I think it is a bit harsh to claim "They've let in psychos, terrorists, and killers from all over the world"! If there are a few cases where people have slipped through the system undeservingly then these should be reviewed. The vast majority of cases however are deserving ones. Does seem that all the right-wing blogs are up in arms about Zimbabwe. Would that be because the asylum seekers in this case are supporters of the exiled white community? Not that these cases are undeserving but I think its wrong to imply that others were less deserving.

Have a look at the Refugee Council website
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/
for some quality myth-busting about ayslum!

No, Cruella, we're not up in arms because the brown people are coming to get us. We're up in arms because the government is sending people home to an overtly oppressive regime where they are likely to be tortured or worse. Also, I'm lazy, so I tend to follow these things when they're on the front page of the newspapers. I'm sure there are equally appalling abuses elsewhere.

Nonetheless, S2 is right - our system is widely abused, and it is hard to believe that some of the kind of people who we wouldn't really want here somehow slip through the cracks, unnoticed. From reading your blog, you seem to have a particular obsession with women being attacked. These stories will probably be mildly interesting for you, although you'll no doubt attribute me pointing them out to my latent racism and misogyny, and the gentlemen in question being misunderstood and scared of deportation, which led inexorably to these terrible crimes:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/ 4243315.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/ 3966657.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ire/ 3701952.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/36.../uk/ 3670941.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...ter/ 3497185.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...don/ 3256352.stm

What, so it's impossible to be genuinely persecuted at home *and* also be a sex criminal? Hmm.

But it's nice to see S2 finally adopting a sensible approach re Hoping People Die.

Not at all, but I'd say being a sex criminal would be a good reason to refuse an asylum application. May as well keep our prisons full of our home-grown scum.

> I think it is a bit harsh to claim "They've let in psychos, terrorists, and killers from all over the world"!

Harsh? Oh dear.

> If there are a few cases where people have slipped through the system undeservingly then ...

... then we've let in psychos, terrorists, and killers from all over the world. You and I are just wording it differently.

Look, what I said about Algerians is true: a lot of them are extremely upset that they came to the UK as genuine asylum seekers, needing refuge from the murderous thugs in their country, and the idiot British immigration service is now letting in those same thugs, who can track down their former countrymen and threaten them in their new home. And not all these people have slipped through the system; many of them have been let in despite the government knowing full well who they are. After the ousting of the Taliban, the British Government were letting in Talibs who sought asylum on the grounds that their former victims might take revenge on them. This is ridiculous. These are people who we know are not oppressed but are oppressors, and the Government let them in. The guy who stabbed that policeman had had his asylum application rejected two years earlier, but what do the Government do when an application is rejected? They send the applicant a letter asking them politely to leave the country. Unsurprisingly, many don't. That's not slipping through the cracks; that's the Government crowbarring the cracks as wide open as they can.

When you fly from Belfast to Glasgow, you have to go through a special bit of Glasgow Airport where Strathclyde's "finest" can get a good look at you and stop any known terrorists. So what did Johnny Adair do when he wanted to go to Scotland? He got the boat, along with his entire family, with no disguise or any attempt to travel incognito, and no-one stopped him. That's the level of Keystone-Cops-style brilliance our protectors apply to national security.

Is Abu Hamza out of the country yet? I lose track.

> Would that be because the asylum seekers in this case are supporters of the exiled white community?

I wouldn't presume to know enough about Zimbabwean politics to make such a broad claim. I imagine that, as with any country, it's a tad more complex than that. For all I know, some of these asylum seekers are anti-white racists. They should still be allowed in. (Though any racist Zimbabweans probably aren't heading to the UK, for obvious reasons.)

Meanwhile, may I just respond to your implication that right-wing equals racist by (a) asking you to find a racist quote from me, from anywhere at all, and (b) accusing you of supporting North Korea in their righteous struggle against the imperialist South? After all, left-wing equals juche.

> The vast majority of cases however are deserving ones.

What proportion, exactly? How many undeserving applications were there in 2003? How do you define "deserving"? Or did you just write "the vast majority" because it sounds good?

Look at it this way. The IRA can mount a major atrocity, killing scores of people, with a six-man team. Al Qaeda killed three thousand with a twenty-man team. Let's call your "vast majority" about 99% (sound fair?). Say we approve 100,000 asylum applications: that gives us 1000 undeserving cases. If, say, 5% of them are terrorists trying to get into the country to kill people (and that seems reasonable, since we're talking about the proportion of undeserving cases, not the proportion of all cases, and we know that terrorists are trying to get into the country), that gives us 50 terrorists let loose in the UK: enough to kill, say, 7000 people if they're suicidal, a few hundred if they're not. But you think the only possible reason to complain about such men being granted asylum is racism.

> Not that these cases are undeserving but I think its wrong to imply that others were less deserving.

No it's not. It's wrong to imply that all others are less deserving, but not to imply that any others were. Some, such as the Talibs, clearly were far less deserving.

Oh, and by the way, while the Government were allowing in Talibs, they had a stated policy of refusing asylum to any non-Taliban Afghans. Go on, Cruella, explain how fair and reasonable and humane that policy was; explain how it's racist to object to it.

What may be 'racist' to White-hating Leftists is just natural good sense to most people.Third World pests are responsible for the imminent extirpation of one of our most cherished ancient freedoms ; namely, the right to travel around our own country without an ID card requirement.Are we supposed to welcome this inevitable concomitant of the 'browning of Britain'?

Rebbiker - don't be a tit. Blair's demented control-freakery is responsible for the imminent abolition of not-needing-ID-cards; brown folk have absolutely fuck all to do with it.

> Are we supposed to welcome this inevitable concomitant of the 'browning of Britain'?

Oh, for fuck's sake.

The ID card scheme has been the stated but occasionally shelved policy of at least the last four Home Secretaries, so I wouldn't even blame Blair. I blame the controlling mentality of the political class, and I blame Blunkett for being clever enough to finally sell it to enough of the public and Parliament for it to happen. But it long predates recent immigration levels and worries about Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, this most cherished ancient freedom of ours has now been in place continuously since 1952. You're a fuckwit, aren't you, Rebbiker?

I also wonder why on Earth you've linked your name to Stuart Dickson's blog, when I know for a fact that, were he to read what you've just written, he would rant at you for days on end, call you "evil", and possibly demand that you be stabbed with leaky biros.

(Stuart, if you're reading this, I can edit Rebbiker's link if you don't want anyone associating his opinions with your site. Let me know.)

> I blame the controlling mentality of the political class

Don't underestimate the power of the government's favoured consultants and tech firms, either. They've been overpromising ID card stuff for some time now, because they know it's a financial goldmine for them. MPs are impressed by the flashing lights and leave their common sense behind.

See also satellite tracking of drivers for road tolls and pretty much any other government plan based on whizzy high-tech stuff.

>>What may be 'racist' to White-hating Leftists is just natural good sense to most people.

Or, to translate, "What may be racist to people who don't vote for the BNP is just natural good sense to racists."

Perfectly sensible.

>>Are we supposed to welcome this inevitable concomitant of the 'browning of Britain'?

Is that something to do with Global Warming?

Don't know how that appeared twice. Sorry.

Maybe you're getting to post the comments that I mysteriously can't.

Some things need saying twice.....

Completely off topic but I like the double link at the start of your post. That was a neato idea, Neaty McNeatington.
Back on topic, I think a nice social experiment might be to invite the whole population of Zimbabwe over. How cool would that be?! We could empty the country ! That would put the shits right up Mugabe.
He'd be ever so lonely.

oh back again, cos I'm drunk and forgot to include this link to Mugabe's home page. It's a right rollicking romp so it is.

That is very silly.

Are you getting weirdness in your blog? Your last posting wasn't by you, it was spam. Weird.

If you're using the RSS feed, there'll be some adverts in there. That's how 2RSS.com's atom-to-RSS conversion service is free. I'm surprised you've not noticed before now, though.

Ah, I see. I thought you'd been attacked by l33t spam h4x0r2, or something.

You've got l33t 5p4m h4xx0r2 on the brain, you have.