Silent
Majority Speaks
Rescuing
Democracy in the United Kingdom from our current Elected
Dictatorship
|
Spin,
not face-to-face confrontations with the voters, is the
Government's chosen method of communication. Ordinary people
are dangerous. Ordinary people might ask a question which
throws a politician 'off message'; the Cabinet member might
reveal himself or herself to be a human being like us, and
not a programmed android. Worse still, he or she might tell
the truth.
Ann
Leslie - Daily Mail, September 16, 2004
Blair
wants to leave his mark on history - looks more like a stain
to me.
Peter
Thorndyke, Diss, Norfolk - Daily Mail, May 23, 2005
I
know I'm me - why do I need an ID card?
"Sorry,
officers, I don't have an ID card. I never applied for one.
It seemed a bit steep at 300 quid. I do have my free passport,
my driving licence and my London freedom travel pass, each
with my photograph. I have my NHS medical card, with its
lengthy number, given me at birth, my RAF service book with
my Armed Forces number, and a chit authorising me to wear
a few gongs -including a General Service Medal with Malaya
bar, for fighting communist terrorists on behalf of my country,
or so they told me.
"I've
also got various credit cards and store cards, all with
my signature on the back, generally good for buying the
everyday requrements for life as well as the odd luxury.
If you decide to arrest me, I suppose I'll have to be photographed
and given another number, besides my PINs.
"I'm
afraid I haven't got a pension book; it was taken away."
"By
thieves, sir?"
"No
... well, not exactly. By the Government. By the way, may
I see your warrant cards please, gentlemen?"
Oh
dear, they've disappeared.
E. Harry Gumer, Romford, ESSEX - Daily Mail, June 1, 2005
NO
means NO
When
does NO mean MAYBE?
When it's not the answeer the EU wants.
With
the courageous French NON resounding
in their ears, shabby, undemocratic self-interested leaders
of Europe propose ignoring the part of their precious constitution
that requires ratification by all members and continuing
without one of the biggest founder members to prevent derailing
the gravy train.
As
in Ireland, they refuse to accept any NO votes, ignoring
the will of the people, and re-stage votes until they can
engineer the 'correct' answer. Sadly, Foreign Secretary
Jack Straw dances to their tune like a puppet on a string.
With tactics such as these, how can anyone really believe
the EU has our interests at heart. Letter
from Steve Penny, Kingsnorth, Kent - Daily Mail, June1,
2005
Surely
the French result makes the £1million the EU recently
spent on a treaty signing ceremony seem a trifle premature
and extravagant. Letter
from Keith Wiseman, Bury, Lancs. - Daily Mail, June1, 2005
|
May
11, 2005 (741 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,610 US - 88 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
May
31, 2005 (761 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,657 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
June
3 , 2005 (765 days since war ended)
Death
Toll: 1,670 US - 89 UK - >6,164? Iraqi - >17,300 civilians
- 25 media
Britain
has traditionally been one of the biggest net contributors
to the EU because we do not get as much money back from
Brussels in farm and regional subsidies as our rivals.
According
to Treasury figures, between 1995-2002, Britain's average
contribution taking the rebate into account, was £2.6billion,
or £43.55 per head of population.
The
French - the biggest recipient of farm subsidies - contributed
£1billion a year or £16.08 per head of their
population.
|
Sense
of History
COMMENT
- Daily Mail, June 16, 2005
What
should aspiring British citizens know about this country?
What would best prepare them for life on these shores?
Should
they: a) have some grasp of the rich texture of the nations
long and glorious history? Or: b) focus on how to claim
their rights, complain, and seek compensation?
Need
you ask? This old and proud island nation will not expect
its new citizens to have the slightest knowledge of the
past that has shaped it. Instead, they will need to be
steeped in a miserable cocktail of welfarism and political
correctness. While key historic events will be included
in the new citizenship booklet, applicants will not be
questioned on any of them.
Why?
Don't laugh, but the Home Office have decided in their
wisdom there is a 'lot of British history' and it wouldn't
be 'fair' to expect new citizens to know it. Forget Norman
Conquest, two World Wars, the glories of the Elizabethan
age, or the greatness of Sir Winston Churchill.
Applicants
will, however, be tested on their knowledge of human rights,
how to claim benefits, take a boss to a tribunal or complain
against the police. Such a cock-eyed approach is not only
demeaning to aspiring citizens, it also risks creating
the wholly wrong impression that most are only here for
what they can get out of the system.
This
is the last thing the man responsible for the citizenship
test - David Blunkett - would have wanted. And in the
year we celebrate the 200th anniversary of Trafalgar,
one of the greatest military victories in history, wouldn't
it have Nelson spinning in his grave?
|
A
grotesque travesty of our history
Commentary
by Andrew Roberts - Daily Mail, June 16, 2005
The
General Election safely over, the Home Office has now returned
to its default position of trying to make it as easy as possible
for immigrants to enter this country and become UK citizens without
in any way whatsoever identifying with Britain, her history or
traditions.
Of
course during the election campaign New Labour politicians let
it be known that something more than simple knowledge of how to
sign on for social benefits would be expected of immigrants. The
message went out that Tony Blair could be trusted over the issue,
that he had listened to the British people's serious concerns
over the quantity and quality of would-be new citizens.
We
were reminded there was a new Home Office publication for would-be
citizens of this country, entitled 'Life in the United Kingdom;
A Journey to Citizenship', which included a 25-page potted history
of Britain.
Now
it turns out that British history will be omitted altogether from
the test that new immigrants will be required to take. There are
a number of reasons for the way New Labour has turned away from
the idea of trying to teach a true sense of Britishness to immigrants,
each more despicably cynical than the last.
The
first is that Labour actively dislikes the political lessons that
a good working knowledge of history would teach them, principally
that Britain is today and for many centuries has been a very separate
entity from Europe, and historically has far more in common with
other English-speaking peoples of Canada, Australia, New Zealand
and the US than it does with continental Europe.
The
second is that New Labour believes British history genuinely began
when they were elected on May 1, 1997, and everything that went
before was a mere boring prologue to the main event: the Blair
premiership.
Then
there is the attitude of preemptive guilt that New Labour adopts
towards huge swathes of Britain's history with its endless apologies
for the Irish potato famine of the 1840s, for example, and for
Britain's imperial past and the institution of slavery. New Labour
prefers to forget that the Empire brought a multitude of benefits
to peoples across the planet and that it was Britain that fought
hardest in the 19th century to abolish slavery.
The
rationale put forward by the Home Office for the disgraceful volte
face on the test is that 'There is a lot of British history and
it would not be fair' to test people aspiring to be Britons. How
pathetic and patronising. Would it 'not be fair' to British citizens
to glory in their new country's tremendous record of defeating
the tyrannies of Philip II of Spain, Napoleon Bonaparte, the Kaiser,
Adolf Hitler and the Soviet Empire?
Would
it not be fair to teach them the role Britain has played in industrialising,
democratising, and civilising the globe? Or about the inventions,
scholarship and medical breakthroughs her people have brought
forth?
Such
a craven apology for a country's past might be understandable
if Britain had some foul guilty secret to be ashamed of, but ours
is a past of which we can be proud. What's not fair is to expect
someone to become British and NOT be taught anything about their
adopted land.
The
Home Office is short-changing immigrants, expecting them to understand
their newly-adopted country without giving them the basic historical
understanding necessary to make that possible.
Even
the Home Office's 25-page potted history is a grotesque travesty
of our past. It contains breath-taking inaccuracies but, more
insidiously, political spin presented under this government's
aegis as historical fact. The citizenship test, along with this
error-strewn document, has nothing to do with Britishness - and
everything to do with New Labour.
The
migrant test
Learn
to claim benefits and complain about police . . but you
don't need to know about Winston Churchill
By
James Slack, Daily Mail Home Affairs Correspondent
Immigrants
sitting a new citizenship exam must prove they know hoe
to claim benefits - but will not be questioned on British
history. The Government said 'there's 'a lot of British
history and it would not be fair'.
Instead,
migrants hoping to be granted a UK passport must answer
questions on applying for jobseeker's allowance, seeking
compensation, complaining about police & human rights
law.
Critics
last night said leaving British history out of the test,
which cost £400,000 to develop, was 'bizarre'. It
means it is possible to become a citizen wile having no
knowledge of Churchill, the two World Wars, Nelson or
the Battle of Waterloo, they said.
The
Home Office announced the introduction of 'Britishness'
tests for all those seeking citizenship following the
Bradford, Oldham and Burnley riots in 2001. The then Home
Secretary David Blunkett said it was vital immigrants
had a good knowledge of the country they had chosen to
live in.
In
a statement to MPs, the Home Office yesterday said the
tests would begin later this year. All migrants applying
for citizenship will be give an 145-page pamphlet, prepared
by Sir Bernard Crick. It includes a 25-page guide on our
past, ranging from 'The Roman Conquest' to 'New Labour'.
There are two paragraphs on the First World War, but three
on the Blair premiership.
But
there will be no history in the test. A Home Office spokesman
said: "The rationale is there is a lot of British
history and it would not be fair." The quiz will
instead be based on the rest of the pamphlet - called
Life in the United Kingdom: A Journey to Citizenship.
As
well as chapter on benefits and rights and law, it also
offers advice on socialising in Britain. The section on
pubs reads: "If you spill a stranger's drink by accident,
it is good manners (and prudent) to offer to buy another.'
Immigrants
will be charged £25 to sit the 24-question exam
and can keep taking it until they pass, officials said.
Ministers have not yet decided how many correct answers
will be needed. A pass is rewarded with a citizenship
ceremony, a passport and the right to vote. Officials
said tests allowed immigrants to show they have a good
grasp of their 'rights and responsibilities'. Those with
good English will sit the exam, under supervision, at
one of 2,000 learning centres. Those with poor English
complete the exam as part of a course of ten 2 -hour classes.
Critics
rounded on the plans. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch,
UK, said: "The whole purpose of this exercise it
to encourage integration into our society. Knowledge of
our history is fundamental to this process. To teach people
about benefits and not about history is simply bizarre."
Shadow
Home Secretary, David Davis said: "These citizenship
tests must not become another costly New Labour gimmick.
It is vital that a British citizenship test is about Britain
- not how to claim benefits."
Nick
Seaton, chairman of Campaign for Real Education, said:
"Anyone coming to live in Britain should have a good
knowledge of British history and our culture in general."
The
section in the pamphlet on history was added by Mr Blunkett
following a Daily Mail campaign, even though he insisted
knowing 'the six wives of Henry VIII doesn't constitute
being a good citizen'.
In
the introduction, the pamphlet admits: "Some history
is essential for understanding the culture of any new
country." But there will be no way of checking if
immigrants have bother to read the history section, critics
say.
|
If you have suggestions
for additional subjects, or material to include in the pages linked
to the subjects listed, please contact
the webmaster.
|
