AgentAxeman

"French Clamp down on the Burqa French officials have denied citizenship to a man who forced his French wife to wear the Islamic full-face veil known as the burqa. The authorities cited the rejection of national values such as secularism and gender equality, as reasons for the move. In 2008, the French rejected the application of a fully veiled Moroccan woman on the grounds that she was not sufficiently assimilated into French society. French law allows for the rejection of applicants if they fail to respect national values. No equivalent legislation is available to the British Border Agency. This move follows tough words from the French government over potentially banning the full head-to-foot veils, with French ministers concerned about the corrosion of national identity in a country with a 5 million strong Muslim population and ever-growing areas of inner cities becoming Dar al-Islam – literally Islamic ghettos where the French police fear to tread. During the application procedure, the Moroccan man had alarmed officials by claiming that his ‘wife will never be able to go out without the full veil.” He added: “I don’t believe in gender equality; women have inferior status; I will not respect the principles of the secular society.” The applicant is believed to be a member of the fundamentalist Tablighi Jamaat, 100,000 of whom reside in France. Tablighi Jamaat has recently focussed its resources on the United Kingdom. The organisation has embedded itself into at least 600 of Britain’s 1350 mosques. President Nicholas Sarkozy has been cornered into defending French national identity having won his election by usurping the Front National’s defensive stance on French culture and simultaneously shoring up the ruling party’s right-flank. The proposal was finally put into action last week, when French Prime Minister François Fillon asked the Council of State to help draft a law banning the Islamic veil. British ministers were said to be contemplating a ban on the burqa, however, this remains unlikely given the extent of the Islamic influence within some of their constituencies and Labour’s dependence upon the Muslim bloc vote, particularly Justice Secretary Jack Straw’s Blackburn seat."

I'd venture that installing solar panels across the entire country and importing all our meat, fruit and veg would work out more cost-efficient than using the same land for agricultural purposes. Bit less pretty on the eye, admittedly. Of course, the present and next government would prefer us to accept the prospect of inhabiting high-rise matchboxes with a supposed market value of £150k+ and precisely no quality of life, which makes the issue of personal responsibility for efficient roof space usage somewhat less important, but there you go. these solar panel thingy's. if they are so good, why dont we just stick billions of them in the sahara desert (or any other desert for that matter)? admittedly the initial cost would be massive but i would imagine it'll pay for itself in a couple of years. obviously less energy production costs but also less money to spend on mending the sky etc....

.....the ones thats left you mean?

I think this pretty much backs LM assertion that the CND were (at least partly) communist controlled for a while State surveillance of CND The security service (MI5) has carried out surveillance of CND members it considered to be subversive. From the late 1960s until the mid-1970s, MI5 designated CND as subversive by virtue of its being "communist controlled". From the late 1970s, it was downgraded to "communist-penetrated". MI5 says it has no current investigations in this area.[24] In 1985, Cathy Massiter, an MI5 officer who had been responsible for the surveillance of CND from 1981 to 1983, resigned and made disclosures to a Channel 4 20/20 Vision programme, "MI5's Official Secrets".[25][26] She said that her work was determined more by the political importance of CND than by any security threat posed by subversive elements within it. In 1983, she analysed telephone intercepts on John Cox that gave her access to conversations with Joan Ruddock and Bruce Kent. MI5 also placed a spy, Harry Newton, in the CND office. On the basis of Ruddock's contacts, MI5 suspected her of being a communist sympathiser and it was suggested that Bruce Kent might be a crypto-communist. MI5 also suspected its treasurer, Cathy Ashton, of being a communist sympathiser.[21] When Michael Heseltine became Secretary of State for Defence, Massiter prepared a report on CND for him. She was asked to provide information for Defence Secretariat 19 about leading CND personnel but was instructed to include only information from published sources.

"Baroness Ashton, the new European Union foreign minister, is facing questions over her role in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament amid claims that it may have had financial links to the Soviet Union. Lady Ashton, who was last week appointed EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, was treasurer of CND in the early 1980s. She has said she had no contacts with the Soviet Union and had never accepted money from Moscow. The UK Independence Party has written to Jose Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President, asking him to investigate whether Lady Ashton was party to payments allegedly made to CND from the Soviet regime in Moscow. The letter, based on allegations made by Vladimir Bukovsky, a former Soviet dissident, claimed that it is “very likely” that CND received “unidentified income” from Moscow in the 1980s. “CND was notoriously secretive about its sources of funding and did not submit its accounts to independent audit; however, after public pressure they were audited for the first time in 1982-1983,” Gerard Batten, a Ukip MEP, wrote. “It was found that 38 per cent of their annual income (£176,197) could not be traced back to the original donors. The person responsible for this part of CND fund-raising, from anonymous donors. . . was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain.”

lot more loan deals tho..

he conned everyone pet...........

I can well believe it but i would need a source for this rumour to be certain.

as i've said earlier, i dont think CH see's the 2 CM as anything other than destroyers. our play is gonna revert to a more elemental form of play whereby we get the ball out to the wing early for our quick wingers (which we do have now) and crossed into the box early for the 2 big lads up front to challenge for, with maybe someone from midfield getting forward. basic but sometimes effective. this is just my opinion. i would like to hear what anyone else thinks our tactics will be up to the end of the season.

fantastic last pic. really shows the difference in head on profile. maybe Mclaren have stumbled onto something with the high intakes?

whatevers leftover from xmas in the utility room. earlier it was martini rosso and lemonade. now its vodka and coke.

+1 fuckin champion that like Ant. Well done that man!!

How many times........................... We dont buy players off YouTube!!!!111"2£$£"435$%$^%

Meenz, you are a BAD man!!!

14 pages in 2 days. canny good going that!!

to anyone still ignorant of the financial assistance asylum seekers recieve. dont forget this is taken directly out of the public purse by people who contribute absolutely nothing to the tax coffers. tbh, i think this blows the whole notion of "ooh, its just a few unfortunates" out of the water. * According to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted to Middlesbrough Council by local activists, “asylum seekers” in Cleveland get £40 per week for gas and electricity and another £35 per week per person towards food, clothing and toiletries. Failed asylum seekers don’t get money to pay for food but they do get vouchers worth £35 per week. This means that a family of four gets £140 for food and another £40 for gas and electricity, a total of £180 per week. In one year a family of four will get £9360 in direct benefits. This is more than many British families spend on household bills. * NHS treatment will be available for tens of thousands of failed asylum seekers to ensure their human rights are honoured, it has been announced. There are understood to be around 450,000 failed asylum seekers who have not left Britain.

yeah but virtually all of them dont take anything in benefits as they are retired. in fact they are putting into the local economy at no cost to the tax payer. edit: and as LM said they dont try and force there way of life on a resistant public Be honest now. Have you ever been in a situation where a British Muslim has tried to force their way of life on you? Honestly now? yes, i was told that eating bacon was against god (true story).

do they demonstrate on the streets of Spain against the showing of the spanish flag, heckle Spanish troops when they return from a tour of duty, shout for the death of Spanish people and bomb shopping centres because they don't get their own way They can't cause they're not Spanish. so by that logic, people from another country who move here arent British? yet they still can protest? bit confused by that statement Parky

yeah but virtually all of them dont take anything in benefits as they are retired. in fact they are putting into the local economy at no cost to the tax payer. edit: and as LM said they dont try and force there way of life on a resistant public

hmmmmmmmmmmm, again, close but no cigar. whilst i will fully admit there are lazy bastards in this country i dont think its endemic of the population as a whole. I think im right in saying that there was virtually no unemployment in this country before the first mass wave of immigrants arrived in the late 60's. now there is mass unemployment. do the math man! and also, the socialist powers that be effectively pay a lot of claimants to stay on the dole. whereby taking a job would mean a drop in income. the system is properly fucked up. step 1 - create unemployment step 2 - fill gaps in market with imported labour step 3 - keep an underclass who can be relied upon to vote whomever pays the most dole every time repeat ad infin... in essence, i dont think its as cut and dried as you are trying to make it Fish Capitalism was in boom in the 60's. what about the 50's. dont think there was much unemployment then either. point being the unemployment level started to rise in the early 70's

Yeah vote for a party who represent big business because they just hate the cheap labour that immigration brings. Do you seriously suggest repatriation of all immigrants who don't meet your approval mark? The thing is immigration is a red herring perpetuated by the media who are in the pay of big business and the ruling elite. You see LM's hesitation in having a pop at the Govt. It doesn't compute. It's like those in the US who go on about closing the Mexican border...Well LA would come to a standstill without illegal workers. oh I'll have a pop at the govt alright but at the end of the day, even if they thought it was best for the country, the people of the country ie particularly the do gooders, would not vote them in or allow them to enforce strict immigration levels. Whatever argument you can put forward, fact is the population is growing and taking aside all the cultural changes which are being allowed to happen the economic dangers are also obvious. So why is ovt hell bent on this policy? NWO perhaps parky?

hmmmmmmmmmmm, again, close but no cigar. whilst i will fully admit there are lazy bastards in this country i dont think its endemic of the population as a whole. I think im right in saying that there was virtually no unemployment in this country before the first mass wave of immigrants arrived in the late 60's. now there is mass unemployment. do the math man! and also, the socialist powers that be effectively pay a lot of claimants to stay on the dole. whereby taking a job would mean a drop in income. the system is properly fucked up. step 1 - create unemployment step 2 - fill gaps in market with imported labour step 3 - keep an underclass who can be relied upon to vote whomever pays the most dole every time repeat ad infin... in essence, i dont think its as cut and dried as you are trying to make it Fish

There's about 200,000 non Brits in receipt of state benefits in total. 6.7 million foreigners are resident. So under 3% of immigrants are 'benefit scrounges'. The Uk population is over 61 million so about 55 million are British. 6 million of those are on benefits which is 11% If anything immigrants are covering benefits for British residents at a far higher rate than Brits are paying foreigners benefits. source for these figures please cos i cant believe that only 200000 immigrants (legal and illegal) are claiming benefits. maybe 200000 in london perhaps but countrywide? extremely skeptical. 199,667 non-British citizens in receipt of state benefits House of Lords debate The number of people from overseas living in the UK reached a record high of 6.7 million last year BBC The total number of people claiming benefits in the UK has been forecast to rise to more than 6 million when official figures are published later this month, according to the Conservative think-tank Policy Exchange. The latest official figures, published in February, showed that the total was 5.8 million. The Independent hmmmmmm, not quite. firstly these figures are 12 months old. in the meantime weve gone through the worst recession this country has ever had which means they'll have been an awful lot of job losses, hence more on benefits. secondly, it only discribes non british, ie people who dont hold a british passport, not immigrants. thirdly, unless im mistaken, it doesnt take into account the arrivals from the eu? such a defragmented approach to reporting stats is bound to cause confusion. 2 of them are from within the last 5 months. one is 11 months old. If you can get more recent figures. I'll bow down to them. Given that most immigrants are skilled workers allowed in to fill a jobs gap it's unlikely that they've seen more lay-offs than the British population. Those foreigners that have lost work (like the polish losing out on building work) tend to go home, while job-losses for British citizens can only increase the number of British benefit claimants and make my case even more strongly. it still doesnt change the fact that if the immigrants wernt here in the 1st place thered be more jobs for the indiginous peoples of this land. ergo, less british people on benefits. oooh, what a racist comment i hear you all say. i say its not racism but realism and common sense

There's about 200,000 non Brits in receipt of state benefits in total. 6.7 million foreigners are resident. So under 3% of immigrants are 'benefit scrounges'. The Uk population is over 61 million so about 55 million are British. 6 million of those are on benefits which is 11% If anything immigrants are covering benefits for British residents at a far higher rate than Brits are paying foreigners benefits. source for these figures please cos i cant believe that only 200000 immigrants (legal and illegal) are claiming benefits. maybe 200000 in london perhaps but countrywide? extremely skeptical. 199,667 non-British citizens in receipt of state benefits House of Lords debate The number of people from overseas living in the UK reached a record high of 6.7 million last year BBC The total number of people claiming benefits in the UK has been forecast to rise to more than 6 million when official figures are published later this month, according to the Conservative think-tank Policy Exchange. The latest official figures, published in February, showed that the total was 5.8 million. The Independent hmmmmmm, not quite. firstly these figures are 12 months old. in the meantime weve gone through the worst recession this country has ever had which means they'll have been an awful lot of job losses, hence more on benefits. secondly, it only discribes non british, ie people who dont hold a british passport, not immigrants. thirdly, unless im mistaken, it doesnt take into account the arrivals from the eu? such a defragmented approach to reporting stats is bound to cause confusion.