30 May 2006

Arrogance and Ignorance

Well what a week in the news, first Donald Rumsfeld states that during a recent visit to Baghdad he saw so many houses with satellite dishes on so the quality of life must be better. Does this guy who stated that Saddam was a guy he could work with back in the 80's have anything between his ears. Whilst many Iraqi's mat have dishes on their roofs, it means squat when they have under 3 hours of power a day, meaning for 21 hours there is no power to watch satellite channels.

I saw a couple of pictures a few days ago of the trucks that the Iraqi Military/Police use, these are brand new pick ups, within a short space of time some disappear with deserting troops, are wrecked through negligence of stripped for parts so that they can sell the parts.

Things are not to great back in the UK, the Government are racked with yet another scandal, the last Home Sec was fired because they allowed over 1000 Foreign prisoners to be released into the community without them being considered for deportation, these included murder's rapist and child sex offenders.

The New Home Sec said he would get to grips with it, however since he came to power it has carried on and also it has been announced that dangerous people have been released from the Maximum Security Hospitals again without consideration of deportation.

Now you have all the arrogant liberals saying that we cant deport people back to some of their countries because of their human rights, what about the Human Rights of the British Victims. In a knee jerk reaction Tony Blair announced they should be deported regardless if they commit a crime. The only problem with this the Courts are filled with Liberal Judges who are the cause of many of the problems in this country.

Many people name the Human Rights Act, this isn’t the case. The Act its self is fine, it is the interpretation of the Act by the Judges that creates the problems. The New Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales has announced to many people are being sent to prison. Do these dim wits who sit on the bench actually realise they are supposed to protect society from Criminals, not protect the Criminals over society.

I was watching a TV debate show, in which someone said that if someone’s comes to this country and breaks the law then they have showed their contempt for the country and should be sent back. Some half wit student who doesn’t know what the real world is like condemned the person who had got a round of applause from the audience, she said that they are still human and have rights. I have yet to hear any of those who want to protect Criminals make any comment about the rights of victims, in fact they always seem to avoid answering the question.


Anonymous MJP said...

Rant commences..

Unfortunately the social marxists that make up Tony's gang are not gifted with common sense. They like the idea of unchecked immigration and dont care too hoots if we are slowly swamped by criminals and undesirables.
Rather then operating a reasonable level of immigration that accepts only highly skilled migrants where there isnt someone available for the job following national advertising, and restricting asylum applications to clearly genuine cases, it seems the least skilled, and most likely to cause problems cases are fast tracked in. I was just reading the other day about how some aids infected nigerian guy was given indefinate leave to remain in the UK by claiming he would be harassed for being gay in his native country. What did he do once he got into the UK, he raped two underage girls. It seems that you can claim anything to get in these days, harassment over sexuality, claim your state doesnt tolerate people that worship gnomes, whatever you want really.

Thou it doesnt work the other way,someone that can clearly offer something positive to the country rather then being a net drain on its resources will be denied entry or leave to remain. I was reading about a young girl from somewhere in eastern europe who came here to study, got her gcse's, alevels, a degree at Oxford and successfully applied to the Navy for a commision, was told to get out by the home office for some pedantic reason or other. Also a rhodesian (Zimbabwian to any left wing readers) whose parents are Both british citizens, who served in the British Army as a Captain, whose father and grandfather were both Colonels in the British Army, had his application for UK citizenship refused. The reason it was refused... because he hadnt been resident in the UK for the past 5 years, having been in afghanistan amongst other places on operational tours of duty!

So it seems if you have aids, or claim to be gay or claim you are being denied the right to worship whatever god you want to worship and come here from a third world nation AND are uneducated. You get a get into britain free card. IF on the other hand you are someone likely to offer a net gain or have already offered a benefit to the country, are educated and civilized, you aren't wanted by Tony and his gang of social marxists.

Since when did the UK have an obligation to take in anyone from anywhere in the world who claims they are being subject to unfavourable treatment in their own country. Many countries have laws differant from ours, are we now saying that if someone doesnt want to obey the law in their own country and that action isnt illegal here, they have a right to asylum? How many more people can we fit into a country this small before we literally collapse our public services? Do government ministers actually consider these questions?

I've seen the damage this government has caused in the past 10 years. I suggest we go the complete opposite to labour. Socially conservative, ecomonically left wing. See how that plays out.

Its about time we had a regime change.

Rant ends..


Post a Comment

<< Home