Gob. Smacked. Government is not fit for purpose

So let me get this straight government immigration figures aren't based on a count of people entering and leaving this country even though they check everyone's passports as they enter and leave.  They are based on a random survey of passengers ?!

From the BBC:

But the MPs warned that current net migration statistics produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Home Office were "blunt instruments" and were "not adequate for understanding the scale and complexity of modern migration flows".

In particular the MPs criticised the main source for producing migration figures - the International Passenger Survey (IPS).

It was designed in the early 1960s to examine tourism trends - something it is still used for today - and is based on "random interviews" with travellers at ports and airports.

The Public Administration Committee said just 5,000 migrants a year were identified through the survey and it had a "large margin of error".

Scrap government, it's not fit for purpose. Even better, lamppost meet rope. Geez!!!

It's people!

It's people. Too many people.

Why is there a supposed housing shortage?  Too many people.

Round here the bulldozers don't stop.  Massive new housing developments in Milton Keynes and Aylesbury. 1000 houses per year in Milton Keynes and in Aylesbury another 1000 per year.  Acre after acre turned into massive estates with new schools and other facilities.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/currentevents/2012/10/16/warning-bell-for-developed-countries-declining-birth-rates/

Western European countries have low fertility rates, below the replacement rate of 2.1. Germany: 1.4 (its total population is 81.9 million, of which 8.2% are foreigners). Holland: 1.8 (16.5 million, of which 4.4% are foreigners). Belgium: 1.8 (10.8 million, of which 9.8% are foreigners). Spain: 1.4 (46.1 million, of which 12.4% are foreigners). Italy: 1.4 (60.2 million, of which 7.1% are foreigners), the Pope’s views notwithstanding. Sweden, which provides deep support for parents, has a high TFR of 1.9 (9.4 million, of which 6.4% are foreigners), but that’s still below the replacement rate. Ireland and the U.K. also have high TFRs, at 2.1 and 1.9, respectively, but these rates are derived from non-European immigrant parents.

Note that the UK has a birth rate, TFR, below the replacement rate of 2.1 even with the high birth rate of non-European immigrants. So why the need for more housing?  Net migration which is running at over 150,000 per year. Better than it was but still awful.

In hand waving terms we need a new city the size of Milton Keynes every year just to accommodate the new arrivals.  That's new houses, schools, hospitals, roads and so on as well as the national infrastructure that goes with this.

Struggling A&E at the local NHS dive?  Too many people.  Pressure on housing?  too many people.  Congested trains and roads?  Too many people.

Since population growth is down to mass immigration the only way to stabilize the population is to limit immigration to no more than the emigration rate.  Like a full car park, no one allowed in until someone leaves.

Prat

 

DC tweeted:
 
David Cameron        ✔ @David_Cameron

I'm delighted for the Duke and Duchess now their son has been born. The whole country will celebrate. They'll make wonderful parents.

8:31 PM - 22 Jul 2013

 

Don't speak for me, I still don't give a damn. 

Overblown media

World awaits as duchess in labour

"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn"

Not our problem

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22833136

"The BBC highlights this case as an example New financial rules for migrants from outside the European Union are tearing UK families apart and causing anguish"

"In one case, a woman from outside Europe had been separated from her British husband and two sons, including a five-month-old baby she had been breastfeeding.

Douglas Shillinglaw, from Kent, is among those to have been affected. His wife is in Lagos, Nigeria, with his five-month old son and her six-year-old son from another relationship."

I can't be the only person who thinks that if a man leaves his wife in another country because he doesn't qualify to bring them to the UK then he is the heartless bastard splitting up the family.  

It's the same as the human rights nonsense about a right to a family life.  If you deserve to be expelled take your family life with you - if they want to go.  No one in the UK is making anyone stay in this country or leave another country.

It's all personal choices and nothing to do with rules.

Why are judges such muppets?

This is not a comment about the rights and wrongs of immigration in the US but the stupidity of judges.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22664299

"The office of an Arizona lawman who styles himself America's toughest sheriff improperly targeted Hispanics in routine patrols for undocumented immigrants, a federal judge has found."

Now if a sheriff targets Mexicans as illegal immigrants when he is 20 miles from the Mexican border how can that be wrong? He clearly isn't having problems from other countries.

As a side note as far as I am concerned the sheriff is suitably tough on criminals.

Sheriff Arpaio set up a "Tent City" as an extension of the Maricopa County jail. During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 °F (43 °C), Arpaio said to complaining inmates, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents, have to wear full body armor, and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."

Craven - the English have gone.

So an ethnically challenged b@st@rd hacks a guy to death in the streets of London and everyone just stands back and records it on their phones?  It takes a woman to confront him and no man gets involved.

Clearly vast quantities of white feathers need plucking.

Will the last Englishman go back to London.  You left the lights on.

I am too disgusted to rant.

Tyranny of the sheep

As a libertarian, a goat in society, I like to think most people treasure freedom.   I know I am kidding myself.

Most people dislike, nay hate, personal freedom.  Most people, the sheep, want nothing more than for someone else to take responsibility for their lives.  Freedom scares them.  Freedom means they have to think about and plan for the future.  Most people don't even bother to make a will despite the fact that the inevitability of death makes this an obvious thing to plan for.

Simply put the sheeple will vote or campaign for someone, anyone, to take care of them.  Loss of liberty is meaningless to them. The sheeple are the people who vote for the mainstream and extremist parties.  They will always vote for perceived security over liberty.

I hang out in the libertarian blogosphere. However this is a personal comfort blanket which hides the depressing fact that most people are freedom hating sheep and always will be.

Colonialist BBC

The BBC, while being bien pensant and continually spouting anti-colonialist sentiments, is actually institutionally colonialist.

Let me explain.  A number of British people went to work in Algeria, a known unstable country with a history of civil war and Islamic terrorists.  Said workers will have known this and accepted the risks.  Then terrorists grab the workers in a raid on a gas plant in a remote area of Algeria.

Then shock horror from the Beeb. The Algerian military take what they consider is appropriate action, based on their experience of the terrorists, on their own soil. "What?" says the Beeb, "they didn't wait for the UK to give permission or to send in the SAS?" "Their forces are good by local standards but not up to ours".  A damning colonialist sentiment.

It appears there was some collateral damage, something the Beeb takes in it's stride in Afghanistan, Pakisatan, Iraq, Sierre Leone, ... and now by the French in Mali. The Beeb treats collateral damage lightly when it only involves locals going about their daily lives.

Now, shock horror, some of the British workers appear to be involved in the collateral damage. But they were there by choice, knowing the risks. Why is collateral damage only an issue when the British are on the receiving end?  A damning racist sentiment.

Heads they win tails you lose, climate tossers

So which is it? Will England get dryer or wetter? They haven't a clue and reckon they can forecast climate for the next century. Tossers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/3334871/South-East-same-as-Sahara-for-drought-risk.html

"The report, by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, already classifies a swathe of the South East of the country in the same bracket as the Sahara.

This is because of the availability of water per head of the population. This drought-prone area is expected to expand significantly because there is expected to be less summer rainfall as a result of global warming and because the population of London and the South East is expected to grow."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20898729

"The Met Office added that four of the top five wettest years had occurred since 2000.

Top five wettest years in the UK

1. 2000 - 1,337.3mm

2. 2012 - 1,330.7mm

3. 1954 - 1,309.1 mm

4. 2008 - 1,295.0mm

5. 2002 - 1,283.7mm

(Source: Met Office)