Why some people are so angry with Immigration and Border Security issue

What Do Ordinary People Think about The Immigration and Border Security

There are some people out in our streets who want their voice to be heard. We agree or not, the truth is, there are so many angry people about this big problem, which is called "Immigration and Border Security"

Fervent Souls and Angry Voices on Immigration Policies

Heather; No government has done anything to cut numbers or deport illegals in any numbers its all lip service and broken promises from everyone time and time again. We need all immigration stopped until we have had mass deportations of people who are illegally in the UK. A change of Law is requited now no legal aid to anyone NOT born in the UK if they want solicitors they pay for them or go pro bono. The UK is fed up of being a dumping ground for illegals and criminals. We need a law that everyone has to register there residence like in other countries so accountable. If you move you have to update. This works in other countries but is not used here WHY? Stop landing boats in the UK and turn them back at sea to France. We need a tough stance now we are an independent country so Government need to enforce it!

Derek replies; Look back, no government left or right has done anything to tackle the numbers to any significant extent and they have no intention to. This is against the will of the majority I'm sure.

Darren replies; this is what a neoliberal occupation looks like. You get mass population replacement whichever party holds office despite no people ever wanting themselves to be ethnically replaced in their own homeland.

Derek replies; that's why this lifetime Tory voter won't vote for them again. I'll try the Brexit Party no matter what the consequence.

Darren replies; then you should know that they've changed their name. But let's be honest, that party was founded by a man that served that same system by undermining actual nationalism (something he considers one of his greatest achievements). It was his work at UKIP that deliberately took nationalist sentiment down a fruitless path and ultimately served the Tory party that then gave us record levels of mass immigration. The solution the system presents to you is part of the problem.

Michael; What’s the point in worrying about last year’s 11,000 illegals when the Government allowed in legally last year almost 3/4 Million. Which group will cause the most problem for the country?

Darren replies; People on here understandably criticise the government doing nothing to repel the illegal invaders yet excuse that same government for importing 65x that amount each year. As if being ethnically replaced by another people becomes acceptable just so long as their paperwork is in order.

Clarence; MPs know what is happening but too scared to discuss this matter in the UK Parliament for fear of being called Racist. Start the Ball rolling and start repatriation. Over 1 million illegals in the country, hundreds of other foreign offenders walking around in the country.I say that is a good place to start.

Jane; it impacts on everything in this country. No government has got a grip and we are now feeling the consequences

Horse's Head London - Horse Head Sculpture

This magnificent Horse Head sculpture is placed in Marble Arch, London, United Kingdom.
It is 10 metre (33 feet) long and created by British sculptor Nic Fiddian-Green in 2011. Isn't it amazing? If you visit London, this is a must see thing.

Why is there a law for AntiSemitism but not Anti-Islam in France?

Laws for Anti-Islam in France

There are many people on internet asking this question. Laws for Anti-Semitism but no laws for Anti-Islam in France.
But so far nobody could explain it clearly. Now I found the best answer and here it is.

Emmanuel Saadia says : It is a devilishly complicated question, so I am going to boil it down to its essential parts, and pardon me if it is somewhat inadequate.

France has a long history of anti-semitism, going back centuries. However, the Dreyfus affair, starting in 1890, split the country in two. Dreyfus, a French Army officer of Jewish origins was accused of passing along artillery secrets to the Germans. This set off a wave of profound discord among the French elites.

     -  On the one hand, the anti-Dreyfus faction, who accused the officer of high treason because he was Jewish. This faction was mostly right-wing and against the Republic (that is, against democratic rule). They were those who had lost out during the French Revolution of 1789, Catholic, Monarchist, chauvinist of all stripes. A lot of Nazi fantasies about Jews really came out of the literature and agitation from the French anti-Dreyfusards - from Drumont to Barres and Maurras. Appeals to racial stereotypes, and virulent criticism of the French Jews' role in modern France (elite bankers, intellectuals, public servants), seen as destructive of the France's mythical traditional values.

      -  On the other hand, the pro-Dreyfus faction was made of center and left-wing politicians, who defended not only the innocence of Dreyfus but also his right to a fair trial regardless of his origins. That faction refused to believe that there was anything inherent in Dreyfus' origins that made him either foreign or treasonous.

The pro-Dreyfus party ultimately won, and the Republic triumphed on that front. That was before WWI. Incidentally, Zionism was invented by Theodor Herzl during the Dreyfus Affair: he was a journalist in Paris covering the events, and saw that even in France, the most liberal and advanced country at the time, Jews were still being castigated as foreign, blood-sucking traitors. And therefore, the only hope for Jews was to have their own country. But I digress.

During the interwar period, the anti-Dreyfus party saw a resurgence. It never really left in fact. The French right wing was really keen on following in the footsteps of Italy and Germany. Add to that the fear of Bolshevism and economic crisis and you have a very potent brew. Then in 1936, the co-called Popular Front came to power in France through democratic elections. For a year, the Prime Minister of France was Leon Blum, a Jewish politician who had become famous during the Dreyfus affair. He was also the head of the Socialist Party, and led very profound reforms during his short tenure. The right wing never forgave him the 40-hr workweek and the 2-weeks paid vacations for workers.

Once France was defeated in 1940, it was the moment of the anti-Dreyfusards. Petain became their figurehead, and all the right-wing extremists and antisemites basically got all the levers of power, with the support of Nazi Germany. They took their revenge on democratic institutions and finally applied their program of aggressive rejection of French Jews. It ended in many, many deportations and mass killings.

Of course, the old anti-Dreyfus revanchists lost. And the new government that came out of the Resistance made the decision to fully expel the fascists and collaborationists from public life. The fascist antisemites were truly the traitors to the Republic and to France (and for all their proclamations of patriotism, they actually were traitors). They kind of survived through several political figures such as Jean-Marie Le Pen and his party. But they were always considered beyond the pale and anti-republican.

Antisemitism in France

That is part of what is at play in these laws against antisemitism in France: historically, the French antisemitic politicians and agitators are those who sold France to the Nazis. They are the ones who lost the War. They are the traitors, those like the the Catholic Church and a large part of the officers' corps who had never reconciled themselves with modern democracy, capitalism and the French Revolution (and who blamed the Jews and the Free-Masons for all the woes of the world).

That is why French people largely support these laws punishing expressions of anti-semitism. Because it is much more than just about anti-semitism. It is about preventing the debris of the past to float back to the surface. (I personally think these laws are counter-productive, anti-liberal if not plain stupid, but that is another issue).

You see that it has very little to do with Muslims, and only a very derivative relation to Jews themselves. Most of the laws against anti-semitism were actually used against Jean-Marie Le Pen - the political and spiritual heir of the French anti-republican, pro-Nazis traitors such as Petain, Laval, Drieu La Rochelle, etc etc.

Incidentally, it was the same faction of unreconstructed racists and historical losers who led a terrifying domestic terrorism ring during the early 60s: they were violently against Algeria's independence. They attempted a coup d'etat, they tried to kill de Gaulle (the same person who had defeated them in 1945), and they killed and maimed countless Algerian civilians. But that is an aside.

This the historical context behind the laws regulating anti-semitic speech in France. There is also another legal apparatus that characterises "incitation to racial hatred" as a felony. This is much more vague, and arguably very fungible. It is usually left to the appreciation of magistrates. So in fact there is a way for French Muslims who are the victims of verbal abuse to seek remedies. It is the fundamental problem of all these laws that try to police free speech: everybody has been insulted at least once, Jews or Muslims. It would be much more efficient and rational, and philosophically more consistent, to not have any of these laws. However, as I hope I have suggested, political history tends to get in the way of rational policy.

Health Care Crisis in UK - NHS and Health Care

Paul - The depression syndrome is largely social but its spectrum covers mild effects right up to psychotic breaks. One notices that any article on mental health usually represents some sort of agenda. Even the caring ones, in fact they are the worst because sometimes people promote particular trends as if they were the whole of the matter. Personality disorders are not treatable with medication and having met some who have them their curse is they cannot be counselled or persuaded. The usual problem is that they are incapable of thinking, learning or reflecting on powerful emotions. It is social workers who push personality disorder as a mental health issue, mostly because they want to raid the mental health budget. Thus this article would be read among the people I have met who have had a label put on them with an eye to seeing which fiefdom profits, the inevitable cynicism of the old lag. We are withdrawing into... the broad daylight. If you can survive and behave yourself you may get to live to old age. No hard feelings about not being top of the political agenda. We like it. Drug users get all this time politically but they die, they become diabetics, their bodies at 29 are those of a 65 year-old. So, we will not draw attention to ourselves and live as I do as part of a wider town community. Those who start this "I'm right and 6.5billion others are wrong" seem to arrive at the cemetery quicker whether large sums of money were lavished on them or not. The issue with depression is whether or not one is in a terrible rage at oneself: this is about 50% of it but not all. If so, you may have to learn to channel it. If that is your actual problem and you know it and act on it you will survive, if not...you are going to hurt everyone around you at least. Depressed people sometimes do not seek help, they seek affirmation and that which prolongs their condition, a paradox of the condition. The depression epidemic cannot be a true mental health problem since how could so many people develop such a thing? Are you angry at your life? Are you sure that certain things are worth pursuing? Does the prospect of death fill you with a type of self-loathing? We are not all machines and media narcissists.


Existentialist - I was a schools counsellor for six years, until I was made redundant following heavy cuts in the funding to our service. During that time, a considerable number of the referrals I made to child and adolescent mental health services - another chronically overstretched service - were bounced back, even where the referral had followed a credible suicide attempt. In this world, it is not enough to be merely suicidal - you have to be "suicidal enough" to warrant referral to a service which frequently can offer no more than a monthly meeting with a case worker and the supervision of a psychiatrist.
We're averaging about one suicide per year of schoolchildren in this community of 100,000 - most of those who die are already known to the mental health services, but the resources simply don't exist to help them and save their lives. If they need acute care, the nearest children's psychiatric ward is two hours' drive away (and is usually full, anyway), so the options are either to admit them to a local adult psychiatric unit, or leave them at home.
As a professional in the field, I frequently despair of their prospects.

Is Population Growth Good or Bad?

Thoughts and opinions on population growth . Let's talk about it.

Swordman - According to the UN's World Health Organisation, 43% of all births on planet earth will take place in Africa by 2100. And as climate change will create mega-droughts lasting around 35 years, this percentage will be probably be scythed down by the Grim Reaper as famine stalks the globe.
Whatever happens, anyway, I'll be long gone by then and that's why I'm not talking about it. Selfish? Well, the time left between now and final extinction flies past, and I'd rather spend it listening to the Jacques Loussier trio.


Gardener - I read somewhere that it is often the case that people in POOR countries like parts of Africa may have lots of children as a kind of INSURANCE policy against their own future ILL HEALTH/HANDICAP.
Seeing as they don't have SOCIAL SECURITY as we do, and are thus probably terrified of being unable to work and support themselves, feeling that if they have children, then THEY would be able to WORK and support the PARENTS if they became disabled.

What is the solution to such a possible case? Well, guaranteeing some form of social security to those poor people?


Lord of The Lords - The liberal left establishment who control our lives from everywhere including the EU, UN, BBC, civil service, media and Labour, Liberal and Cameron's Conservatives, refuse to talk about the global population explosion because eh its ...say it quietly... being driven by black African countries. Indeed in the last 18 months the UN upgraded its population predictions for Africa by the end of this century from 3 billion to 4 billion, and then just a month or so ago to 5 billion.
The long hoped for tail off in Africa's soaring population is just not happening. Nigeria's population is set to hit 900 million.
Yes its a global disaster but as its .. say it quietly.. black Africans who are responsible, we're not allowed to talk about it see. Hope that helps. Ssh ssh, mums the word.


Mr. Aristo - I agree the growth in Africa's population, may well be storing up huge problems for future African generations, but Africa is still relatively underpopulated, when compared to the other continents (except Antarctica), as well as using up far fewer of the world's resources per person, than the average American, European or indeed Asian.
Certainly, population growth needs addressing, but only in context with other major issues, such as climate change; habitat loss; use, distribution and depletion of resources. To look at any one of these issues in isolation is futile and simplistic.

Being British - Feeling British - Talking British

Thoughts and Opinions of Unpopular People about 'Britishness"


Jack - To talk about British 'customs' and the 'British way of life' is all very well, but I would like to see some definitions of these concepts that most Brits could agree to. And more important, these would have to be different from those of other countries, in Europe for example, otherwise how could they be defined as 'British', as opposed to 'European' ?

I suspect that if a 'British way of life' or British 'customs' could be defined in ways that made them specifically British the definitions would be far narrower than most Brits' interpretation of these concepts.

Haggard - Social mobility in Britain is as good as nil and Britain has the least social mobility in the developed world apart from the USA (OECD report) so we shouldn't get too carried away with British values. If you are working class and ambitious for your children, you are still better off emigrating if you can.

BTW In this country, while the government is pushing more and more of the working population into poverty, the rich are getting richer. Yeah, Great British values. Sod 'em. We need new values.



Delon - If you have the skills and qualifications to back them then you can forget the UK and the EU for places to live with a high quality of life. You would do far better to go to Australia, New Zealand or Canada for where there are cities with far higher quality of life. The long term prospects for the UK and EU are poor due to ageing demographics combined with the world's lowest economic growth and ever rising unfunded liabilites that cannot be met.



King - I don't think Britishness is about everyone ascribing to a single culture but rather a wide range of cultures that exist as part of a certain narrative and have over many years achieved a degree of synergy without necessarily converging.

That is not to say that all cultures that come to these shores should become part of Britishness. Some will never be able to achieve that synergy and some will simply converge into existing practices.

Indeed many cultures that arose in this country did not persist, we had our own fascist movement you recall and before that Quakers and Brownists most of whom left for the USA as they did not fit in to Britain.

There is a long tradition of teetotal folk in the UK which is part of that synergy.

Most Popular Facebook Games

Most Popular Games on Facebook
The list of the most played Facebook games.

Candy Crush Saga
Pet Rescue Saga
Bubble Witch 2 Saga
Criminal Case
Dragon City
FarmVille 2

Trivia Crack
8 Ball Pool
Texas HoldEm Poker
Diamond Digger Saga
Papa Pear Saga
Top Eleven Be a Football Manager


Words With Friends
Pyramid Solitaire Saga
TeenPatti
Cookie Jam
Diamond Dash
Pool Live Tour

Banning E-Cigarettes Indoors - Good or Bad Idea?

Pupblic opinion on e-cigarettes are vividly divided.

Aaron - Depends on the situation and place. In pubs, if everyone around the smoker consents, then fine.. But nowhere around kids or food. It's not good to show kids its okay to vape, "'cause it's not smoking cigarettes", and it's unfair to be blowing vapour in someone's face when they don't want you to, or when they're eating. I've had a bad experience as an ex-house mate of mine used to use his e cigarette everywhere. Plus he had the most horrible smelling flavours. I know 90% of people are very considerate to others when using an e-cigarette, but there's always that 10% who take the pee.


Adrian - I also worry about the next generation who might be encouraged to get addicted to nicotine. I think they are a good idea for existing smokers, although I'm not sure of any harmful effects.


Kevin - The tobacco companies now virtually own all the "vape" supplies. When your heroin dealer starts selling methadone, you have to ask questions... Permitting vaping in public places merely normalizes the addiction, which can't be a good thing. Anyway, as an ex-smoker, I have no desire to ingest other people's spent narcotics.


Lance - This one's tricky. As a vaper, I would hate if vape stores would no longer be able to offer try-before-you-buy on the juices they stock. That new vape cafe in Shoreditch would have to close as well.
However, I'm not sure I'm keen on the idea of going for a meal out and having someone vaping a flavour I don't like sat at the table next to me.
I think establishments should be able to choose whether or not you can vape inside - like many do at the moment.
I also don't think you can blindly say that the vapour is not harmful to people nearby. People have allergies. PG allergies, even. Or allergies to the flavourings. I don't know whether someone that suffers from a peanut allergy would have a reaction to a flavour with a peanut base, but that could be quite serious.

Agricultural Commodities For Third World Consumers and Increasing Demand of West

Agricultural Commodities For Third World Consumers, Higher Food Prices and Increasing Western Demand

Comments and Opinions 

Nelson - For third world consumers, higher prices for agricultural commodities like coconut or quinoa are bad, but for farmers in developing countries, surely higher prices and export markets for their produce is a major benefit? In many countries the supply chain for fruit and vegetables is poor and a lot of produce is wasted - in Indonesia a grower recently complained to me that the price of guava was so low it wasn't worth taking it to the market - he and his family ate what they wanted but left the rest to rot since the 20 cents a kilo wasn't worth the effort.

Even better, if local companies in places like the Philippines can capture the value of processing coconuts for their milk and oil than more jobs are generated. For farmers it is better to sell for foreigner for high prices and generate higher income than to sell at low prices in the domestic market. That's as true for dairy producers in the west benefiting from higher Asian demand for cheese as it is for mango growers in Taiwan.

Local Consumers, Food Security and Economic Miracle

Amanda - Presenting this increase in prices as an unalloyed negative for countries that produce them is ridiculous. Yes, prices might go up for local consumers (many of whom may well also be producers) but rising prices also boosts export incomes and tax revenues. And it is not as if there are not local substitutes for these items.

Elements of this article, such as the suggestion that tourism development in Sri Lanka would lead to a food security 'disaster', seemed reminiscent of 'noble savage' romanticism. The thing about food security is you get it by eliminating poverty and increasing economic development, not by making sure everyone remains a subsistence farmer.


Oscar - But most local consumers are not also local producers. Therefore more local people tend to lose rather than gain on the deal. They also lose substitutes as more and more land is devoted to the export crop.
Sure, economic development and diversification is a way to equalise locals' buying power, but what do they eat while waiting for the economic miracle?
This is what you get when most locals don't have either access to the means of food production or any buying power relative to external markets.

Metal Stars

Tea Bag vs England

What is the difference between a tea bag and England?

A tea bag stays longer in a cup.
Sad but true.. isn't it?
England are our of World Cup.. yet again and again and yet again..

Submarine Racing

Watch Submarine Racing

Have you ever seen how the submarines racing? 

well they it it really rough. Submarine racing is always so intense. You have to see it. Here you can see one of the best submarine racing in 2014.

Vikings or Chinese?

A Chi-King Vessel

Who are these people? What kind of ship is this? is it Vikings and Chinese?