Sunday, June 24, 2012
The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said.
Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.
He also suggested the UK government's immigration policy had no basis in international law.
He was being quizzed by the Lords EU home affairs sub-committee which is investigating global migration.
Mr Sutherland, who is non-executive chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a former chairman of oil giant BP, heads the Global Forum on Migration and Development, which brings together representatives of 160 nations to share policy ideas.
He told the House of Lords committee migration was a "crucial dynamic for economic growth" in some EU nations "however difficult it may be to explain this to the citizens of those states".
The report originates at the BBC 3 days ago, but it is only the online part of the BBC where they put stories they want to have a record of having reported but not to be seen by many people.
We live in an era when public opinion about the EU is overwhelmingly sceptical, fanned we are regularly told by the popular press, and when Cameron and Miliband are vying with each other to say that it is "permissable" to discuss immigration. Cameron has even promised to cut it to "the order of tens of thousands each year" by about now though it is actually unchanged at around 250,000.
This nonsense by Mr Sutherland - it is specifically untrue that immigrants increase the economy proportionately to the rise in population, or even match it - should be grist to the mill of any journalist genuinely reflecting public feeling on the matter.
So what is the coverage - well there is the BBC's hidden online mention and ..... nothing more. according to Google news.
What does it say about our MSM that one has to run across stuff from American bloggers to find out what the nomenklatura in Britain are saying?
It is interesting that Sutherland's highly unwelcome 'advice' came during the same week as Miliband's well-publicised speech about mass immigration under Blair and Brown, which was dutifully portrayed by the mass media as 'addressing the concerns' of British voters. For good measure, a number of commentators and trades unionists chipped in with feigned indignation, accusing him of pandering to 'racism'. This was nonsense of course. Strip away the headlines and look at the text of the speech, and what you see is Miliband reiterating the case for mass immigration whilst singling out only one group for any degree of criticism: indigenous Europeans from the EU accession states. Miliband and Sutherland are peas in a pod, both vigorously anti-European and in favour of the mass settlement of European countries by African and Asian immigrants: http://durotrigan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/ed-miliband-and-peter-sutherland-united.html
1 - The writer has refused to provide a link & chapter & verse of the "independent" report he is claiming as support, though if it were true he could easily do so.
2 - those who hide their identity have no right to be trusted.
3 - Migration watch who are genuinely independent say otherwise http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/Briefingpaper/document/7
However anon, is invited to ptovide evidence that his statement represents not only the standard of honesty to be expected from totalitarians but approaches truthful.
2. You still have a problem playing with girls, and my parents still have a problem with me playing with you.
3. Migrationwatch have a number of stated aims, one of which is to try to reduce immigration. They therefore have an incentive to misrepresent data in a manner suggesting that the negative effects of immigration are disproportionately large.
Incidentally, your latest leafleting campaign is as underwhelming as ever. Do you always just do it during graduation fortnight, then leave your rubbish lie for a year?
While you admit, if only in latin, that your assertion was simply an assertion it is false to say that I did not provide a link as evidence. Also foolish since it is so obvious I did.
The rest is merely ad hom assertions against me and Migrationwatch.
2. I admitted that I hadn't stated where it was from, much as you did. This doesn't change the frequency with which you link to things that you have written, to support other things which you have written. There is no review process, so it is purely the case that you say it is true, and prove that you said it is true before.
3. These assertions are about as justified as yours are. Any conclusion opposing yours is, from your assertions, put forth by nazis, child abusers or worse. Anything that you agree with, when met with more temperate language, is being suppressed by... oh yeah, nazis, child abusers or worse.
If I wanted to make an ad hominem attack against you, I'd bring up things I've been told about your former colleague and your personal relationships. As is, I'm posting from the position that people say rude things when they feel hurt.
I genuinely was curious about the leaflets, because the climate change ones before took so long to get to where the climatologists might see them.
2 - If you have followed links where I have referred to a previous thread you will find that on the previous thread I invariably gave the outside links & thuis know what you are claiming is false. If you haven't you presumably don't care that it is false.
3 - Have I censored you or accused you of abusing children? If your complaint were honest I would have had to yet here you are.
The cowardice of an anonymouse who makes up gossip is a fine example of what the totalitarian "left" rely on. If you had any actual facts to put instead you would do so.
Perhaps yopu might like to explain the last para.
As admissions go, it's far from subtle, but, I think, underlines the point neatly.
In your second-most recent piece on Dalgetty Bay, you deleted a comment I made about your faulty interpretation of my comments on the difference between the natural background radiation, and that from the waste dumped there. You then posted asserting that my assumptions were nonsense, despite their conditional nature being highlighted from the first point where I realised you weren't following. On the same topic, but I think elsewhere, you deleted a comment I posted, indicating that silence from academics, in response to a question they had no direct responsibility to answer, in a field two steps aside from the one they actually work in, and sent at their peak marking period, did not automatically mean you were right.
In a more recent post, you did indeed call me a child abuser, while addressing me in the apparent belief that I was one Skip Evans, of whom I had not heard before coming here, and whom I have found nothing of since besides your own detailed complaints about him and a few one-off mentions which lead me to think he doesn't much like creationists. In comments to that same post, you deleted my comments explaining who I was and why your comment upset me.
I've already told you, in that post you deleted, why I don't identify myself more openly. If you choose to ignore that, you don't really have any right to complain about it.
I mean exactly what was said, across both of those comments. The most recent leaflets posted in the West End of Glasgow, with your blog's address on them, are underwhelming in making assertions against the BBC, in the same manner as those you make here. The climate change ones that went up last year, being rude about climatologists and citing nothing on-page to back the comments, were first seen outside the Engineering and Theatre buildings on the University of Glasgow campus, and outside HMV in the city centre - in each case on the wrong side of the relevant campus to immediately come to the attention of anyone into climatology on a professional level.
You seem to be ignoring everything about my demographic that would suggest 'totalitarian left' is just a bit ridiculous in context. And you still don't seem to want to play. So I'm not going to. The other anon who was posting that day was right, you're only good for entertainment, and after a while, for anyone with a conscience, not even that.
I have not deleted the previous posts he is complaining about.
If he chose to make himself (demographjically) indistinguishable from Skip then he can have no objection to being mistaken for that obscenity. Should he wish to identify himself then he would have a legitimate right to object to the way he is identified.
Clearly he has not seen all the posters if he says the description of the BBC as corrupt, genocidal, fascist propagandists has not been justified. He could also actually check out this blog and find that it has been entirely proven. Or he could rely on the fact that the BBC have felt unable to dispute it in any way.