WILL JONES
It’s been exasperating to watch as, in defiance of the wishes of Western electorates, the cultural make-up of our countries is radically transformed, writes Lionel Shriver in the Spectator. It’s time to recognise that the problem is the asylum system itself and it needs to go. Here’s an excerpt.
I’ve suggested scrapping the entire postwar asylum apparatus before, if only in passing, and Patrick O’Flynn concluded an article for the Spectator website last week with the same recommendation. So let’s take up this proposal in earnest. Unlike (largely theoretical) gatecrashers in China or India, absolutely anyone can enter the US or Europe and claim to be persecuted, and then the Government is immediately obliged not only to take this often-spurious assertion seriously, but to grant the foreigner access to expensive judicial, welfare and healthcare systems – to which this stranger has never contributed and may never contribute. For the developing world, the offer of such refuge is irresistible. For Western taxpayers, it is ruinous.
It’s blithely accepted that asylum is widely ‘abused’, an eye-popping understatement. The preponderance of folks who claim ‘credible fear’ of political persecution are economic migrants coached by smugglers and gormless NGO worthies on what to tell the authorities. Hence we have scores of Muslims who’ve ostensibly converted to Christianity, whole cadres from socially conservative countries who are purportedly gay and entire boatloads of heavily bearded males who say they’re 15 years old. Why are we committed to this farce? Why should a sovereign country abdicate control over who enters its territory and usurps its resources?
The scandals are legion. An activist judge has determined that a family of six from Gaza can claim asylum through a programme established by Britain’s Parliament to shelter Ukrainians. Oh, grand. Someone tell Trump. Clearing the Strip for luxury hotels? Just send all 1.7 million terrorist-indoctrinated Gazans to Stoke-on-Trent. Infamously, a criminal Albanian can now remain in the UK because his son will only eat British chicken nuggets. Likewise, a Pakistani imprisoned for sex offences gets to stay in the UK because deportation would be hard on his children – whom he’s legally forbidden to see without supervision anyway, since he’s a paedophile. In the US, millions of the credibly fearful who crossed the southern border under Joe Biden were provided immigration appointments up to a decade in the future – at which point they’ll claim to have made a home in the US and will never be forced to leave. Meanwhile, stories about disgruntled asylum seekers ploughing vehicles into crowds in Germany are becoming practically ho-hum.
In the UK, a Nigerian woman was denied asylum eight times in a row, but just won her case on the ninth try because she’d joined what’s regarded as a terrorist organisation in her home country. This is despite the judge’s acceptance that the woman had only joined Indigenous People of Biafra “in order to create a claim for asylum”. But never mind the sly ploy. What leaps from that story is the number of appeals she was allowed – and plenty of UK immigration cases entail the same multitude of foot-dragging court appearances. How much does trial after trial cost the public, including the asylum seekers’ taxpayer-funded lawyers? …
Granted, withdrawing the offer of unlimited asylum doesn’t sound very nice. Yet a functional state puts its citizenry first. Overwhelmingly, Americans and Europeans want to curtail mass immigration. Droves of poorly educated, low-skilled arrivals are diluting social cohesion, increasing criminality, depressing GDP per capita and costing the public hundreds of thousands of dollars, pounds or euros over their lifetimes. Why don’t our governments be nice to us? And if that means would-be righteous politicians feel less warm and fuzzy, there’s nothing warm and fuzzy about being a sucker.
Worth reading in full.
See Related Article Below
Judicial Treason in the United Kingdom
Judge Hugo-Norton Taylor is typical of the breed.
JUPPLANDIA
Under Globalist rule the average citizen learn that most politicians, if not all, serve the enemies of his nation and enact policies that are designed to impoverish and harm ordinary people as well as the Nation itself.
He then learns that the Media are doing the same.
And then he learns that the police are too.
Finally, when the Globalist politicians and the Globalist police and the Globalist media have all done their work, he finds himself before a Globalist judge.
And there the full depravity and evil that has overtaken his nation is revealed.
There he learns that the Globalist judge is the most lunatic, the most hypocritically prejudiced, the most ideologically indoctrinated, and the most evil of all. The Globalist judge delights in freeing the guilty and imprisoning the innocent. The Globalist judge has learned the kind of disdain for justice that even tyrants and journalists and other lawyers hesitate to display.
Because the job and the pleasure, the possibly sexual pleasure, of the Globalist judge is in showing the people that there is no justice at all. The Globalist judge is the sadomasochistic final insult of the anarcho-tyranny, the one who exceeds even the Globalist politician in the obviousness of his malice and the depth of his depravity.
All those old jokes in British sex farces of the 1960s and 1970s about bewigged authority figures in ladies stockings being the kind of people found in private sex dungeons or indulging in bizarre fetishes are a lot less funny when your judges are themselves pedophiles with the power to help their like-minded perverts.
How else should we understand judges who give ridiculously light sentences for the rape of children, while at the same time giving obscenely harsh sentences for thought crimes or for social media commentary that offends someone?
Are these verdicts, which keep coming, accidental? Do they not show some personal tastes at work? I think they do.
I think a significant proportion of British judges are pedophiles. There are simply too many ‘slap on the wrist, I’ll let you go with a wink’ judgements made in favor of child abusers. It goes beyond ideological or political malice and into the territory of a network of rancid evil perverts protecting their own.
Similarly, we can no longer consider the political verdicts these judges pass as unconnected to their own vices and sins. Ideologically they come from the same social circles and indoctrination camps (also known as ‘universities’) that Globalist politicians and journalists come from. They have the same attitudes on everything. So some of them might be relatively normal at home. Some might just be totally fucking insane politically without fiddling kids or dreaming about fiddling kids.
But how many?
When they give a child rapist a FINE of £41 and community service, how the hell is a normal person to be sure that this isn’t because the judge in question really doesn’t see anything wrong with raping children? Especially if at the same time people are being given two years in prison, effectively, for insulting Islam?
You know, the religion with the biggest track record (a record the worst Catholic priests envy) of, oh yes, raping children.
Is it coincidental that Globalist judges are ALWAYS leaning towards the softest verdicts for child rapists and the harshest verdicts for those critical of the Islamic child rape gangs that blight Britain? How many coincidences do we need before the explanation becomes shared interests….?
How did we actually get, anyway, to the point where criticizing the mass gang rape of children is a criminal act and a supposed hate crime, but being a child rapist, apparently, often isn’t? Am I alone in considering this utterly mental, unjust, and depraved? But this is where Globalist judges have put us.
Of course, of course, this is populist fiction. Our judges are fine upstanding (no sniggers) custodians of the law. Tommy Robinson was imprisoned for something else. Let’s call it contempt of court. It’s not the judiciary protecting child rapists because they share the same instincts or fetishise brown skin or are terrified of Islam or in love with it. No, no. EVERYONE imprisoned for criticizing Islam just happened to have broken some other laws, and its purely BAD LUCK that these judicial verdicts help child rapists….
To which I answer, yeah right. Too many coincidences by now, chum. And by the way, if you don’t have contempt for THESE judges, passing THESE verdicts, you too are a morally depraved cretin. Contempt of court becomes a moral requirement in any court with a Globalist judge. The contempt has been earned.
And so to Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor (no, seriously, Hugo Norton-Taylor). Wow, that name. Hey, can we come up with a name that screams upper middle class twat? Can we pick a name that tells you instantly that this person has never, ever, encountered a real human being outside the metropolitan upper reaches of society? This is a name that Peter Cook (no working class boy himself) would have given a judge in a satirical sketch written for The Frost Report somewhere around Swinging 1966. Hell, it might sneak into the pages of a 1920s set, 1950s written P.G. Wodehouse Bertie Wooster story.
“You know Hugo, don’t you Jeeves? Old Huggie? Naughty-Sailor? Huggy Wuggy Hugo? He was First Boy the same year as Barmy Bungy Phipps? Threw up in the punch bowl at the Duke of Gloucester’s wedding?”
“Yes Sir. The gentleman caught with the 12 year old boy in the public toilet in Hampstead.”
“That’s the one. Gosh. You think you know a chap. Takes all sorts, doesn’t it Jeeves?”
“It does indeed Sir. Though one hopes that suitable punishment will constrain Mr Norton-Taylor in future.”
“Oh, right, absolutely Jeeves. Absolutely. You know I don’t really fancy breakfast at the moment.”
“As you wish, Sir.”
To be strictly fair Judge Hugo has not been caught with a 12 year old boy in a public toilet in Hampstead. Nor is he, so far as I know, the Judge who decided that a £41 fine was a sufficient punishment for child rape.
He’s just the Judge who has decided that an itself batshit crazy immigration scheme aimed at resettling Ukrainians in the UK can be used to resettle Palestinians in the UK. In a ruling he decided that all Palestinians can be considered Ukrainians and moved to the UK if they have a single relative in the UK.
“A Palestinian family has been granted the right to live in the UK after applying through a scheme designed for Ukrainian refugees, with the judge ruling that the Home Office’s rejection of their application breached their human rights…The family of six…applied to join their brother in the UK using the Ukraine Family Scheme, despite not meeting the schemes requirements….Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor ruled in favor of the family, stating that their “extreme and life-threatening” situation outweighed the “public interest” of rules regulating entry to the UK.”
In other words, the Palestinians matter more than Britain’s laws or Britain’s people, on the whim of a Globalist judge. 72,000 Ukrainians joined the UK under this scheme. The scheme actually CLOSED in February 2024.
But this judge says that ANY NUMBER of Palestinians can enter the UK and settle in the UK using a closed scheme for UKRAINIANS. The ruling is so insane that even the Home Office and Keir Starmer have criticized it.
In other words Judge Hugo is so much of a Globalist shitbag betraying his country and opening the floodgates of mass immigration even further (benefiting arguably the most savage, backwards, and dangerous population on the planet at the expense of the British people) that other Globalists are embarrassed by him.
How many thousands of Palestinians will exploit the insane ruling Judge Hugo Norton-Taylor has provided? How many amongst that incoming flood will be dangerous individuals? How many will be rapists, exactly? What measures will be in place to ensure that these Palestinians are not the kind of Palestinians who rape children, kidnap children, and burn children alive in front of their equally raped and tortured parents, as Palestinians did on October 7th to their Jewish Israeli neighbors?
Are those the neighbors anyone else wants?
The Judge doesn’t know. The Judge doesn’t care.
So what does that make the Judge?
This article (Judicial Treason in the United Kingdom) was created and published by Jupplandia and is republished here under “Fair Use”
*****
When it comes to immigration, the numbers matter a lot!
How did numbers become so fundamental to the whole immigration debate?
MIGRATION WATCH UK
You’ll find an article on the BBC website headed, “Why so many Prime Ministers have failed to cut immigration,” by Mike Radford, executive producer of, ‘Immigration: How British Politics Failed’, and Victoria James, series producer and director. We wrote about the series in the newsletter soon after it was broadcast last year but you may not have seen the article. Here is an extract, essentially about Migration Watch UK and our joint founder 2024 years ago, Lord Andrew Green. It is so relevant to what is happening today. “Tory leader Michael Howard also found value in Migration Watch’s arguments. He agreed with their belief that the number of people entering Britain should be capped, promising an annual limit at the 2005 election. When David Cameron became Leader of the Opposition later that year, he initially resisted the temptation to impose a cap, but he too became convinced that a number was deliverable.”
We remain convinced – perhaps even more now, in light of experience, than 25 years ago – that the only effective way to reduce immigration is to cap numbers entering, as well as the number given leave to remain indefinitely.
Numbers are, of course, critically important. The media didn’t take much notice, as David Yelland, former editor of the Sun, admitted, until we put it in a numerical context. Suddenly, they took note because numbers readily illustrated the scale and speed of immigration. We were told it didn’t matter because immigration had been going on for centuries – no matter that in 1951, ethnic minorities made up around 3% of the population. Indeed, as we have mentioned in recent weeks, the 1991 census recorded the proportion of ethnic minorities as only 5%. The 2021 census showed it to be 25%.
On Thursday, we heard from Professor Paul Morland at Oxford University (click here to watch to an interview he gave to GBNews’s Steven Edgington) that at the present scale of immigration, adding children to be born to migrants, and given immigration is now pretty much the sole driver of population growth, the minority will become the majority within 30 years. It is likely to be much sooner in the classroom. Then there is the size of the illegal migrant population, which we estimate to be between 1.5 million and 2 million (see the link to Alp’s article below) – this doesn’t include those we know about coming illegally, and openly, across the Channel.
The number coming legally, those making their way here illegally, the number of British citizens who leave and outnumber those returning by an annual 50,000 or so, the rapidly increasing population – likely to reach 70 million before the end of the decade…numbers matter. Immigration, in one way or other, will add millions to the population; as the number of those whose forebears made Britain the wonderful country it is reduces in number and as a proportion of the population. The majority now, will become a minority within another generation. As the Welsh might say, a minority in the land of their fathers. They weren’t asked if they wanted this and are still being kept in the dark about what is happening. This is desperately wrong, Prime Minister.
These numbers matter, and matter a lot, because they are so huge and well beyond our capacity to deal with them. But our concern is about more than just numbers, immense though they are. It is also about the sort of people coming; the different cultures and values, ethnic conflicts and tensions that come with them. How on earth can we house and integrate them – not least when many don’t wish to integrate? Indeed, what is it that they will be integrating into?
It is time to come to our senses. Cap immigration and bring it under control, PDQ!
SOURCE: Migration Watch UK
Featured image: Getty Images
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply