When is a Murder Deemed a Racially Aggravated Hate Crime? 

According to reports in the media, in approximately 50% of inter-racial murders the victim is white and the aggressor is non-white.  As non-whites only make up 10% of the population it is safe to conclude that a black or other non-white immigrant is almost 9 times more likely to commit an inter-racial murder than an indigenous white person.

However, if a white person kills a black or other non-white it is always recorded as a racially aggravated hate crime.  Yet if a Negro or Asian murders a white it is very rarely, if ever, classed as a racially aggravated hate crime.

The difference in which a Caucasian and Negro victim of murder is treated can be illustrated in the Stephen Lawrence and Charlene Downes cases, as detailed below.

Stephen Lawrence was a known drug pusher and supporter of the racist Black Power organization – hence the clenched fist black supremacist salute shown in the picture.   Stephen is often portrayed as a dedicated “A” level student and a pillar of the community, yet this is not based on any factual evidence.  It is suggested that he was studying to become an architect, but there is no evidence to support this. Clearly, this has been fabricated to enhance his reputation; when in reality he was part of the racist black gangland culture that prevails around the Eltham area of London. Stephen was murdered by a rival gang; there was NO racial motive – it was purely a case of gang warfare for the control of the local area.

Charlene Downes was an innocent vulnerable schoolgirl living with her parents in Blackpool when she was approached by a gang of Moslem men of Pakistani origin who flattered her into accepting them as her friends – in reality she was being groomed for sexual exploitation. She was repeatedly raped and used for prostitution by her groomers; but she felt too ashamed and afraid to tell her parents of the abuse she had been subjected to.  Afraid that Charlene would expose the Moslem gang for their sexual exploitation, the groomers (after group raping her) murdered her in the room above their kebab shop. To dispose of her body the gang cut her into pieces and passed her parts through an industrial meat mincing machine. Her minced body meat was then sold to the general public in the kebabs cooked on their premises.

For both of these crimes extensive police investigations were undertaken with the result that the following suspects were arrested, and subsequently committed to trail.

In 1996 Gary Dobson and David Norris (Shown above) together with Jamie Acourt, Neil Acourt and Luke Knight were committed to trial for the murder of Stephen Lawrence under a private prosecution. Charges against Jamie Acourt and David Norris were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.  The evidence submitted by Duwayne Brooks was found to be inadmissible (dishonest), consequently the case collapsed with Neil Acourt, Luke Knight and Gary Dobson being formally acquitted; and under the double jeopardy rules cannot be charged for the same crime again.  The defendants received no compensation for wrongful arrest.

Mohammed Reveshi and Iyad Albettikhl (shown above) were put on trail at Preston Crown Court in 2007 for the murder of Charlene Downes.  It is now a documented fact that several members of the jury were intimidated by friends of the defendants when “Asian men” followed them to their homes and stood outside their gates saying “we KNOW where you live”.   It has also come to light that, during the trial, a member of the jury was very closely involved with one of the defendants and even visited him in his cell during the trial!  Consequently the jury failed to reach a verdict; but for some reason the Crown Prosecution Service failed to call for a re-trial. These two murderers have been awarded up to £250,000 compensation for wrongful arrest.

Now, one would have thought that this was the end for both of these cases.  Not so; the Labour government under the arch-traitor Tony Blair saw an opportunity to increase Labour’s share of the ethnic vote.  To do this they implemented a judicial inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence case headed by a retired High Court Judge Sir William Macpherson.   The Macpherson Report proved to be the most dishonest piece of politically-correct dogma ever produced.  It was clearly produced at the behest of the Labour government to maliciously slur the police force with fabricated accusations of institutional racism – although in the report he failed to give specific examples.   The most controversial aspects of the report was for the introduction of a new offence – that of a hate crime.  The Macpherson Report defined a hate crime as:

“Any hate incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, perceived by the victim or any other person, as being motivated by prejudice or hate.”

The very fact that the word ‘perceived’ is used to define a hate crime means that for the first time in British judicial history the truth and actual proof of a crime being committed is of no consequence; as an alleged victim’s perception of being subjected to hateful treatment takes precedence over factual evidence.  The Labour government accepted the report in its entirety without questioning any of its findings, regardless of the numerous flaws high-lighted by many prominent people.  The most obvious flaw was the fact that its findings only related to ethnic minorities – it assumed that indigenous white Britons would never be the victims of hate crimes inflicted on them by the newly empowered immigrant communities, and that only white people committed hate crimes.   The Labour government’s rash acceptance of the report and its subsequent changes to the law did not eliminate institutional racism; it vastly promoted it in the form of institutional anti-white racism.         

  

The Macpherson report resulted in the birth of institutional anti-white racist organizations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) whose sole purpose is to promote the interests of the ethnic minorities, and demonize the indigenous population as bigoted racist thugs.  Some parts of the report that has now been embodied within our law including the requirement for organisations to implement a policy of positive discrimination and affirmative action in the recruitment and promotion of their employees.  This has resulted in the over-representation of ethnic minorities in government organizations, with the standard of competence being lowered to accommodate the less qualified and less able immigrant candidates.  In organizations like the BBC it is now hard to spot the white, male, hetero-sexual presenter as women and ethnic minorities overwhelmingly dominate the scene.  Another change in the law as a result of this report was the repeal of the double-jeopardy law that prevented a person being tried more than once for the same offence.  

The politically-correct bigots of the liberal left-wing establishment used the Stephen Lawrence affair as a means of promoting their political agenda of venerating the ethnic minorities at the expense of denigrating the indigenous population’s traditions, morals and culture.  The media has devoted so much publicity to the Stephen Lawrence gangland killing that other genuine racist murders, such as Kriss Donald, Christopher Yates and Ben Kinsela, have never been mentioned.  The liberal establishment even placed a memorial plaque at the location where Stephen Lawrence was supposed to have died.

       

The Stephen Lawrence murder has witnessed a frenzied outpouring by the main stream media to establish their politically-correct credentials by comparing this small-time gangland drug-pusher to that of a paragon of virtue, who’s every deed was portrayed as an act of selfless benevolence.  Such was the establishment’s desire to promote diversity and multi-culturalism that it allowed Stephen Lawrence to be elevated to the status of a national hero - a Saint even! To commemorate his virtual beautification a plaque has been place at the location where he was killed.  The site is monitored by CCTV so that it will not be vandalized by people who are disgusted by this over-reaction to an alleged racist murder, particularly when a multitude of white victims of hate crimes are not officially acknowledged as such.

The top picture shows the Moslem take-away, Funny Boyz, where Charlene Downes was raped, murdered, dissected, minced and sold as kebabs.  It has since changed its name to Mr Beanz in an attempt to conceal its infamous past. No memorial to Charlene exists at the location, and any attempt by friends and family to hold a vigil and place a wreath at the site in her memory has been met with police harassment and accusations of inciting racial hatred.

Many people have jumped onto the Stephen Lawrence bandwagon to further their own interests.  The vast amount of racial discrimination laws and human rights legislation enabled the Wicked Witch Cherie Blair to set up the Matrix Chambers specializing in the extraction of tax-payers money for the pursuit of questionable racial discrimination cases.  The Human Rights industry, promoted by greedy lawyers and corrupt judges, extracts £billions from the tax-payer and private companies each year and is seriously damaging Britain’s economic recovery as employers are bombarded with spurious racial discrimination charges. 

How have the parents of these two murder victims fared?  Below are the details of each set of parents, and it is very apparent that they have not been treated equally.   

The parents of Stephen Lawrence, Neville and Doreen Lawrence, have been given as much hero worship by the liberal-left establishment and politically-correct media as their murdered son. The liberal establishment had always placed the Lawrence’s at the centre of all their actions to further their goal of institutional anti-white racism. They have always been portrayed as hard-working, with wholesome family values and the pillars of society; but the victims of white racial harassment since their arrival from Jamaica in the 1950s.  The liberal establishment used the Lawrence’s to found an organization called the Stephen Lawrence Trust – a left-wing lottery funded charity to promote black people to the exclusion of indigenous white folk.  For lending their names to this trust both Neville and Doreen were awarded the OBE. The Lawrence’s were awarded some £250,000 of tax-payer's money in compensation for the emotional stress they suffered due to the loss of their son. As a result of her supposed selfless devotion to the black community, Doreen has been appointed a Baroness and will sit in the House of Lords.  It is difficult to understand why this should be as in reality she merely allowed her name to be used by the Stephen Lawrence Trust, but did nothing else of any worth.

The parents of Charlene Downes, Robert and Karen Downes, have been given no such hero worship by the liberal-left establishment, but have instead been portrayed as white trash. Karen Downes has had no support from the liberal establishment – in fact quite the opposite.  When the two men accused of Charlene’s murder were acquitted. Karen was naturally distressed and tweeted that they should have been sentenced to death.  The extremist left-wing organization Unite Against Fascism accused Karen of inciting people to murder, and orchestrated a campaign of hate towards her.  The venom directed towards the Downes’s was hateful to the extreme, calling them benefit scum and lazy work-shy trash.  Naturally, the police made no effort to apprehend these hateful liberal bigots. When Karen endeavoured to hold a protest outside of the kebab shop where Charlene met her death, she was threatened by the police for committing a hate crime and has subsequently been banned from approaching the shop and handing out literature explaining the circumstances surrounding Charlene’s murder. The Downes' have not been awarded any compensation for the loss of their daughter.  No charity has been setup in memory to Charlene or other girls groomed by Moslems to satisfy their sexual perversions.  Karen has not yet been appointed a Baroness.

With the repeal of the double jeopardy law, the police managed to get enough DNA evidence to re-open the trail; and with the Crown Prosecution Service managing to select a compliant jury, David Norris and Gary Dobson were put on trial for racial aggravated murder.  The basis for re-opening the trial was based on flimsy DNA evidence; furthermore, there was no evidence to suggest it was racially motivated.  Below is a review of the DNA evidence written while the jury were out deliberating on their verdict. 

The Stephen Lawrence stabbing murder case verdict was expected to be not-guilty due to unreliable DNA evidence seems certain. It soon became evident that the new case has been built on unreliable DNA evidence, as there is a very good chance that cross-contamination has occurred It has emerged that a bag containing Stephen Lawrence’s blood-stained jacket had been put in a bag containing a suspect’s clothing prior the crucial evidence being put into storage for a number of years.  In addition, clothes which had been recovered from the home of one of the two men accused of killing him, individually bagged to avoid forensic cross-contamination, had been placed into the same plastic sack when the investigation ground to a virtual halt back in the 90′s. Evidence was placed into storage in 1995, following the unsolved 1993 investigation.  One of the most crucial bits of evidence, the black ‘LA Raiders’ jacket, which Stephen Lawrence was wearing when he was attacked, may not have been handled and stored in the ideal way, and contaminated other evidence, such as the clothing from the defendants. The stabbing in Eltham, South-East London shocked the nation at the time of the offence. One of the plastic sacks had also been discovered with a missing seal, which was supposed to keep contents free from contamination.  The main prosecution argument suggests that blood, hair and microscopic fibres on the clothes taken from homes of the two suspects, Gary Dobson and David Norris appear to have been put into the same bag, further complicating the situation, and seriously undermining any plausibility of DNA evidence being reliable in the case.  Although DNA evidence is now very reliable if well handled; flawed, and some say primitive, police systems in the 1990s arguably may make it impossible to rule out whether forensic evidence had been inadvertently transferred between clothing items belonging to victim and suspects during the handling and storage process. Christopher Bower, who was in charge of storage of exhibits at a Metropolitan Police lab has confirmed that there was no system to separate victim and suspect items after they had been forensically examined, which appears to be a massive blow for the prosecutions case.  The brown paper bags containing individual items were placed at random in clear plastic over-bags, mixing up individual clothing evidence. When being questioned by Timothy Roberts QC, who is representing Dobson, Mr Bower confirmed that no specific segregation instructions for dealing with the bags, and also nothing to prevent the contents being mingled, and no system of keeping them separate for further examination, such as the cold case review which later followed. Remarkably gloves were not always used when presenting evidence which was produced at a private prosecution brought by Stephen’s parents in 1996.  The items had to be moved and stored again before a cold case review in 2007 and 2008, which discovered the forensic evidence now at the heart of the prosecution case. Kent Police had taken possession of key exhibits in 1997 while they were looking into complaints about the conduct of Met officers during the first murder investigation.  They had been returned in 1998, which was prior to the official Lawrence Inquiry.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence that the DNA evidence was unreliable, which in any other trail the Judge would have declared as inadmissible, the jury returned a guilty verdict on both defendants.  Clearly, this was a show trial set up by the liberal establishment to appease the ethnic minority claim that they are the victims of racial persecution by the majority indigenous British population.   The vicious witch-hunt against both Gary Dobson and David Norris instigated by the Labour Government of Tony Blair, the liberal/left-wing press and the BBC meant that the jury had been subjected to biased reporting for over twenty years; so is it any wonder that with the level of negative reporting about the defendants, the jury were brain-washed into finding them guilty.   

Why do the racial discrimination laws only seem to apply in the case of white-on-black offences but never in cases of black-on-white crime?  A short résumé of official statistics reveals the following:  

·              Blacks are 5 times more likely to commit violence against the person.

·              Blacks are 4 times ‘more likely’ to commit sexual offences.

·              Blacks are fifteen times ‘more likely’ to commit robbery.

·              Blacks are over six times ‘more likely’ to commit fraud and forgery.

·              Blacks are over twice as likely to commit criminal damage.

·              Black are five times ‘more likely’ to commit drugs offences.

A preliminary analysis of official crime data shows:

v   Violence against the person is 5 times more prevalent in the black community, than in the white community.

v   Drugs offences are 16 times more prevalent in the black community, and 3 times more prevalent in the Asian community, than in the white community.

v   Robbery is over 9 times more prevalent in the black community, than in the white community.

v   Committing homicide is 6 times more prevalent in the black community, and twice as prevalent in the Asian community, than it is in the white community.

v   The homicidal killing of white people is 90 times more prevalent in the black community, than the homicidal killing of black people in the white community.

v   The homicidal killing of white people is 30 times more prevalent in the Asian community, than the homicidal killing of Asian people in the white community.

v   The number of white victims of inter-racial homicide is approximately 40 times greater than expected, when compared to the number of such victims in the minority (BME) community.

v   The white community suffers more victims of inter-racial and racially motivated homicide than all of the minority (BME) communities put together – despite the BME communities being less than 10 per cent of the total population.

v   The number of white victims of racially motivated homicide is approximately 50 times greater than expected, when compared to the number of such victims in the minority (BME) community.

In spite of these statistics very few (if any) ethnic minorities are actually charged with racially aggravated crime, yet an indigenous white person would be charged accordingly for the most trivial of incidents.  Why do the indigenous British people put up with this injustice, when it is clear from government statistics that they are not the main instigators of hate crime?  White Britons have been brainwashed since the 1950s into believing that they are intrinsically racist and must make amends for the perceived past sins of empire.  This self-flagellation has got to stop; indigenous Britons must again take pride in their forefathers past achievements and stand up against the constant institutionalized demonization that is directed against them by the liberal elite establishment.

To answer the question at the head of this article: When is a Murder Deemed a Racially Aggravated Hate Crime? 

Only when it is committed by a white person.

Devon & Cornwall Refugee Support Council - Is it a Tax-payer Funded Organization Intended to Promote the Politically-Correct Indoctrination of Our Youth

        I recently gave tuition to a student teacher from Plymouth University.  After the lesson we talked for a while about her course in general, and it soon became apparent that the course has a very politically-correct curriculum.  One official lecture they attended was on asylum seekers and refugees given by the Devon & Cornwall Refugee Support Council (DCRSC) in which the students were informed of the myths and truths concerning refugees.  What was given in the lecture was nothing more than left-wing propaganda intended to indoctrinate the students with political-correct dogma, and leave them with a feeling of guilt that they were not doing enough to help asylum seekers.  I later went on to the DCRSC website where a copy of the presentation handout for the lecture could be found, and after reading it in detail it was apparent that it was all fibs, lies and statistics (to use the original quote).

I wrote a letter to DCRSC outlining the inaccuracies in their lecture notes; as expected they failed to reply.  What follows is a copy of their lecture note, with my comments high-lighted in purple text.

PRESENTATION HANDOUT

THE FACTS ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS IN PLYMOUTH

Who are they?

Men, women and children escaping from crises all over the world.  In Plymouth the biggest number are Kurdish people, mainly from Iraq. There are also people from Iran, Afghanistan and the Balkans as well as many African countries.

They are people fleeing failed states for a better life in Europe or other Western nations where an affluent life-style can be achieved free from chaos.

Are refugees the same as asylum seekers?

All people fleeing their country of birth are refugees. Refugees are described as asylum seekers while they are awaiting official recognition as defined by the United Nations.

Whether refugee or asylum seeker; they are all in reality economic migrants seeking a better life elsewhere.

Why do they come here?

They are escaping persecution, death or devastation in their home country. In 1951 Britain and many other countries signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Status of Refugees. This gives us responsibilities to offer sanctuary to people fleeing persecution.

There is very little evidence to suggest that any of these refugees were likely to be subjected to persecution, as most of them could have found a safe haven within their own countries.

How many stay here?

In the year 2001 a total of 71,700 people applied for asylum in the UK. This is equivalent to 0.14% of the UK population. During the same year 30,470 people were granted permission to stay here.

The numbers only include those that applied for asylum; it does not include other illegal immigrants whose number is much greater.

MYTHS AND TRUTHS ABOUT ASYLUM SEEKERS

Myth 1:          “Britain takes more than its fair share of refugees”

Facts:

·         Figures for 2002 show that 110,700 people (including the dependents of main applicants) applied for asylum. In per capita terms this meant that the UK received far fewer applications than most other Western European countries, ranking eighth after Austria, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Ireland, Luxembourg and Belgium. The political numbers game around asylum belies the fact that the UK has a duty under international law to receive, rather than deter, all asylum claims made on its territory.

Using the asylum per capita as a justification for Britain to accept more refugees is totally dishonest.  Practically all of these so called refugees pass through many safe countries, such as Turkey, Egypt, to quote a few; so why do they persist in their travels to reach Britain and other western European Countries? 

·         Fluctuations in numbers seeking asylum in the UK reflect increases in conflict and persecution around the world – figures for 2002 show that the largest numbers of asylum seekers came from Iraq, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan and Somalia – all countries with undisputed records of human rights abuses and conflict. Whilst the numbers of asylum seekers from Iraq and Zimbabwe increased sharply due to a rise in persecution in these countries, in countries where there were ceasefires or stabilisation of situations, such as Sri Lanka, the numbers fell significantly.

These countries may be failed states, but it is not Britain’s responsibility to bail them out by taking in their refugees.  There are countries much nearer to them in which temporary sanctuary may be sought, such as Syria, South Africa, Iran, and Kenya – why do they have to travel thousands of miles to seek temporary safety?

·         It is developing countries that host the largest share of the world’s refugees, although they often lack the material resources and stability that the UK enjoys. In Africa alone there are 8 million refugees and many millions more who are internally displaced. Guinea, a country with a population of 7 million, is currently home to 3 million Sierra Leonean and 150,000 Liberian refugees. Pakistan hosts over 3.3 million refugees and asylum seekers.

In all cases these are countries adjacent to the nation from which the refugees fled.  That is how it should be in accordance with the UN definition of a safe haven for any asylum seeker.  Britain gives much aid to these countries, so it is correct that these nations should offer temporary sanctuary for these refugees.

Myth 2:          “Refugees should be deported back to where they came from”

Facts:

·         Central to international refugee law is the principle that no-one should be sent back to a country where they would risk persecution or torture. This is called the principle of non-refoulement. Only when an asylum seeker has gone through a fair and thorough decision process and received a negative result, should they be returned to their country of origin.  In certain cases, even if an asylum seeker does not meet the full refugee criteria, there may be pressing humanitarian or human rights reasons why it would be dangerous to send them home.

It is a known fact that Britain is a soft-touch concerning asylum seekers; hence, it is the destination of choice for economic refugees as they know that once in our country it is practically impossible to deport them.   There is much money to be made by dragging asylum cases through the courts so it is in a lawyer’s best interest to prolong the legal process, so increasing his income.  Many judges are more interested in satisfying their own vanity than serving the interests of the British people; hence, we have many cases in which judges wilfully defy or pervert the laws passed by the elected representatives of the people in parliament merely to boost their own ego.   

·         The UK Government proposes the establishment of special ‘regional protection zones’ to contain refugees and asylum seekers in their regions of origin. It is not yet clear whether asylum seekers arriving in the UK would also be deported back to these processing zones. Oxfam’s wide experience of working in refugee-producing areas of the world leads us to have very grave concerns about the practicability of providing refugees with genuine, safe and lasting protection in these ‘zones’. By seeking to divert asylum seekers from making their claims within the UK, the Government would undermine our international obligation to receive asylum claims and displace the responsibility onto poorer countries which are less able to cope.

The concept of Regional Protection Zones is a very good idea, and DCRSC should be supportive of the Government on this issue.  The Government would in no way undermine its obligations – the fact is that these obligations are already being broken as the refugees pass through many safe countries to get to Britain.  It would be good for poorer counties to accept these refugees as they have an abundance of space to house these people at low cost in climates that suits their natural environment.  Britain is full, and cannot sustain any increase in population without causing immense damage to the environment and social cohesion of our country.  

·         Most refugees actively want to return to their homes and countries – if and when it is safe for them to do so. Most South Africans and Chileans who fled to Britain in the 1970s repatriated as soon as they were able.

In the 1970s Britain did not suffer the scale of today’s asylum seekers and what little refugees there were could be absorbed into our society with very little negative impact.  Not all South African refugees have returned – we still give residence to that dreadful Peter Hain.

Myth 3:          “Asylum seekers receive massive state handouts”

Facts:

·         Asylum seekers receive benefits below the basic benefits level.  A single adult receives only £37.77 per week in addition to accommodation and utilities – this is around 30% below the basic level of Income Support for a UK citizen, which is generally considered as the minimum level of income necessary to maintain an acceptable standard of living. Those with additional needs (such as pregnant women, families with young children, people with disabilities, victims of torture and the elderly) are also not entitled to additional special needs provisions or ‘passported’ benefits on the same terms as UK citizens.

Now £37.77 may seem very little, but when one considers that they get fully furnished housing, complete with rates, electricity, water, gas, telephone calls and TV all for free, then £37.77 is ample to live on.   In fact there are many indigenous British people who do not have that amount of disposable income after paying out for essentials like rent, rates, water, gas, travel to work etc.  

·         According to a Reader’s digest Mori Poll (November 2000), most people also overestimate the amount of financial support received by asylum seekers, believing that they receive on average over £110 per week – nearly three times the actual amount.

If the cost of housing, TV and telephone are included; then £110 per week is a gross under-estimate of the actual financial support received by asylum seekers.

·         Section 55 of the new UK Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 states that, asylum seekers who do not make their application ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ after arrival are not eligible for any support, even if destitute – leaving many asylum seekers without any food or shelter. Yet there are very valid reasons why applicants do not apply upon arrival. For example, many are not familiar with the application procedures, and may fear that making an application while still at a port is likely to lead to immediate deportation. Trauma, language difficulties or lack of legal advice can also delay applications. Following a High Court hearing in February 2003, the Home Office was required to re-write its procedures to take greater account of the individual circumstances of asylum seekers and the difficulties they may face in claiming asylum. However, refugee organizations remain deeply concerned that large numbers will be refused all support and rendered destitute under Section 55.

To say that many refugees are not classed as asylum seekers because they failed to register their application ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’ is truly preposterous.  There is a whole army of lawyers in this country engaged within the immigration industry, with the sole purpose of extracting money from the tax-payer.  Immigration officials are even instructed to ensure that any immigrant is legally represented at tax-payers expense.  The immigration system in this country is there to serve the interest of lawyers and the judiciary who generate much wealth and prestige for themselves by prolonging immigrant cases through a chain of court cases and appeals at considerable expense to the tax-payer. 

·         A joint 2002 study by Oxfam and the Refugee Council, ‘Poverty and Asylum in the UK’, showed that many asylum seekers experienced extreme poverty even before the introduction of Section 55. In reply to a questionnaire sent to refugee assisting organisations across Britain, 85% reported that asylum seekers experience hunger, 95% reported that asylum seekers could not afford to buy shoes or clothes, and 80% that their clients were not able to maintain good health.

Well what do they expect?  If they are hard up and need shoes and clothes, there are plenty of charity shops where good garments can be purchased at extremely low prices – just like the indigenous population have to do during hard times.  As for going hungry, a person can eat quite adequately on £37.77 a week with money to spare – as most people do.

·         Many asylum seekers have a strong desire to work and professional skills and experience to contribute at all levels of the UK economy. However, under UK policy they are prohibited from working to support themselves and their families while their claim is being decided.

There is currently mass unemployment within Britain, so it is right and just that indigenous Britons are given priority over immigrants when jobs become available.  Currently immigrants are taking most of the jobs that become available, leaving indigenous Britons to rely on welfare to survive.

Myth 4:          “Asylum seekers are taking our housing and ‘swamping’ our public services”

Facts:

·         Under international refugee law and international, European and UK human rights law, asylum seekers have a right to basic health care and education.

That may well be the case if they were genuine asylum seekers, but the fact that practically all of them passed through safe countries to get to Britain invalidates any claim for asylum.  Furthermore, any healthcare received should be basic; the minimum to preserve life.  Similarly, education received should be basic and not include further education.

·         Once granted refugee status or leave to remain, refugees make an important contribution to public services both as professionals and as taxpayers. For example refugee doctors, nurses and dentists help to address the severe staff shortages in the NHS. Home Office research has also shown that in 1999/2000, migrants – including refugees - contributed £31.2 billion in taxes while consuming £28.8 billion in benefits and services.

This is out-of-date data.  The overwhelming majority do not make a contribution to society and in most cases (such a Somalians) are unemployable.  Even those that do get employment do so at the expense of the indigenous population who then have to live off welfare payments at tax-payers expense.

·         Under the ‘dispersal scheme’ introduced under the 1999 Immigration and Asylum Act, asylum seekers are sent to regions around the UK to relieve the burden on the South-east of England. They are sent to areas with existing available accommodation - often those with surplus housing which local authorities are unable to otherwise fill. However, although housing availability is an important factor, other considerations must be taken into account to make dispersal work and to prevent the local tensions that have occurred in certain areas. These include the presence of adequate legal, social and material support structures, the dispersal of certain nationalities to areas with a pre-existing nationality/ethnic/language community, adequate preparation of receiving communities and consideration of the needs of those communities.

The fact is that Britain is grossly over-populated, with insufficient housing for the indigenous population without including the multitude of unwanted immigrants invading our shores.  By giving priority of scarce housing to asylum seekers, indigenous Britons are being denied adequate housing; so are unable to raise families in an environment that their parents experienced.  As for housing asylum seekers in locations where there are settled communities of similar nationals; this is just creating ghettos that does nothing to encourage the immigrants to integrate.      

Myth 5:          “Only a handful of asylum-seekers are genuine – the rest are ‘bogus’ or ‘cheats’”

Facts:

·         Home Office statistics for 2002 showed that 34% of asylum seekers received permission to stay in the UK after their initial application, and that 22% of initially rejected cases were overturned at appeal stage. The total number of people being granted protection – either full refugee status or Humanitarian Status (formerly Exceptional Leave to Remain) has increased by 25% since 2001.

The fact is that all of these asylum seekers passed through safe countries to get to the UK; consequently they are not genuine asylum seekers, but economic refugees.  The reason so many are given refugee status is the fact that compared to other countries our judges are so liberal in their assessment that it is common knowledge with bogus refugees that Britain is a soft touch, 

·         The definition of a refugee under the 1951 Convention and according to its interpretation by the UK, contains a very specific set of criteria. An asylum seeker must be able to prove that s/he is “someone who has a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.  The fact that an asylum seeker may not meet these criteria does not mean that they deliberately set out to ‘cheat' the system.

The fact is there is no way of verifying what an immigrant says is true; consequently they are given the benefit of any doubt which is open to abuse by the immigrants and their lawyers.  Immigration officers admit that in over 95% of cases the immigrant is lying, but unless they have firm proof of untruthfulness, they have no option but to accept the immigrant’s version of events. 

Myth 6:          “Refugees come to the UK to abuse its generous benefits system because they know it is a ‘soft touch’”

Facts:

·         Many asylum seekers do not have a choice where they flee to – often they are in the hands of traffickers and have little knowledge of their destination. However Home Office commissioned research shows that where asylum seekers do choose to come to the UK, it is because of colonial, family, language or other links. For example, the UK receives a large proportion of Sri Lankan asylum seekers whilst France receives Algerians. Asylum seekers often have no information about the asylum system and many do not even know that they can access welfare benefits at all.

Clearly, the asylum seekers paid the trafficker’s to get them to a safe destination; so therefore that must have known where the destination was – otherwise the trafficker’s would have just dumped them in the first convenient country and run off with their money.  A Sri Lankan would have had to pass through some 15 safe countries before arriving in Britain – if they were genuinely fleeing persecution then why did they not stay in the first safe country of India?  The fact that these asylum seekers chose to pay a trafficker to get them to Britain clearly indicates that they are not genuine, but are economic migrants seeking a land of free hand-outs and welfare. 

·         Refugees come to the UK because they are fleeing violence or persecution. In 2002, the top five countries of origin for asylum seekers to the UK were Iraq, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Somalia and China - all countries with internationally recognised high levels of violence and human rights abuse.

An overwhelming majority of so-called asylum seekers have not had direct contact with violence and persecution within their own countries – if they really cared about their counties they should remain and strive to improve conditions.

Myth 7:          “Asylum seekers choose to use smugglers and traffickers to enter the country illegally”

Facts:

·         The UK and the EU are imposing ever tighter border controls to stop asylum seekers from reaching their territories. These and specific measures such as strict visa regimes, and ‘carrier’s liability’, i.e. fining airlines, lorry-drivers etc, mean that asylum seekers are being pushed into the hands of traffickers and clandestine migration as the only way of fleeing to the UK. This places these already vulnerable people at significant physical risk, as was seen in the case of the 58 Chinese immigrants who were discovered dead in a lorry at Dover in June 2000, and at risk of exploitation by their traffickers, particularly for women asylum seekers.

It is evident that the tighter immigration controls are not working and more stringent controls are needed to prevent immigrants entering Europe through Turkey or by boats via North Africa.  This must include returning all boats intercepted in the Mediterranean back to the North African country from whence they came.  Since when have immigrants from China been classed as asylum seekers?

·         Those fleeing persecution will often find themselves stripped of their documents or unable to apply for permits to travel from the very authorities that are persecuting them. Article 31 of the 1951 Refugee Convention recognises this dilemma and prohibits governments from penalising refugees who use false documents. Despite this, the UK immigration authorities are continuing to detain asylum seekers on grounds that they have used false passports and visas to gain access to the UK.

If an immigrant uses a false identity to enter this country then he is committing a criminal offence, and should be immediately deported; either to his original country or to the nation that he used to enter the UK.   Asylum seekers often flush their documents down the aircraft lavatories so that they have no means of identification; thereby making their deportation difficult and prolonged. 

Myth 8:          “Asylum-seekers should be locked up”

Facts:

·         Under UK legislation asylum seekers can be and are detained at the discretion of immigration officers. Currently some ‘manifestly unfounded’ cases are held at specific ‘reception centres’ and rejected cases are held in pre-deportation centres. There is also a large number of asylum seekers held in mainstream prisons, nearly 800 at the end of 2002. Like other detained asylum seekers, those held in prisons have simply applied for asylum – they have committed no crime, and received no trial. There is evidence that a number of victims of torture and detention in their countries of origin are being held in mainstream UK prisons alongside convicted criminals. Although there was a government proposal to end this practice, asylum seekers continue to be sent to prisons around the country.

This is a lie!  No asylum seeker is locked up in prison unless they have committed a crime, are deemed a danger to society (i.e. Moslem fanatics), or to prevent them from absconding imminent deportation.  In fact the detention centres are nothing like prisons, but more like 5 star hotels complete with recreational facilities.  Most servicemen living in the squalor of a dormitory type barrack room would find the single room accommodation, complete with multi-channel TV, the epitome of luxury.

·         Detention of asylum seekers goes against human rights principles and against specific UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) guidelines, which state that only in exceptional circumstances should asylum seekers be detained, that they should never be held in mainstream prisons and that vulnerable groups including children should never be locked up. This clearly goes against arguments put forward by various politicians and public figures that all asylum seekers should be automatically detained on arrival.

It must be remembered that when the UN initially issued these non-mandatory ‘guidelines’ the numbers of asylum seekers and refugees were very small, and in most cases genuine.  It was never envisaged that those seeking asylum would increase to such high numbers as is currently the case, that one must question their authenticity.  There is insufficient decent housing for the indigenous population, so it is only to be expected that inexpensive accommodation would be provided for asylum seekers whose stay in the UK is only expected to be temporary.

·         Asylum seekers are not criminals, yet they receive less basic rights than prosecuted criminals. They are detained indefinitely without trial and there is no automatic independent review of their detention period.

This is yet another lie propagated by the pro-immigration lobby.   Corrupt immigration lawyers are notorious for abusing the ‘Human Rights’ laws to further an asylum seeker’s chances of remaining in the UK.  The more lawyers can prolong the legal process at tax-payer’s expense; then the more chance that the immigrant will put down roots and become settled - so making it difficult to deport him.

·         In many cases, asylum seekers may have suffered traumatising arbitrary arrests and detention by regimes in their countries of origin only to be detained on arrival in the UK. A recent study by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture revealed that a number of asylum seekers who had suffered severe torture in detention in their home countries, were being held in UK prisons – for no reason other than that they had claimed asylum.

Apart from the asylum seeker’s own account of his traumatic experiences, in practically all cases there is no factual evidence to back-up their claims.  These asylum seekers are not in prisons, but are held in secure accommodation until their claims can be verified.  

·         The Government also estimates that detaining all asylum seekers on arrival could cost £2 billion in start-up costs, with annual running costs of over £1 billion – potentially huge increases on current levels of overall spending on asylum seekers.

It may be true that the start-up cost for detaining all asylum seekers on arrival is £2 billion; but what option has the government got when an overwhelming majority of those claiming asylum are economic immigrants seeking access to free housing, healthcare, education and welfare benefits.  

Myth 9:          “Letting asylum seekers in means letting terrorists in.”

Facts:

·         The 1951 Refugee Convention explicitly excludes those who have committed a serious crime or pose a serious threat – including terrorists – from claiming asylum.

The way our Judges interpret the Human Rights Laws, a foreign criminal on entering the UK only needs to claim asylum to prevent deportation.  The foreign criminal can claim that he will not get a fair trail in his own country, and that it will be an abuse of his human rights if he were deported; he then becomes virtually impossible to deport and is a permanent burden to our society.

·         In the course of 2001, a total of over 88 million people passed through UK borders. Only around 80,000 of these were asylum seekers – the rest were visitors, tourists, students or employees. Therefore, focusing on asylum seekers alone would represent a worryingly distorted security reaction and risks provoking hostility against a vulnerable group in an already fragile race relations environment.

True, most people passing through our borders are legitimate.  However, 80,000 asylum seekers is still a very large number when it is considered that it does not include those tourist/visitors who outstay their welcome and remain in the country after their visas have expired.

·         The majority of people who seek refuge in the UK are themselves fleeing violent attacks, many being victims of regimes the very countries which the UK, in its fight against terrorism, recognises as having well-documented records of human rights.

The reality is that most people fleeing their countries of origin are not in any danger of mistreatment, but are seeking a better quality of life in the UK by exploiting our lax border security, welfare system and legal aid to prolong their stay in Britain at tax-payers expense.

   

Myth 10:        “Nearly all asylum seekers are troublemaking young men”

Facts:

·         A significant proportion of asylum seekers to the UK are women, children and older persons. According to UNHCR, in any refugee population approximately 50% of those uprooted are women and girls – however, the proportion of women and girls reaching the UK is lower, probably because of the expense and risks involved in getting here. Furthermore the fact that these female asylum seekers tend to be invisible in terms of press coverage and public profile means that the particular difficulties they face, including insensitive processing systems, health care needs and child-care assistance, tend not to be addressed.

The fact is that once the single men have established their right to settle in the UK, they will then bring in their wives, children and extended family; putting considerable strain on our schools, hospitals and social services to the detriment of the indigenous population.

·         The Association of Chief Police Officers released a report in 2001 which revealed that asylum seekers are far more likely to be the victims than the perpetrators of crime. This is gravely illustrated by the murder of an asylum seeker in Glasgow in 2001 and numerous other reported attacks. It also showed that there is absolutely no evidence that asylum seekers have a higher rate of criminality than any other segment of society.

That may be true if only asylum seekers are taken into account; but if all immigrants are included, then the statistics prove conclusively that immigrants are far more likely to commit a crime than an indigenous Briton.  As for a single asylum seeker being murdered in Glasgow; well, this is insignificant compared to the vast number of white victims subjected to racial attacks and murdered by immigrants – for example Kriss Donald of Glasgow.

Myth 11:        “The 1951 Refugee Convention is out of date”

Facts:

·         The 1951 United Nations Refugee Convention is the cornerstone of international refugee protection – to date a total of 143 states have acceded to it. Although it is more than 50 years old, its key principles remain as urgent as ever – it defines who is refugee and ensures that asylum seekers fleeing persecution can have their cases heard, without being sent back to a place where they might be in danger. Overall, the 1951 Convention has probably saved more lives than any other single human rights convention.

The Refugee Convention was devised in a period when international travel was not available to refugees, who would have to seek asylum in the first safe country.  Nowadays, refugees will pass through many safe countries to reach their chosen country in which to claim asylum.   Clearly, the Convention is no longer fit for purpose and should be scrapped or completely revised to take into account changes that have occurred during the period from its inception. 

·         Threats from the UK to withdraw from the Convention clearly go against recent Ministerial declarations affirming commitment to the Convention. At the EU summit in Tampere in 1999, EU ministers declared their continued commitment to its principles, and in December 2001 Governments from 156 states signed a 50th anniversary declaration which recognized its "enduring importance" and the "continuing relevance and resilience" of the rights and principles it embodies. The participating governments, which included the UK, pledged to uphold these rights and to carry out their obligations under the Convention – yet in practice states have tended towards increasingly restrictive interpretation of its provisions.

A withdrawal from the Convention is best for the UK.  We can then create our own rules and regulations concerning asylum seekers and immigrants free from the interference of foreign judges or international organizations - only then can the interests and wishes of the British people be given pre-eminence.