfied with the Conservatives' stance on immigration.
A sample of 1,225 voters taken in Yorkshire and Humberside (on January 12th) reveals that when asked if the Conservatives "are listening to people on immigration", only 16% agreed, and a majority 40% disagreed. Furthermore, when asked if the Conservatives should "take a tougher stance on immigration", 62% agreed with only 15% disagreeing.

Of course, we cannot eliminate the fact that perhaps some members of the sample were Labour supporters, and hence stated that the Conservatives should tackle immigration more so they would lose alot of support from the "anti-racist" proletariat.....but then again, considering Yorkshire has a large Conservative majority, we could probably say that these stats are around 70% accurate.
Either way you look at them, i think Cameron may want to take note that his party support seems to be indicating that a tougher policy on immigration is required within his manifesto. Fair enough Cameron is trying to achieve Labour support at the same time, but the Conservatives have always stood for controlling the British borders, so in the light of these survey results, it would be stupid for Cameron to ignore these demands, especially at such a critical time where immigration seems out of control within Britain.

Gunpowder, Treason and Guido

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 03:16:00 +0000

I don't usually comment on issues like this, but it appears that Guido has finally got whats coming to him (shown here). Although i dont personally agree with the content of language used towards him, i cant help but feel that perhaps he is now swallowing a taste of his own medicine.

YouGov: "Things Are Only To Get Worse"

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 21:56:00 +0000

From viewing YouGov's most recent survey on a sample of 1918 people (a very small sample one must say).....a majority of Britains believe that Britain is a much worse place than what it was 5 years to go, and yes, you guessed it, its only going to get worse.

When asked "Do you think Britain is a better or worse place to live in than five years ago", the responses stated that:

11% feel it is better
62% said it was worse
[25% said it was about the same]

Furthermore, when asked if they "believed Britain would be a better or worse place to live in 5 years time":

11% said it would be better
53% said it would be worse
[25% said it would about the same]

Fair enough that it was only a small sample taken, but i myself also believe that Britain will decline both politically and economically over the next five years.
What is also interesting is that on the same poll, Britons were asked which country they most admired in the world, with a staggering 32% claiming Australia/New Zealand (with Canada trailing right behind with 11%). This should be a useful tool for the government. We have all heard about Australia's lower tax rates, reduced immigration and increased wage rates, so perhaps if we adopted a simular approach to our politics, the future wouldn't look so bleak for Britain.

Cameron here, Cameron there...

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 20:33:00 +0000

The BBC has published an article today questioning where Cameron's political allegiances really are, and although i never take anything the BBC says at face value, i do wonder myself where Cameron is basing his political support. Does he go Thatcherite all the way (and lose the Labour support he could possibly attain), or stay on both sides of the fence and be known as a political appeaser? Difficult one...so it will be interesting to see which one he chooses in the future.

Tory this....Labour that. Which side is Cameron on?

The Daily Politics Show......Bias

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 00:59:00 +0000

When i found out that the Daily Politics Show were doing a poll on the countries greatest political hero, i couldnt help feeling that it was obviously going to bias. As it so happened, my theory was bound to be proven soon enough, due to the final competitors battling for the title, being our very own Margaret Thatcher, and the far left winger, Tony Benn.
For some reason (still unknown to me), i decided to write in the comments box beneath the poll, claiming that the results were bound to be bias in favour of Benn because of his left wing stance. However, i didn't expect the comment to escalate into a full debate with myself, and the Daily Politics show's deputy editor, Mr.Gareth Butler. A copy of the debate is shown below:

James Skinner: Considering this is being held as part of the BBC, im gonna go out on a limb and say Tony Benn will win. Did someone say bias?

Gareth Butler: It isn't being held 'as part of the BBC'. It's a vote by viewers and users of our website. Of course, there's nothing to stop supporters of any of the candidates voting multiple times or circulating sympathetic blogs trying to whip up votes - I know that both Thatcher and Salmond camps have done just that, and I'd be very surprised if the Bennites didn't do the same.
Presumably the Hutton Report passed you by entirely. In case you hadn't noticed, relations between No10 and the BBC have not been particularly friendly in recent years. On the other hand, I understand users of Iain Dale's Conservative blog have just voted the Politics Show their favourite political programme - so we must be doing something right.

JS: You must be forgetting the incident that occured with the BBC back in May 2005, where the BBC personally assigned 3 people to heckle Michael Howard during an election speech. Doesn't sound like the BBC is very independant to me.

GB: If I remember rightly, that was a stunt for a BBC3 programme about heckling or something. It was certainly not a news programme.

JS: Still goes to show what a bias organisation the BBC is though. Then again, what do you expect for a broadcast network that is owned and funded by the government? Obviously its programmes are going to be bias in favour of Labour.......with the politics show being no different.

GB: You are quite wrong. We have excellent relations with the Conservative Party. Occasionally we get a complaint from them, just as we do from the other parties. Sometimes they have a point; mostly they don't. There really never has been an issue of bias concerning the Politics Show.

JS: But what i am saying is that the BBC has shown to be tied around Blairs little finger (as most of the nation will agree), so quite blatently, the politics show (being broadcast on the BBC) is going to be bias against the conservative party as well. You may have excellent relations with them, but that doesnt mean to say you dont favour the interests of the Labour government more.

GB: The BBC has not been shown to be anything of the sort; and opinion poll evidence suggests that a large majority of the population believe the BBC is fair and impartial. Since you clearly cannot produce any evidence for your accusations, I don't propose to continue this exchange.

Despite we had differing opinions, i did enjoy listening to Gareth's point of view regarding the BBC. In my opinion however, i hope he one day realises the spin and pro-labour broadcasting that the BBC is guilty of promoting.

Im Sorry Mr.Blair?

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 02:43:00 +0000

Its been quite a popular issue in the news recently......that being Tony Blair's opinions to the execution of Saddam Hussein.
Finally, he has broadcast his opinion of the penalty as "completely wrong", and that his execution should not excuse the crimes he committed.
Personally however, i wish Tony Blair would just swallow his pathetic hypocracy. He drags along with George.W.Bush's every will, claiming that he wants Iraq to reap the benefits of democracy, but as soon as Iraq achieves its democratic independance, he feels he has the superiority to criticise their political decisions. Yes Tony, im sure Iraq is deeply sorry just because you say the death penalty is wrong, but at the end of the day, you gave them the power to make their own political decisions, so dont criticise them just because they practice a policy dissatisfactory to your dying ideologies.

You gave them the power, now deal with it...

Are we done for?

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:00:00 +0000

A few things have crossed my mind this week, mostly regarding the future of our very country. There are so many problems that exist for us (as shown below), that it becomes hard to believe that our future will remain secure. For instance:

We have no written constitution, therefore we have no structure which to base our laws upon and deem certain laws "unconstitutional" for the best interests of the public.
The House of Lords is practically useless, which gives parliament the ability to pass any law it wishes without secondary consent.
We have a multi-cultural society, which even our own Prime Minister has admitted not to be working, because of factors such as "ghetto-isation" and cultural isolation.
We have accepted far too many immigrants and asylum seekers over the past 50 years, that a future problem cannot be avoided.
We are apart of the European Union; a group of countries who not only have no common interest or language, but who are only associated with us for their own self benefit.
Our Health Service is declining each and every day, with job losses and ineffective spending, let alone rising cases of MRSA.
Education standards are falling each year, with social engineering allowing unsuitable students to enter university courses that they are simply not skilled enough to handle.
Our police force are hindered from carrying out their duties because of red tape and human rights laws.
Our own government (and indeed the opposition) would rather lie and decieve to the public just to attain votes, rather than give the public the dignity of being told the truth.
Laws such as the Anti-Terrorist Act and the Legislative/Regulatory Reform Bill now prohibit us from exercising natural rights that we used to hold.
Our government seems obsessed with a Big Brother state, which infringes our natural rights as British citizens (such as ID cards).
There is no unity for a Great Britain anymore, just devolution and seperatism.

I could easily go on, but i hope i have made my point clear. I personally dont think that Britain has a future......and political bloggers such as myself are debating a lost cause. Perhaps its time we should seriously start to consider this very prospect, otherwise, we are all residing on a time bomb known as the UK.

Does Britain really have a future?

EXCLUSIVE: Iran and Syria are next

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 04:11:00 +0000

The other night, I was fortunate enough to be invited to a friend’s apartment to watch a couple of movies with a few friends. What was most eventful about this evening however, was that one of the people who resided at this apartment was a native of Palestine, and had witnessed many incidents throughout the conflict between

Israel

and his country.

Of course, the night was good fun, but I couldn't help myself asking the Palestinian about his experiences in

Israel

. So naturally, be began talking about the situation (discussing

America

's involvement also), and by the time I thought we had talked about every detail possible, he showed me what appeared to be a 74 page document. Little did I know that this document was not supposed to be read by the public, as it was for political use within the White House only, and to my surprise, it was a detailed description of how the alliance between Israel and America is influencing wars in the Middle-East more than we know.

For example, the war in Iraq did not begin (mainly) because of the search of nuclear weapons...it began due to Israel's demand for the US to overthrow Saddam. Why? Because during the gulf war (1990-1991) Saddam was the only Arab leader to launch missile attacks against Israel...and as a result, it appears the Israeli’s want their fellow allies to occupy Iraq to limit the hostilities made towards them (especially now by Iran and Syria). Today, the US occupies Iraq.....tomorrow, the US will occupy Iran (and eventually Syria), to prevent any further conflict towards Israel, and in doing so, they will make every excuse possible to justify their actions.

The bottom line is though, is that Israel has America's foreign policy wrapped round its little finger......and in the end, both achieve the benefits. Israel will have no more hostilities from surrounding Arab countries, and America will benefit from the vast quantities of oil that the Middle-East has to offer. Not a bad outcome for a corrupt bargain.

So here I state my bets: For now, it is Iraq. Then Iran, then Syria, then Lebanon. It will be interesting to see if this comes true in the near future.

How much of America's forgeign policy is influenced by Israel?

Should smokers receive a second class health service?

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Sat, 06 Jan 2007 21:12:00 +0000

Of course, we hear a lot about this very issue, and it has also come up quite a bit in American politics recently too……should smokers, the obese and alcoholics receive a lower class health service?

The argument is that those who choose to self inflict health problems upon themselves should not be entitled to the full health benefits of non-smokers/alcoholics within the UK. Hence, those who look after themselves will receive the rewards in the long run (a first class health service with full benefits), and as a result, by spending less on smokers and the obese, the health service will be able to keep hold of more revenue for its expenditure needs.

From what I have gathered, there is about a 50/50 split between this issue (in Connecticut anyway), but I myself have taken a longer time to come to a conclusion, because both sides of this argument seem to have their strong points.

Say Britain was to give smokers a lower standard health service…this would be beneficial in some cases, because when we think about it, health problems of smokers and alcoholics are self-inflicted. They know the dangers of what they are doing, and if they choose to ignore the risks, it is no ones fault but their own. Therefore, the health service should not spend as much on these people, and preserve its funds for those who choose to take care of themselves.

However, we also have to consider that like myself and majority of the British public, smokers and alcoholics contribute to the NHS through taxes, and as a result, should be entitled to receive full health benefits due to their contribution. If someone has contributed equally to a service, surely they deserve to reap the rewards from it when the time arises?

In my personal opinion however, by reviewing both sides of these arguments, I think I eventually favour the latter option; that smokers, the obese and alcoholics should receive full benefit from the NHS.

Why you may ask? Because to me, if everyone equally contributes to something, then everyone (regardless of their health issues) deserves equal reward from such an investment. The argument that they are fully aware of the risks they are taking does not really persuade my opinion that much. Of course, a smoker will know that they run the risk of cancer, but at the same time, a sports athlete (especially of a professional nature) will know that he runs the risk of broken bones, torn ligaments, and even paralysis. This does not mean however, that a sports athlete should be given a second rate health service, just because he might endure a bad tackle.

Of course, I know that there will always be differing opinions to this issue, but personally, everyone runs risks in their daily lives...and just because personal health may deteriote to such risks, it doesn't mean certain members of the public deserve an NHS lower than the average standard.

Should self-inflicted illnesses deserve a second class health service?

Multi-culturalism Does Not Work

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Fri, 05 Jan 2007 14:43:00 +0000

No doubt I will get some complaints from this post as being either racist or xenophobic, but still, I strongly stand by this belief, and that is, multiculturalism in Britain simply does not work. It never has worked in the UK, and quite frankly, it never will work within the Great British Isles.

Believe me, it is quite upsetting to admit this fact, but the conclusion is staring everyone in the face…that people from other nationalities/cultures can not establish co-operation and collaboration within one singular country, especially a country as small as the UK.

When we think about it, the poor state of our immigration laws have demonstrated this significantly. The more migrants that arrive here each day, the more angered the British majority seems to become, because truthfully, we know that 2 conflicting cultural backgrounds will never see eye to eye within society. It’s common sense to state that a foreign migrant (with cultural values of an Arabic country for example) will never except the British way of life, as it is natural for one to hold onto his/her traditions from their native country. The problem with this however, is that holding onto such values gives rise to isolation within society (with a perfect example of this being muslim women covered head to toe in black cloaks). The British public (whether psychologically or deliberately) will never accept this religious dress code as part of their way of life, and as a result, such women become isolated within society, only understood by those of the same religious backgrounds as them, and hence, leading to numerous cultures themselves isolated from what the British public deem normal.

This idea can also be seen on an international scale. Some may differ in their opinions to this, but overall, we can all accept that in general, the world simply does not get along. The chances are, France will always have a grudge against England, the Middle-East will always hate America, and Germany will never be forgiven (by most in Europe) for the genocide of World War II. And with that in mind, if populations on a scale such as this can not see eye to eye, how can we expect people within one, miniscule country to co-operate with all these cultural tensions and revulsions?

It was a nice thought, an idealistic dream if you will, but the conclusion is final and will always remain the same. Our differences will always outweigh the similarities we have with other nations and cultures, and consequently, Britain is doomed to hostility if multiculturalism ceases to exist.

Bob Piper.....Not Guilty

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:14:00 +0000

I understand from my most recent check on the BBC News website (and also from Bob Pipers site), that old Mr.Piper is in a bit of trouble for promoting a black David Cameron and using offensive literature towards the black community (by using words such as "niggah").
Now i perfectly understand that both me and Mr.Piper have differed (very strongly) about political issues in the past, of which, can be shown by scrolling down the page to certain NHS articles, but because I strongly believe in upholding the individual rights of each British person (regardless of their political opinions)...i am going to side with the councillor on this one.
Although i am likely to be sounding like a Supreme Court Justice in the following sentences, i do feel that it is Mr.Pipers right to publish whatever he deems satisfactory on his personal website (in the best interests of freedom of the media). Granted, many people feel that this should not be the case because of the articles racially offensive content, but i myself do not believe Bob Piper to be racist. After all, using the word "niggah" is not an offensive slur. It is used by black people all over the world (especially where I am in the United States) as a mark of pride and respect for their cultural heritage. It is not an offensive remark, but a sign of pride used by blacks in all countries. If however Mr.Piper used the word "nigger" in his article, then i can completely understand the reasoning for an outcry, as this does demonstrate racism, but according to today's modern slang and literature, me must respect the fact that the words "niggah" (used by Bob Piper) and "nigger" mean two seperate entities in society.
Personally, i see nothing wrong with what Mr.Piper did. Although i disagree with his slanderous material at our party leader, this does not mean that he should be denied his right to freedom of media publication......especially as the article was published on his own, personal website.

Yet another Conservative Blunder

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 17:30:00 +0000

A report by ConservativeHome.com and the BBC has confirmed that Peter Davies (father of Monmouthshire MP David Davies) has been blocked by the Welsh Conservative leader (Nick Bourne) from becoming an assembly candidate in the next elections.
Nick Bourne has asked the Welsh party chairman, Lyndon Jones, to remove him from the candidate list "immediately", because Mr.Davies expressed his personal views that the Welsh assembly should be abolished immediately:

[Abolition would] give us better government in Wales, including reduced hospital waiting lists, a higher standard of education and local government without interference from the Welsh Assembly Government.
The abolition of the national assembly would also have the additional advantage of preventing Britain being broken up into regions by the European Union so that the commissioners in Brussels can run our country in their undemocratic, inefficient, self-serving fashion".

All i can say is, how ridiculous can one leader of the Welsh Conservatives be? Firstly, i fail to see how it is fair that Peter Davies should be banned from the candidates list just for expressing his political viewpoint, after all, i dont exactly agree with Keneth Clarkes views on Europe, but you dont see me demanding his resignation as soon as possible.
And secondly, considering it is a Conservative trait to oppose the Welsh assembly (and devolution in general)...what exactly has Peter Davies done wrong?
Personally, all i see in this matter is Nick Bourne fearing the loss of his job if the assembly were to be abolished, and considering more than 75% of Wales are in support of its abolition, this could become a reality sooner or later for Bourne. All i can say to Bourne is: dont put your self interests at the expense of the party's.

Peter Davies: supportive of assembly abolition

100 Policies from Conservative Home

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 19:39:00 +0000

As those of you who are familiar with ConservativeHome.com, you will know that they are running an excellent campaign into what the Conservative party could include within their next manifesto (from their supporters point of view).
So far, the campaign has had numerous suggestions regarding the police force, prison sentences and Europe, so with their campiagn ideals in mind, i decided to forward my ideas for a new system of government within the UK (which can be viewed within the link below).
Of course, im not really expecting much to occur from it, but if it atleast gets people thinking about the current inefficiencies of our government, then i suppose that would be one step forward.

(Link to Proposal)

Are They Really That Corrupt?

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 23:42:00 +0000

Considering i heard about these proposals via email (within the USA), they did come as a bit of a shock to me.
Firstly, is the government seriously considering allowing inspectors into our homes (whether we permit them or not)?
Secondly, is the government seriously considering recording our bank details, and other information such as where we shop?
And last but not least, does Tony Blair honestly want everyone within Britain to be DNA tested for criminal records?
I know that im not the most liberal person in the world, but there is a point where government intervention (within our personal lives) becomes too excessive, and if the government are seriously considering these proposals, then they will have significantly over stepped the mark on peoples freedoms and liberties. I dont know if im the only British citizen to think that this is wrong, but i did not elect a collection of politicians to represent me in parliament, just so they can vote on restricting my freedoms within society. In addition (being brutally honest), if the British public are stupid enough in allowing these laws to pass straight over their heads (like they seem to have done with ID cards), then they are no better than those who deem it acceptable to take away our liberties within society itself. Like i've always said, our society can only go so far, before it can never be resuscitated.

How many more liberties are the public willing to let politicians take away from them?

If you live in our Country, you contribute to our Country

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Thu, 12 Oct 2006 00:49:00 +0000

Since I came out to the United States of America 2 months ago (for a year long course in Economics and Politics), I have learnt numerous things that would benefit our country (which I will post on this site over the next year or so). One of those policies, which I feel Britain most certainly (if not immediately) needs, is the implementation of an American style immigration system.
Currently, within the United Kingdom, if an individual/alien from a foreign country crosses our borders and intends to live within the United Kingdom, they are not required to hold any skills or economic contributions to our society. Instead, they are entitled to claim asylum and live on government benefits which cost the tax payer millions of pounds a year (Abu Hamza being a perfect example; currently attaining over $40,000 a year in unemployment/disability benefits). Still to this very day, this is something which new Labour refuse to tackle (despite it costs us an extortionate amount of money, and yet our NHS and public services are suffering as a consequence).
So it leads us to this question…if the British government cannot think of a way to solve this situation, who can? Well, the answer is the very country from which I am typing this post right now….America.
Under American legislation (referring to the citizenship of immigrants and dispatch of immigrant visa’s), no immigrant is allowed to enter the country unless they intend to seek full time employment within the economy, and in doing so, such full time work must be of relatively high demand by employers and businesses. The same situation also applies to America’s great northern neighbour, Canada…except in addition, all immigrants who wish to apply for permanent settlement must contribute a certain sum into the economy upon arrival (bearing at least a few thousand dollars).

To me, this seems the exact policy that our government needs to adopt within the United Kingdom. Our easy going immigration laws (and even more lenient benefit system) are the very reasons why we have a significant problem with asylum applications and illegal immigration today. Every person who I have spoke to in the United States so far cannot believe how we allow anybody and everybody into our country free of charge, with no requirements to apply for benefits, and allow our government to accommodate them at the British tax payers expense. In my opinion, if you want to live in our country, you contribute to our country, ie: Britain cannot afford any more payments for asylum claims on the scale it is currently enduring. Therefore, we need to adopt an American style (even Australian style) immigration system, whereby you can only apply for permanent residence if you have particular skills that are required for our economy, and intend to use those particular skills in full time employment. Indeed, those of you of the centre-left spectrum may disagree with this proposal, but inevitably, there is no doubt that this would eventually benefit the British public, and the UK economy itself.

America's Green Card System: a system which Britain needs to adopt?

UK Conservative in the United States

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:54:00 +0000

Im afraid that, despite i said i would not be commenting on this blog anymore, the urge to document American politics in relation to Britain has become far too overwhelming!
As you may or may not know, i have been out in Connecticut for the past month or so, studying Constitutional Law and Economics (with minors in Theology and US History) as part of a scholarship i was awarded by the English Speaking Union.
I decided about 2 months ago that, because of the 3000 mile difference between the United States and Britain, i would not be posting anymore posts on this site, but after experiencing numerous American political ideologies over the past few weeks, i will most certainly be posting all that i learn in relation to Law and Politics, and how certain American policies can greatly benefit the Conservatives and the United Kingdom itself.
Believe me, from the countless stories and news reels that the Americans hear about Tony Blair and the Labour party in general, they would have voted our present government out long ago (either by vote or impeachment), mainly as a result of the corruption that Blair has shown during his time in power (undermining our country's right to freedom of speech, locking up citizens for exclaiming "none-sense" at Labour party conferences, e.t.c).
My studies out here will continue until July 2007, and during this time, I aim to comment on all political aspects that would greatly benefit our political system, courtesy of the United States, with my first post regarding how our Country needs a Constitution to protect our people from government corruption (as we have previously seen). I will be posting such articles in the near future, so keep checking for any updates....and i can assure you, alot of the policies that i have learnt about over here will most certainly be forwarded to David Cameron for review.

Numerous American policies would benefit our society

Yes......Britain IS run by Marxists

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 10:08:00 +0000

A letter that was uncovered in the House of Common archives on 15/06/06 has come back to haunt Tony Blair this week, with the letter stating that he was an enthusiastic admirer of Karl Marx (the founder of Communism).
The letter (written over 24 years ago) is written by Blair to socialist politician Michael Foot, urging him to adopt radical Left-Wing policies and not to become a "prisoner of the right". A few captions have been listed below explaining the content of this letter, written on July 28th, 1982. Tony Blair wrote:

"Like many middle-class people, i came to Socialism through Marxism...I found it illuminating in so many ways".
"We [the Labour Party] have a constitution and we have firm principles on which that constitution is founded" (ie: renationalisation).
"Socialism ultimately must appeal to the better minds of the people".
"In a party of the Left there should always be room for differences of opinion".

Blair also wrote about how the Labour party should adopt "radical, socialist policies", and how Karl Marx himself had "irreversibly alerted" his views on society.

Now, with this letter in mind, not only am i deeply concerned about our Prime-Ministers political roots and beliefs, but im also concerned about how he has changed his mind again and again just to appeal to the British public.
Despite his support for Marx in his letter, he was actually quoted a few weeks later saying he rejected Marxism because he found it "stifling". In addition, in 1981, Blair stated that he admired Margaret Thatcher, but later accused her of "rigid populism" and "economic madness" in the letter a year later.
So much for the old "Dave the Chameleon" campaign criticising him of "flip-flopping" between policies I guess.
Even former Labour minister Peter Kilfoyle said that Mr.Blair:
"...has carried his journey all the way across the political spectrum. I wonder where he will go next"?

So, not only does it seem that we have a Prime-Minister who has communist roots (and potentially might still do)...but we also have a Prime-Minister who merely changes his political opinion just to suit his popularity needs with the British public (something which he criticised David Cameron for doing in the local election campaign on May 2006).

Chris Palmer (another political blogger) has frequently written about the far left within British politics, disguising themselves as Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party. At first, i always thought that perhaps he was exaggerating such a theory, but when this letter is brought to the House of Commons (potentially next week in PMQT), it may be the case that his theories were not so radical after all. Either way, the possibility also arises that British political thought could now change towards "New Labour"...and you never know, we may even see a general election fought like that in 1924 (with the Conservatives versus the Pro-Soviet Labour Party under Ramsay MacDonald).
So much for a "new, modernised" Labour party i guess!

Blair: New Labour Politician or Marxist enthusiast?

What about OUR human rights?

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Fri, 19 May 2006 15:58:00 +0000

Whilst watching "Question Time?" last night in Cantebury, the issue of Human Rights was asked by one member of the public, concerning foreigners who had committed crimes within the UK and were due to be deported back to their country of origin.
As im sure you can respect, i was most supportive of such a notion, but the question also emerged concerning those criminals who fled to this country fleeing from persecution in their home lands. Should we deport them back to such places?
Now most of the panel (including Simon Hughes and Ken Clarke) were not supportive of this measure because it would "affect their Human Rights", but myself on the other hand...I could not be more in favour of deporting a foreign criminal out of the UK.
In my opinion, those foreigners who commit crimes in the UK have already forfeited their Human Rights, especially if they have committed murder, rape, assult, e.t.c.
It has always been my belief that the number one responsibility of any government is to protect the people, and to protect the people, you have to do whats best in our interests, and not whats best for those who have no regards for our safety (or our country) whatsoever.
One man in the audience actually summed it up very well, stating "why are we so concerned about protecting their human rights? What about protecting our human rights"?.......couldnt have said it better myself.
But then, you do get the minute few who would rather see a foreign criminal kept here at our own expense, such as one woman (who seemed rather irrate at the gentlemans remarks) claiming "How can you say that about them.....they are still human.....they are still people"?
Im afraid not madame.......in my opinion...i regard anyone who endangers the lives of my fellow citizens as anything but human. This government gets so wound up about protecting foreign criminals human rights that it completely forgets to protect the human rights of its own people, and you dont have to be a genious to see that something is wrong with that.
But then the question still remains of where do you deport them? Well...in my opinion......as long as its not in Britain...i couldnt care less. Im not saying that we should deport them back to their domestic country (after all, two wrongs dont make a right), but none-the-less, as long as they are outside of our British borders, they are not my case to worry about. If you want to endanger our lives, you pay the consequences......deportation.
But then, saying that, you still have to ask yourself the question of "Why are they here in the first place"? After all, the European legislation towards asylum and immigration states that asylum seekers (fleeing from persecution in thier home country's) must claim asylum at the nearest, safest country to their domestic persecution........but since when did Britain become the nearest safe-haven for these people?

Should we deport foreign criminals back to their home countries?

The Da Vinci Code

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Thu, 18 May 2006 19:22:00 +0000

I dont usually comment on recently released films, but after reading an article posted by Boris Johnson MP on the Da Vinci Code, i thought i might as well give my point of view towards the film (especially as im a confirmed Christian).
In all truth, i can understand why the Catholic church is fearing its release, after all, surveys show that over 60% of the adult population in Britain believe it to be true (which according to old Boris here, is about 7 million people in this country).
But being a Christian, most people would expect me to be completely against this book by author Dan Brown, believing that not only is it blasphemous, but also mocks the Catholic church by claiming that they have covered up the descendants of Christ who are supposingly living in France........not true.
In fact, when i have the time, the chances are that i will be visiting my nearest cinema in Newport (most likely with my girlfriend) and viewing this film which is supposed to be one of the best films of all time. Dont get me wrong, i cant exactly say that i agree with Dan Browns argument, i dont even believe that Jesus married Mary Magdalene (let alone had a child/children)...but then again, i also consider that Dan Brown (like the rest of us) is only human, and therefore (like most Christians in the world) conjure their own opinions to the meaning of the bible.
And im one of them. There are many situations in my life where i dont fully agree with the bible, such as its belief that all spiritual mediums are contradictory to God. Call me crazy, but i dont agree with this at all, as i regularly visit my family medium for advice and guidance in life, even though the bible forbids this...and i think its also the same with Dan Brown.
He may have his different opinions on the New Testament, but we cant judge him as being any less of a Christian as us......it is un-Christian to do that in the first place!
He may have created a best-selling book, which may have turned into one hell of a film, but lets not get carried away with this. It doesnt mean that his story must be added to the gospel...it simply means that, like most us, Dan Brown has differing opinions about the bible, and it is up to us whether we choose to believe it.

Does Dan Brown's book pose a threat to the Catholic Church and Christian beliefs world-wide?

The NHS Recession

jskinner003@hotmail.com (James.R.Skinner) — Wed, 17 May 2006 11:04:00 +0000

As many of you may or may not know, i was recently forwarded to Cardiff University hospital on May 15th to have an inguinal hernia repaired (of which, is quite a serious proceedure and involves a long recovery time afterwards).
Despite the difficulty of this operation however, i was more than pleased with the turn-out of the surgery. The surgeons had done a fantastic job, and whilst staying in the ward over night, the staff were more than happy to give me the support and medical advice that i needed.
But even though the nurses were working day and night to make their patients as comfortable as possible, i was told by one student nurse named Kerry, that many of them were fearing job losses because of the NHS being several million pounds in debt, with excessive spending resulting in very little productive output.
Cardiff has not seen any job losses yet, but with its estimated £9 million short-fall, nurses are fearing job losses could soon be on the way (especially as the Royal College of Nursing has recently predicted over 7000 job cuts in the upcoming months).
But yet...our health secretary has the nerve to turn around and say that the NHS has experienced "its best year ever"!
Many of these nurses (including those who attended me) do a fantastic job looking after patients and keeping their wards on track...why should they have their jobs at risk because one socialist government can not utilise its spending plans accordingly?
Whats even worse is that these job cuts are set to only get worse, because as more and more worthless spending goes into the NHS, the more into debt that it becomes, with more job losses around the corner.
The most irritating part of this whole situation however, is that those nurses (in Cardiff University hospital and nationwide), who do fantastic work, may not even be there next year.......so much for Labour's promises of job security. Cheers Patricia.

How many more job losses will the NHS endure in the upcoming months?