Poppy Thieving Scum - Salford

Bosses at the Royal British Legion have been left devastated after callous thieves made off with a container filled with 6,000 poppies, medals and other memorial items.

The 20ft container was taken from the private grounds of the charity at the Ordsall District Centre in Greater Manchester – and was being filled up for the November remembrance commemorations.
...

Police have said the thieves would have needed a large vehicle with lifting equipment to remove the item, said Det Sgt Julie Connor of Salford CID.

The detective said that the culprits had hit those who dedicated their lives to the service of their country – including the families of those who had died on operations.

She added: “The proceeds of the Poppy Appeal are used to support our soldiers in personal recovery centres for injured soldiers, welfare support for serving and ex- soldiers and those injured while on duty.

“This crime will directly affect those personnel who dedicate their lives to serving our country and it is essential we recover everything.”

In addition to poppies and collecting tins, the container was also filled with poppy crosses, appeal wristbands, high visibility jackets, British Legion and union flags and memorabilia such as war memorial plaques.

Branch president of the Salford Royal British Legion Alan Mottershead told the BBC: "They can keep the container, we just want the memorabilia and the poppies back.

http://www.gmp.police.uk/mainsite/pages/636d6e10888b34c380257a69006308cf.htm

 

Last time we had a problem with War Rememberance Poppies was when the Muslims set fire to them during a rememberance parade in London. Have they struck again? It could be the Socialists who are anti-British or could even be the Immigrants who have entered the country illegally. Who ever it was needs to be found, named and shamed and expelled from Britain.

 

 

Should we give the long term unemployed food stamps instead of money?

Britains who work are paying for the social lives of many who refuse to get a job. I think it would be a much better system that like Australia we offer a food card that will only allow them to buy food or clothes rather than Night outs, Electronics, Alcohol, Ciggarettes and illegal Drugs. 



What the food card offers is that no longer will the unemployed or parents with multiple children have access to cash to spend as they please on stuff they have not earned. The system is already in place in Australia and the system of food stamps has worked well in the USA for many years.
Many Britains feel that it should also be introduced in Britain.

Introducing this system will make it more appealing for the people who refuse to work and abuse the system by having multiple children and getting free housing benefits, not paying tax and having much more money than the average worker. The LAbour Party created a welfare dependent culture in Britain and now its time drastic action is taken and following the likes of America and Australia with the Benefits card system is the only way to move forward and remove the abusers and help the people who really need the benefits for food and standard living.

The Australian government is rolling out a radical new way of paying welfare benefits that may be instructive for other countries around the world.

Instead of being given cash or cheques, thousands of people are now issued with electronic "credit" cards.

The Basics cards, as they are called, can only be used to purchase "priority" items such as food, housing, clothing, education and health care. {no fags and booze for example}

The government calls the cards a form of income management. While some use the cards voluntarily, for others they are compulsory.

That is why this world-first system of welfare payments has won both praise and disapproval.

Compulsory income management was introduced by the government of John Howard in 2007 and was initially confined to the Northern Territories and parts of Queensland.

By forcing some onto the scheme, it represented a major change to the Australian welfare system.

Until that point, there were few restrictions placed on recipients over how they used their benefit payments.

Now the government believes the scheme is working so well, it is rolling it out across much of the country, at a cost of around A$1bn ($1.03bn; £660m).
 

British Government to Finally Attack Socialist Welfare System

For too long people have been abusing the welfare system. 16 year olds leaving school and being advised by their single mothers (Also Living on Welfare) to go and have a child with any random stranger in order to get their own house through housing benefits. quite often we are now seeing cases of women under the age of 25 already have 2 or more children which means they have never contributed to the system and are living their lives off the hard work of others.



The article above describes the conditions made by the LAbour Party government perfectly who promoted the free lifestyle of living off others. Finally the Tories have decided enough is enough and will be removing the benefits of anybody under the age of 25 to stop the rot and promote the ideas that if you want to have a family early in life you work hard and provide for them yourselves.

David Cameron has launched a scathing attack on what he calls the "culture of entitlement" in the welfare system, as he warns that claimants with three or more children may start to lose access to benefits, and almost everyone aged under 25 will lose housing benefit.

The prime minister will claim there is now a damaging and divisive gap in Britain between those enjoying privileges inside the welfare system and those resentfully struggling outside. It is likely to be seen on the left as the death-knell for Cameron's brand of compassionate conservatism.

He will also single out lone parents of multiple children as a focus for cuts and insist the welfare system should be a safety net available only to those with no independent means of support. The reforms could see a range of benefits targeted, including income support payments.

The speech represents a shift in the prime minister's political management of the coalition because he will openly acknowledge that some of the proposals cannot be delivered in concert with the Liberal Democrats, and will have to wait for a Conservative majority government after 2015.

He says he hopes the Lib Dems will co-operate on some of the proposals, but "given the scale of change I've suggested, and the long time-frames involved, I am exploring these issues not just as leader of a coalition but as a leader of the Conservative party who is looking ahead to the programme we will set out to the country at the next election".

The Lib Dem Treasury chief secretary, Danny Alexander, gently rebuffed this, saying the focus should be on introducing universal credit in this parliament.

In the single most controversial passage of the speech, Cameron will assert: "We have been encouraging working-age people to have children and not work, when we should be enabling working-age people to work and have children. So it's time we asked some serious questions about the signals we send out through the benefits system."

He will say: "If you are a single parent living outside London, if you have four children and you're renting a house on housing benefit, then you can claim almost £25,000 a year. That is more than the average take-home pay of a farm worker and nursery nurse put together. That is a fundamental difference. And it's not a marginal point.

"There are more than 150,000 people who have been claiming income support for over a year who have three or more children … and 57,000 who have four or more children. The bigger picture is that today, one in six children in Britain is living in a workless household – one of the highest rates in Europe."

Cameron will admit this is difficult territory, but will say that at a time of austerity, "it is right to ask whether those in the welfare system should not be faced with the same kinds of decisions that working people have to wrestle with when they have a child."

Calling for a national debate on welfare, he will insist that compassion should not be measured by the size of a welfare cheque. He will also turn his fire on young people aged under 24 on housing benefit. He will say: "For literally millions, the passage to independence is several years living in their childhood bedroom as they save up to move out; while for many others, it's a trip to the council where they can get housing benefit at 18 or 19 – even if they're not actively seeking work."

Cameron is targeting the current 210,000 people aged 16 to 24 who are social housing tenants, although it is not clear if all of them will be single. He says the measure could save £1bn, but will not apply to victims of domestic violence.

The government has already capped housing benefit for anyone aged under 35 renting from a private landlord, so the maximum is the same as renting a single room in a shared house. The government is forecasting that housing benefit expenditure will peak in 2012/13 at £23.2bn, before falling back to £21.4bn in 2016/17.

Ministers have signalled that they are looking for a further £10bn in welfare cuts, mainly after the next election.

However, Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, appeared to suggest the housing benefit payment system for under-25s would be restricted rather than scrapped altogether.
"The details of these, of course, we have to be careful about," Duncan Smith told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"We have to be sensitive to the different reasons people have housing - people coming out of care, being in difficulties in foster care."

Duncan Smith claimed that the age at which young people move into social housing had dropped to 21 years old and the question Cameron was posing is the degree to which this is caused by families realising that they can get "a child of theirs into social housing if they are no longer living at home".

He said: "He's looking, quite rightly, at the balance between those families that work and try and do the right things against those families that aren't necessarily working and have understood how to work the system."

The work and pension secretary insisted that Cameron "wants to invite the nature of the debate and discussion about what people genuinely think on the back of what we have changed" in this parliament, such as universal credit, benefit reforms and work programmes.

The three questions that needed to be posed now centred on working age benefits, said Duncan Smith: "What is it for? Who should receive it? What the limits of state provision should be - and should there be limits? And what kinds of contributions should we expect from those receiving benefits?"
He went on: "That is why he is talking about this reforms past the next election because by then we will have a much better and stronger feel about where the successes are and where the things are that we need to move on."

Labour's Liam Byrne said the prime minister was taking the "wrong approach".
The shadow work and pensions secretary said that the Labour party didn't disagree with the "basic principle" that work should be encouraged, but argued that the Conservatives' cutting of tax credits was the wrong approach for the long-term.

"We don't disagree with the basic principle that you should be better off in work. That's why Labour introduced tax credits that helped get millions back into work.

"That's why we're angry at the way they're cutting tax credits, which means that thousands of people are actually better off on benefits than in work. I think he's coming at it from the wrong approach for the long term."

In other measures, Cameron may also announce plans to tighten the definition of homelessness, a shift to regionally set benefits, and measures to tighten the requirements to actively seek work before receiving jobseeker's allowance .

For those that have not found work after two years on jobseeker's allowance, he will say they must undertake some form of compulsory community work, such as tidying parks.
As part of a broader argument about a welfare divide in the UK, he will claim: "We have, in some ways, created a welfare gap in this country – between those living long term in the welfare system and those outside it. Those within it grow up with a series of expectations: you can have a home of your own, the state will support you whatever decisions you make, you will always be able to take out no matter what you put in.

"This has sent out some incredibly damaging signals. That it pays not to work. That you are owed something for nothing. It gave us millions of working-age people sitting at home on benefits even before the recession hit. It created a culture of entitlement. And it has led to huge resentment amongst those who pay into the system, because they feel that what they're having to work hard for, others are getting without having to put in the effort."

Cameron will also say his crackdown will apply only to those of working age and not to pensioners. He will say: "Two years ago I made a promise to the elderly of this country and I am keeping it. I was elected on a mandate to protect those benefits – so that is what we have done."

 

Citizen Khan Having a Laugh at the Muslims

A BBC sitcom about the life of a Pakistani family has provoked a controversy among British Muslims about whether the show is offensive to their religion.

 

Citizen Khan, created by Adil Ray, a British Muslim who also plays the lead character Mr Khan, debuted on Monday to 3.6 million viewers. The show pokes fun at Ray's character, who has delusions about his standing in the community that are viewed more clearly by his wife. Some of the action takes place at the local mosque, which is managed by a British convert to Islam who becomes the butt of jokes made by Mr Khan because of his red hair.

The BBC said it received 187 complaints about the first episode the day after it aired. Ofcom, the UK's television regulator, said it had received 20 complaints and may launch inquiry, the Guardian reported yesterday.

However, some Muslim community leaders say the anger is unwarranted.
One of the scenes that appeared to cause the most controversy showed Mr Khan's daughter rushing to put on a hijab and pretending to read the Quran when her father walks into the room.
One viewer wrote on the BBC's message board wrote they were disappointed about the way the daughter "disrespectfully opens the Quran".

"I think a lot of people thought that they used a real Quran for this scene and that's why they got upset," said Salman Farsi, a spokesman for the East London Mosque. "Personally, I don't think they did use a real Quran because the show was made by a Muslim who would know not to do that because it would cause offence."

The show should not be viewed as a dramatic look inside the British Muslim community, but for what it is: a light comedy, said Farooq Murad, the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain. The council represents about 350 mosques and educational, charitable, women's, youth and professional organisations in the UK.

"Some in our community may have been offended by small parts of the show and if that is the case, they have the right to make their feelings known to the BBC," Mr Murad said. "We hope the BBC will consult further with any future offerings."

He was less forgiving of the show when it came to its artistic merits.
"It is something of a throwback to the 1970s, and not particularly realistic, but we leave it to others to judge its critical merit. It certainly won't provide much insight into the Muslim community today but perhaps that was not its intention," Mr Murad said.

The show has been widely panned by critics in the British press.
Ray said the show was intended to allow the British Muslim community to laugh at itself.
"I think it is a great opportunity, with Mr Khan as a Pakistani Muslim and the character, to take that kind of really rich content and laugh at ourselves and I am a firm believer in that," he told BBC Breakfast this week.

Some commenters on Twitter said they were angered and offended about the show's content.
"They crossed the line when they brought religion into it," said Rajah_Talat.
"I was so disgusted with that Citizen Khan sitcom aired yesterday. Shame on the person who thought of such a concept," said kairiz, also on Twitter.

The BBC defended the programme, saying it had evidence of a "lobbying" campaign against the show. Mr Farsi, of the East London Mosque, said he was not aware of any lobbying campaign against the show.

Amjad Malik wrote on Asian Image, a website that caters to Asian readers in north-west England, that it was too early to judge until after the entire six-part series had been broadcast.
"I sense some white audiences might feel uncomfortable at sniggering at some jokes but Asians will easily identify with the overly-emotional Mrs Khan (Shobu Kapoor), the daughter who leads a double life and the sensitive Amjad (Abdullah Afzal)," he wrote.

"There were moments I did not laugh and at other points I was laughing out loud. It is after all a sitcom and it is on BBC1

 

East London Immigrants

The Census of 2011 has shown that the population of Newham, East London has increased by 249,000 in the ten years since the previous Census of 2001 taking the total of people living there to over 308,000, with a population density of 8,508 residents per square kilometre.

The increase is more than a quarter and immigration is in no small way responsible for the rise with only the neighbouring borough of Tower Hamlets being higher and equalled only by Hackney in East London and Manchester.

The noticeable changes in the demographics of the area is in the large influx of Africans and East Europeans that have amassed in the area with a very small percentage of  White and British people who remain living there being from the indigenous population.

The number of homes occupied by three people or more is 101,500 and the number of young people under the age of 19 has risen by more than 7,000 to 86,200.

This would, therefore, mean that there is more pressure on services such as schools and hospitals.

Islam has had a vast impact Newham with more than 64 Mosques in operation, Enough is Enough now it is time to stand up aggainst immigration and force these rag wearing towl heads back to their 3rd world countries and we can reclaim out land to look like Britain again.

 

Mass immigration, and how the Socialists & Labour tried to destroy Britishness

Throughout the tenure of the last Labour government this newspaper, and others — while praising the huge contribution immigrants had made to this country in the past — attacked the laxity of what were supposed to be our border controls.



It was clear the very nature of our society was being changed by a new kind of uncontrolled mass immigration — and without the British people ever having been asked whether they supported the policy.

Uncontrolled: Immigration surged under Labour

Labour arrogantly accused its critics of racism — though most of the incomers were white — and of scaremongering.



It claimed it had no choice but to open our borders to the nationals of ten mainly ex-Soviet bloc countries which joined the EU in 2004.

The truth was that — as other EU countries which restricted immigration from these states proved — it did have a choice.

Action: Home Secretary Theresa May has announced that the UK Border Agency will be split

Useless

The cynicism did not end there. Such, Labour claimed, was its commitment to ensuring that only people with a right to be in Britain could come here that in 2008 it set up the UK Border Agency. The truth, unfortunately, was very different.



Theresa May, the Home Secretary, has announced that the agency is being wound up next month precisely because it is useless, and the officials who ran it — rather like the borders they supposedly policed — were out of control.



Despite the strong threat from international terrorism, the evidence of eastern European criminal gangs infiltrating Britain, and our overburdened public and social services, 500,000 unchecked people were let in to Britain via Eurostar between 2007 and last year, while countless so-called students were just nodded through.

Though Labour clearly left the system in a shambles, it should be noted that it has taken almost two years for this Government to admit the mess our immigration procedures are in, and to do something about it.

So Mrs May’s department — and notably the Immigration Minister Damian Green — also have a case to answer.

They seemed unaware that their officials, too, were ordering the relaxation of controls. Yet while the Coalition has been derelict, Labour was downright malign.

The game was given away in 2009 by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Home Office and Downing Street adviser, who revealed that mass immigration was a deliberate policy by the Left to change the social fabric of the country and to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’.

This appalling policy was never discussed publicly because Labour strategists feared it would upset the party’s traditional white working-class support. For self-interested political reasons, the public could not possibly be consulted.

Mass immigration gratified the Left in two ways that have inflicted enormous damage on our country. It furthered the bogus notion of multiculturalism — undermining national identity and common values, and preventing the successful integration of immigrant communities into the British cultural mainstream.

Seven in 10 Britons believe there are too many immigrants in the country, an Ipsos Mori poll showed.

Three in four agreed that immigration has placed too much pressure on public services while three in five agreed that it had made it harder for Britons to get jobs.

Just one in four thought immigration had been good for the economy, the survey of 1,000 people showed.

 

I don't think there has been too much immigration into the UK, I think it's been the wrong immigrants.

Let me explain what I mean. Immigrants from the third world, i.e. outside of Europe, have very little compunction to integrate and adopt the host culture of the UK. Many are black and whilst this shouldn't make a difference, most of the population of the UK is not. Many are devoutly Muslim, which is different to the 'Christian' religion of this country. Their experiences and customs are different to ours. What tends to happen therefore is that they end up in enclaves all over the country. Places like Bradford and Blackburn are testimony to that. In Glasgow, the poorer Asian immigrants congregate around the Allison Street area, until they earn serious money and then they move out to the 'South-Side'.

Left-wingers will tell me, they bring employment. Er, no! They tend to employ other Asians who are married off to various family members. I have experience of some elderly women who have been here for 40 years and can speak no more than six words of English.

The other argument we hear is that there has been immigration into Scotland for a thousand years. Well, yes, but from Europe, where the people tend to have a similar culture to us. Where have you been in Europe that feels distinctly different from the UK, apart from the obvious differences like language. There is a current case before the courts of a woman who is being barred from bringing her husband over from India, because he comes from a small village, (a cousin) and can't speak English. She says the ruling is against her human rights. Well, IMO, it's against our human rights to let her husband in, if he doesn't want to integrate in this country. She could always go over and join him in India!

For too long in this country, immigration has been one of the 'elephants in the room'. It's time we brought it out in the open and at least discussed it without us being labelled as 'racists' for doing so.

Europe in 2029 thanks to Socialists & Multiculturism

 

Integration of British Muslims has been increasingly hindered by the rise of ghettos. New research shows the population of these mostly inner city communities has been rising very fast -- by one-third over the past decade. These findings have reopened the debate on how to solve this problem, which also breeds extremism. And solutions are not going to be easily found, according to the experts

 

Asian Muslim ghettos in Britain have kept growing fast over the past 10 years, hindering integration and raising fears that dissatisfied Muslim youngsters may become easy prey for extremist groupings. Magnus Ranstorp is the director of the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland.

 

“I think that home-grown terrorism is certainly being accelerated by the growing ‘ghettoification.’ Not just in Britain, but across Europe. And it’s very easy for the recruiters and for those who are manipulating the individuals to taking that final step. To find the willing recruits who are socially excluded and then marginalized in the society,” Ranstorp said.

This “ghettoisation” has been most visible in eight major cities. Leicester, Birmingham, and Bradford top the scale, followed by London, and others. And the integration or assimilation process in the ghettos is so slow, according to the report released by the Royal Geographical Society, that in many cases it will never happen.

Ali Noorizade heads the Arab-Iranian Studies Centre in London. He says the problem has been that the ghettos are a voluntary creation by mostly Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants, not something the society has forced upon them. And he adds that they rarely need to venture outside.

“The women are totally isolated. Majority of them are brought to England to bring children. They are coming from a remote village, and suddenly they find themselves in a society they know nothing about."

 

“They deal with themselves. Some of them never learn English. They have a Pakistani doctor, they have Pakistani lawyers, and therefore, you know, it became part of their culture to live within their ghetto. And they don’t show any intention to integrate with the society,” Noorizade said.

Other experts view the situation similarly. David Owen is a population studies specialist at the University of Warwick. “The degree of concentration has increased over 10 years, because there’s been quite rapid growth of the Pakistani and Bangladeshi populations over that period. They are a very impoverished population who tend to remain within established areas,” Owen said.

 

Owen says there are other constraints, too: fear of racial harassment outside the ghettos; loss of the immediate, next-door contact with the wider family and friends; and the loss of community facilities, including the closeness of the mosque.

Owen adds that a proportion of new immigrants belong to an Islamic sect that does not wish to mix with other faiths, which makes them entrenched. And the newcomers since 1997 also include women who come to Britain as brides. They too add to the rising ghetto population, as well as boosting high birth rates.

Noorizade confirms these observations, adding that the situation of the ghetto women is really most unfortunate.

 

“The women are totally isolated. Majority of them are brought to England to bring children. They are coming from a remote village, and suddenly they find themselves in a society they know nothing about. And then their husbands force them to stay indoors and not to participate in any kind of activities,” Noorizade says.

 

Noorizade says the British government and official institution do not like to see the ghetto-dwellers isolate themselves. Unfortunately, after 9/11 and the London bombings, the finger was pointed at the Muslims, he adds. “And it pushed the ghettos into yet more isolation.”

Owen adds that there are several interlinked problems. Houses within the ghettos are priced much lower than those outside in the suburbs. With low earnings, there is no upward mobility -- which for example many Hindu and Sikh immigrants from India have managed quite successfully -- so there is no possibility to break out from the ghettos.

Official statistics show that nearly three-quarters of the ghettos comprise low-income households. And the unemployment there is three times higher than among the white population.

 

Picture above shows muslim takeover in London Alone

 

Owen says that the solution is in improving the economic situation and education, so that people would start moving out. “That lies with ability to obtain better, higher-status employment. And, also, there is a question of education to obtain higher quality employment. Because Pakistanis and Bangladeshi boys in particular have been amongst the less successful at school,” Owen says. Noorizade concludes that some action by the government is overdue, but first there has to be more dialogue with the real representatives of the ghettos. “Then, maybe a solution would show itself,” he says