>
http://www.geertwilders.nl/
THE ST GEORGES DAY THAT WAS'NT
Today is St Georges day, the patron Saint of England, I for one was struck by the way this, the National day of England was celebrated, the multitude of flags flying in the Cities and hamlets of this country, the address to the nation by the Prime Minister, the Church bells ringing and traditional English customs being acted out on the streets and avenues throughout the land.
If only it were true, instead there was a remarkable lack of any of the above, I have not seen the flag of England flying anywhere in my locality, but having said that there are not many people in my locality who would know what the flag of England looks like ( football fans excepted).
I find it odd that the national day of Pakistan(whatever that is) is celebrated by our local Politicians and yes there are flags all over the place.
Mohammed's Birthday is also celebrated as is Eid and Ramadan, notices and placards on the Town hall proclaim these events.
They do not proclaim St Georges Day, I wonder why?
One of my neighbours put the flag in his window a couple of years back. Next day a council jobsworth visited to tell him to remove it. Go figure.
Reply to this
We had a parade in Halifax and a white van drove through the town festooned with English flags....it's a start.
Reply to this
Hi Pat
well done ,it is a start
Reply to this
A nation of newcomers
By David Conway
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 22/04/2007
Have your say Read comments
Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, noted last week that the mass influx of immigrants in recent years has left the country "deeply unsettled" and created problems for public services such as health and education.
It was a statement of the obvious, but it was welcome for all that. If he had coupled it with a recognition that the policies his own party has pursued over the past decade have been responsible for those problems, that would have been even better. It might have marked the start of an attempt to deal with them.
That, however, was too much to hope for. Labour remains committed to the view that immigration is good for the country, and the more there is, the better it will be. What is the evidence for that remarkable proposition? If you ask most ministers, they will tell you "Britain has always been a nation of immigrants". That claim is false. The evidence which refutes it is not very complicated: it consists simply in looking at the numbers.
advertisement
Between 1066 and 1945 Britain actually had very few waves of immigration. By far the largest was the Irish during the 19th century and, technically, they were not immigrants, since Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Irish "immigrants" never amounted to more than 3 per cent of the British population.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/22/do2207.xml
Reply to this
A nation of newcomers
By David Conway
Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, noted last week that the mass influx of immigrants in recent years has left the country "deeply unsettled" and created problems for public services such as health and education.
It was a statement of the obvious, but it was welcome for all that. If he had coupled it with a recognition that the policies his own party has pursued over the past decade have been responsible for those problems, that would have been even better. It might have marked the start of an attempt to deal with them.
That, however, was too much to hope for. Labour remains committed to the view that immigration is good for the country, and the more there is, the better it will be. What is the evidence for that remarkable proposition? If you ask most ministers, they will tell you "Britain has always been a nation of immigrants". That claim is false. The evidence which refutes it is not very complicated: it consists simply in looking at the numbers.
advertisement
Between 1066 and 1945 Britain actually had very few waves of immigration. By far the largest was the Irish during the 19th century and, technically, they were not immigrants, since Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Irish "immigrants" never amounted to more than 3 per cent of the British population.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/22/do2207.xml
READ IT ALL and pass it on.
This comment in the DT gets right to bone.
Why dance around the subject with phrases like: “Many of the immigrant communities are isolated islands of their own: they show no signs of integrating into British society.” The problem relates to one 'island' –better an erupting continent, of Muslim colonists - Pakistani, Bangladeshi and North African. It is a fact, it is evident, and it has Balkanised the Nation. What is the point of immigration? – not just to bring in needed skills, to make up some supposedly needed head count in a massively over populated island, but for genetic vigour - to mix blood, to add to the common good, to assimilate – hardly on the very evident agenda of this fifth column.
Posted by Mark Derek on April 22, 2007 6:48 AM
Reply to this
Why is the mixing of blood considered a good thing? Does that not mean genocide to the indigenous people? Am I missing something here?
Reply to this
A nation of newcomers
By David Conway
Liam Byrne, the Immigration Minister, noted last week that the mass influx of immigrants in recent years has left the country "deeply unsettled" and created problems for public services such as health and education.
It was a statement of the obvious, but it was welcome for all that. If he had coupled it with a recognition that the policies his own party has pursued over the past decade have been responsible for those problems, that would have been even better. It might have marked the start of an attempt to deal with them.
That, however, was too much to hope for. Labour remains committed to the view that immigration is good for the country, and the more there is, the better it will be. What is the evidence for that remarkable proposition? If you ask most ministers, they will tell you "Britain has always been a nation of immigrants". That claim is false. The evidence which refutes it is not very complicated: it consists simply in looking at the numbers.
advertisement
Between 1066 and 1945 Britain actually had very few waves of immigration. By far the largest was the Irish during the 19th century and, technically, they were not immigrants, since Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, Irish "immigrants" never amounted to more than 3 per cent of the British population.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/04/22/do2207.xml
READ IT ALL and pass it on.
This comment in the DT gets right to bone.
Why dance around the subject with phrases like: “Many of the immigrant communities are isolated islands of their own: they show no signs of integrating into British society.” The problem relates to one 'island' –better an erupting continent, of Muslim colonists - Pakistani, Bangladeshi and North African. It is a fact, it is evident, and it has Balkanised the Nation. What is the point of immigration? – not just to bring in needed skills, to make up some supposedly needed head count in a massively over populated island, but for genetic vigour - to mix blood, to add to the common good, to assimilate – hardly on the very evident agenda of this fifth column.
Posted by Mark Derek on April 22, 2007 6:48 AM
Reply to this
Didnt mean to have multiple posts. Can you please delete the first two and let the last one remain.
Reply to this
Why does no-one dare celebrate St George's day? Because St George is an Islamophobe who is unnacceptable to Muslims and our petrodollar bribed-PC Lords and Masters such as Tony B.Liar. C.A. Moron and Menghis Khan't.
Reply to this
The Englishmens lament:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5h4PFBuzvw
Reply to this
Lots of people march in Manchester every year, but the media try to keep it a secret so nobody knows, they may hope that people will not therefore turn up.
http://www.jackstgeorge.bravehost.com/
Reply to this
Thousands march in secret march:
http://www.bnp.org.uk/reg_showarticle.php?contentID=2459
Reply to this