Covid-19 lockdowns in England’s racially ‘enriched’ areas

Tonight lockdown measures were suddenly reintroduced across large areas of northern England, where from midnight residents will be banned from any indoor meetings with people outside their immediate household. This will include pubs and restaurants, making the survival of some businesses very doubtful.

The government’s new rules were published just a few minutes before they came into effect at midnight.

Detailed examination of Covid-19 statistics that have led to this new lockdown show that as in Leicester, where the virus made its first big comeback, the areas concerned are predominantly those with very high Pakistani or Bangladeshi populations.

Yet the lockdown has been imposed across a vastly greater area, including many predominantly White districts where there is little or no sign of a Covid-19 resurgence.

The new measures will affect the whole of Greater Manchester; plus the East Lancashire boroughs of Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, and Rossendale; plus the West Yorkshire metropolitan boroughs of Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees; plus the city of Leicester.

Aside from Leicester, the vast area affected is broadly identical to the trans-Pennine region that saw the BNP’s major electoral advances almost twenty years ago. And the two phenomena – strong BNP votes in the early 2000s and a Covid-19 spike in 2020 – are of course related.

The common factor is that both were influenced by very high Asian populations, the behaviour of that particular minority and reactions to that behaviour.

Oldham – former cotton capital of the world, now one of the main Covid-19 hotspots

The statistics speak for themselves, to anyone who knows the racial geography of these areas (as the H&D team know very well). A detailed official map issued this morning gives a breakdown of confirmed new Covid-19 cases within the past week (20th-26th July), listed not merely by town but by much more detailed census areas within each town.

The much publicised Oldham outbreak featured Alexandra Park (22 new cases): this is the Glodwick area, one of the main Asian ghettos. Other hot spots included Chadderton SE (18); Werneth (16); Oldham Town South (10) and Busk – one of the original Bangladeshi areas in the Coldhurst council ward – (9). Also a scattering in several other Oldham areas.

But nothing (or below 3 anyway so not published) in the White working class Derker, Moorside & Sholver, or Alt areas of Oldham – once BNP strongholds. Perhaps a beneficial side-effect of Oldham’s notorious divisions.

In Rochdale, another very Asian area is the highlight: Wardleworth & Newbold Brow, with 21 new cases.

In Preston where H&D is based the outbreak is not as bad, and the city is not yet under lockdown, but those parts of Preston with most Covid cases are again Asian areas: notably St George’s (which includes some of the Deepdale area near Preston’s football ground) with 10 new cases in the past week. An exception is the mainly White working-class Brookfield & Holme Slack area (6 new cases).

The Jaame Masjid, Blackburn’s central mosque, in the Audley district that has seen a Covid-19 spike

Meanwhile in Blackburn with Darwen, where H&D editor Mark Cotterill was once a borough councillor and which is now under renewed lockdown, the worst hit areas are the very Asian Bastwell (23); Audley (18); and Central Blackburn (18).

It does seem likely that certain communities that have strong extended-family traditions, and might have held events, are leading to these latest outbreaks. In this context look at London, where there is very little in most White areas, and by Oldham/Blackburn standards no longer very much even in Asian areas, but Week 30’s highlights included Stamford Hill North (10 new cases); and Stamford Hill West (9 new cases), plus a scattering in other parts of Hackney.

It seems very likely that these are related to the Orthodox Jewish community which is particularly numerous in these areas; just as almost all the other outbreaks are related to areas with large Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslim populations.

Today’s panic measure by the government is probably related to this weekend’s important Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha. Community leaders and local councils had already cancelled large public events, but there would certainly have been large, indoor, extended-family events in many of the areas now subject to a ban.

The question is whether at such short notice the ban will be communicated in time throughout areas where English might only be spoken at a very basic level, if at all.

Jean Raspail, Charles Krafft and David Dees

Jean Raspail (1925-2020)

According to Eliot, April is “the cruellest month” – but this year June has put in a strong bid.

No sooner had we published an obituary to our old friend and comrade Eddy Morrison, than we heard of the deaths of three very different major figures in the worldwide movement for White resistance and historical truth.

Jean Raspail – who died on June 13th three weeks before his 95th birthday – was without doubt the best known. H&D readers will probably best remember him for his 1973 novel Camp of the Saints, a dystopian perspective on mass non-White immigration and the swamping of Europe.

A regular H&D contributor who is proficient in French will be writing about Raspail in a forthcoming issue of the magazine, so for now we shall simply repeat Jean-Marie Le Pen’s tribute: “Jean Raspail has departed just at the moment when his prediction arrived.”

Though I never met Jean Raspail, I did meet and correspond with the American artist Charles Krafft, who died the same day aged 72. Rooted in the ‘pop art’ of late 1960s hippies, and first becoming known in such circles as part of an artistic commune in Fishtown near Seattle, by the 1990s Krafft had become a collectable ceramicist. That is to say, he was commercially successful and his work was exhibited in mainstream galleries and purchased by ‘respectable’ people – for example the chief executive of sportswear company Nike had a Charles Krafft teapot in his office.

One of Charles Krafft’s famous teapots

In 2016 Krafft visited London where an exhibition of his work was planned for an East London gallery. This was cancelled after pressure from ‘antifascist’ magazine Searchlight, but Krafft was able to speak at a London Forum meeting organised by Jez Turner, alongside David Irving, Richard Edmonds, Lady Michèle Renouf, Dave Yorkshire of Mjolnir magazine, and Abdallah Melaouhi, Rudolf Hess’s nurse at Spandau.

Charles Krafft generously donated some of his work to an auction to raise funds for Horst Mahler, the imprisoned German philosopher and activist.

It was only during the last twenty years or so that Krafft became active in political and revisionist movements: this cost him a great deal financially and in disruption to his artistic career. His courage and commitment will be long remembered.

Charles Krafft in his studio

A very different artist who also came to politics in middle-age was David Dees, who died on May 31st aged 62. (Like Charles Krafft, Dees died from cancer.)

Whereas much of Krafft’s work involved the Third Reich and militaria, Dees focused on ‘conspiracy theory’ – indeed his art has perhaps had more influence on more ‘conspiracy theorists’ than any other individual has achieved.

Formerly based in Louisville, Kentucky, Dees lived in California for the last decade. During the 2016 Republican primaries, future President Donald Trump proudly held up a Dees print showing him engaged in ‘whacking’ leading liberal ‘moles’.

Unfortunately Trump himself went on to become part of the problem – but there’s a difference between art and politics…

Like Charlie Krafft, David Dees was bravely and generously committed to the cause of Europeans who fight for historical truth (and who face long jail sentences for what would in other fields be ‘normal’ research).

When truth, justice and racial identity prevail, Europeans will celebrate the memory of Jean Raspail, Charles Krafft and David Dees. Very different though they were in background, temperament and ideology, all three of these men were valiant warriors for the cause of embattled Europeans.

Non-European immigration at record level

Newly released statistics show that net immigration to the UK from outside the European Union hit its highest level on record last year.

During 2019, 282,000 more non-EU citizens arrived in the UK than left. This was the highest such figure since this statistic began to be collected in 1975.

By contrast net immigration from EU countries declined to 49,000 – less than a quarter of the peak figure four years ago.

These statistics pre-date the Covid-19 pandemic, which will reduce both immigration and emigration for an indefinite period, though it’s worth pointing out that at least 20,000 people arrived in the UK infected with the virus before UK authorities got round to imposing restrictions.

Some commentators have explained the astonishingly high 2019 immigration figure in terms of increased numbers of students arriving from China and India, in particular.

What isn’t explained is whether all of these students go back home at the end of their courses: experience would suggest that many stay in the UK (legally or not).

One of the questions to be answered by any eventual inquiry into Covid-19 is the extent to which London’s massive overcrowding contributed to the virus’s spread. What’s already clear is that post-virus our bloated higher education system is no longer financially viable. Post-Covid reconstruction will depend on putting the British people first and ignoring the usual calls from the business community for a continued flow of immigrants.

Many of those who voted for Brexit believed (wrongly) that they were voting to turn off the immigration tap, when in fact the pro-Brexit lobby (from Nigel Farage down) were openly in favour of increasing non-EU immigration.

The government’s bungling of Covid-19 lockdown has already compromised the future of the next UK generation. It seems clear that a generation will grow up significantly poorer than their parents. It would be unforgivable if they also had to live in a country that was no longer either British or European.

Surge of support for Italian anti-immigration parties

The results of two regional elections in Italy show strong support for the parties of the populist and nationalist right, though the left clung on to power in Emilia Romagna, while losing calamitously badly in Calabria.

Lega strongman Matteo Salvini (affectionately known as “il Capitano”) had a mountain to climb in Emilia Romagna, which, despite being one of Italy’s wealthiest regions, has consistently returned left wing regional governments since 1945. Indeed, its principal city, “Red Bologna” (a pun on the famous red bricks of which it is built, combined with its preference for left wing parties) was notoriously anti-fascist even in the years of Mussolini’s rule, when opposing fascism took much more courage than it does to-day.

Il Capitano’s task was not made any easier by the choice of Signora Lucia Borgonzoni to lead the right-wing coalition. She is relatively unknown, whereas the centre-left’s candidate, Stefano Bonaccini, was the outgoing regional president who had, by common consent even of his political opponents, led a highly competent administration for many years.

Italy’s complicated version of proportional representation means that different parties find it helpful to group together in combined lists, while maintaining their separate identities by a process of allocation of seats within the list according to the percentage taken by each constituent party.

For each region there are moreover (confusingly) two sets of statistics, one for the election of the regional president, another for the elections to the regional parliament.

While Signor Bonaccini won the regional presidency by a convincing margin (51.4% of the vote to Signora Borgonzoni’s 43.6% and a paltry 3.47% for the Five Star (left populist) Simone Benini), voting for the regional parliament was much closer than predicted by the opinion polls.

In the event, the centre left list took 48.7% to the right’s 45.5%, Five Star’s list polling only 3.4%.

The votes cast for the left were apportioned between the Democratic Party (liberal-left) on 34.59%, a Bonaccini support group (left) taking 5.8%, and several smaller green or leftist parties making up the balance of the left’s vote (excluding the Five Star movement, which, as we have seen, presented its own remarkably unsuccessful list).

The lion’s share of the vote on the right went to the Lega on 31.9%, with fourteen seats in the 48 member regional parliament, while the Fratelli d’Italia (who do not disguise or apologise for their fascist heritage) polled a satisfactory 8.6%, so taking three seats in the regional parliament. The rump of Berlusconi’s Forza Italia took the one remaining seat allocated to the right-wing parties.

Lega leader Matteo Salvini (above right) with his party’s regional candidate in Emilia-Romagna, Lucia Borgonzoni.

While some on the left have sought to portray the results in Emilia Romagna as a major blow to Matteo Salvini’s hopes of returning to power, in truth his list ran the left to within less than 4% of the vote in the left’s strongest region in the face of a national mobilisation of leftist activists.

The big winner in Emilia Romagna was turnout at 67.67%, up from a very low 38% at the previous regional elections. The big loser was the Five Star Movement. It presented a joint list with the Communists (once a major political party in Italy) but polled only 3.4%, below the threshold for representation in the regional parliament.

Meanwhile in the poor southern region of Calabria, the left was routed. Here the centre left vote was very fragmented across multiple lists, so that Forza Italia’s candidate took the regional presidency with an impressive 55.3% of the total vote, while the second placed candidate took only 30%, and multiple other lists share the remaining 14.7% of the vote.

Forza Italia took 12.58% of the vote on the party list system, the Lega 12.21% and the Fratelli a pleasing 11.14%. The vote on the left was ever more fragmented over multiple parties.

Jole Santelli (above left), winner of the Calabrian regional election, with her Forza Italia party leader, Silvio Berlusconi. While Forza Italia is now very much the smallest and declining partner in the populist right coalition nationwide, it is the largest coalition partner in Calabria.

While il Capitano was denied the victory in Emilia Romagna that would probably have led to the collapse of the present Five Star/Democratic Party coalition that clings tenuously to power in Rome, both the Lega and the Fratelli continue to make encouraging progress, while Five Star is on the verge of collapse.

To put Five Star’s performance in context, it is still the largest party in the Italian parliament, but now faces annihilation whenever and wherever new elections are held. It was the future once, but is now given over to internecine strife so bitter that its former leader, Luigi di Maio, resigned a few days ago, saying that his real enemies were all elected representatives of his own party, which sounds even worse than our own, dear Labour party.

While nothing is certain in an uncertain world, it does seem likely that a Lega/Fratelli/Forza Italia coalition will at some point take power in Rome, but this time, unlike in 1922, by completely lawful and democratic means.

Italy heads for ‘post-fascist’ coalition

Steve Bannon with Giorgia Meloni at a conference of her ‘post-fascist’ party Fratelli d’Italia

Matteo Salvini – the leading anti-immigration politician in Europe – is set to realign Italian politics with a new, ‘post-fascist’ coalition.

As interior minister and deputy prime minister in the present Italian government, Salvini has already pursued radical and highly popular policies to protect Italy from tides of immigrants crossing the Mediterranean.

However – as H&D has consistently argued – the coalition between his Lega party and the anti-establishment (but essentially liberal) Five Star Movement was always incoherent and unlikely to last.

Though it is obvious that Salvini is now deliberately looking for an excuse to break up the coalition, this should be seen not as an unscrupulous bid for personal power, but as an attempt to create a more ideologically stable coalition, probably with the Fratelli d’Italia (‘Brothers of Italy’) party, one of several movements that grew out of the postwar fascist party MSI.

Fratelli and their leader Giorgia Meloni have for several years been allied to the British Conservative Party in the European Parliament, an inconvenient fact that doesn’t get mentioned in the alarmist analysis published today in the Sunday Telegraph.

Nevertheless a Lega-Fratelli alliance would be a bold challenge to the postwar European consensus, and would probably succeed in winning a solid majority for an explicitly anti-immigration, pro-White government, whenever new Italian elections are held.

The biggest short-term problem is that Italy’s constitution allows all sorts of delays which might involve the President appointing a ‘centrist’ government that could hold power for many months without elections.

Immigration surges after Brexit referendum

Many of those who voted in 2016’s referendum for the UK to leave the European Union believed that this would lead to a rapid reduction in immigration. A continuing debate ensued for example in the pages of H&D between keen Brexit campaigners (who broadly believed that leaving the EU would be a major blow against the multiracialist establishment) and more sceptical racial nationalists, some of whom feared that Brexit would actually worsen our country’s racial problems.

This week official statistics confirmed the sceptics’ worst fears. It is now apparent that almost from the moment of the 2016 referendum, net immigration from EU countries began to fall. In fact there is net emigration from the UK to the Central and Eastern European nations known as the EU8: i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

However there has been a sharp rise in net immigration from outside the EU, not only increasing numbers of university students (especially from China) but other immigrants from Africa and Asia. Prime Minister Theresa May’s office actually boasted that this increase in immigration was a positive sign!

Conservative-dominated governments for the past nine years have consistently stated their aim to reduce annual net immigration to below 100,000. If achieved, that would take us back to the start of the Blair / ‘New Labour’ era in 1997, when net immigration was 50,000.

Don’t forget that even then, there would be tens of thousands more people arriving in the UK than leaving, and these immigrants would be constantly adding to our existing non-British population.

Shockingly, none of those Conservative-led governments since 2010 has got anywhere near even their modest 100,000 immigrant target. The most recent figures for the year ending June 2018 show net immigration of 273,000.

And of these an increasing proportion are non-Europeans. In that same 12 month period, the number of non-EU citizens who are in the UK on a long term basis rose by 248,000, whereas the same figure for EU citizens was 74,000.

A very large number of the new arrivals are from India.

The UK faces an ever more dangerous demographic time bomb, and this crisis has been worsened by the Brexit process (so far).

Veteran journalist admits immigration ‘taboo’

John Sergeant

John Sergeant – one of Britain’s best known political journalists – has admitted that immigration was for decades treated as a ‘taboo’ subject by the journalistic establishment.

Sergeant worked for the BBC for thirty years, latterly as chief political correspondent from 1992 to 2000, and was political editor of their rival ITN from 2000 to 2002.

Writing in the Radio Times, he acknowledged:

“In my years [at] the BBC and ITV, I was fully aware of the immigration taboo. There is an old journalistic rule that says ‘if in doubt, leave it out’ and, looking back, we were guilty of not encouraging more serious debate on this subject.”

Sergeant added:

“At least we could try to reduce personal attacks on the integrity of those who put forward the case for a proper system of immigration control. It is not racist to talk openly about this subject.

“It is yet another difficult issue that we have to grapple with. And if we fail to do so, this country and our democracy will suffer for many years to come. But as with all serious political issues, brushing it under the carpet is also dangerous and it leads to widespread misunderstandings that we fail to address at our peril.”

An immigration crisis made in Whitehall

Yet again illegal immigration is in the headlines, and yet again the British government seems unable to protect our borders.

Yet this time no-one can blame the European Union, indeed the blame lies in Whitehall (and to some extent indirectly in Washington).

The latest waves of immigrants heading across the English Channel are disproportionately Iranian. Why?

There is no human rights crisis in Iran and no war displacing ‘refugees’. The push and pull factors here are twofold.

Firstly there is an economic impulse. As part of his pro-Israeli and pro-Saudi foreign policy (so far undisturbed by the Saudi authorities’ brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul last October), President Donald Trump has scrapped the nuclear deal previously welcomed by most western governments (including the UK) and reimposed economic sanctions on Iran.

Brutal Saudi godfather Prince Mohammad bin Salman remains a U.S. ally despite the murder of a Sudi journalist inside the country’s Istanbul consulate

In characteristic fashion the U.S. government has bullied its allies (including the UK) into collaborating with these sanctions. Inevitably this has had economic effects, so some Iranians have decided to become ‘refugees’ (i.e. economic migrants).

These migrants know also that for political reasons the British government automatically grants refugee status to Iranians the moment they arrive on our soil: there is no requirement to prove any well-founded fear of persecution. Iranians are never returned home by our immigration authorities, whatever the circumstances.

Thus the craziness multiplies: a poorly thought-out Trump policy is compounded by a propagandistic ‘human rights’ policy. The losers are long-suffering British taxpayers, as the present crisis effectively signals a green light not only to Iranians but to a wide range of potential economic migrants and ‘people smugglers’ who will be encouraged to take their chances across the English Channel.

U.S. Mid-Term Election Results Mixed, But Demographics Doom Republicans

(by James Knight for H&D)

The mid-term elections took place on November 6 in the United States. They were seen – correctly – as a referendum on President Donald Trump. In general, the results point to some trouble ahead for Trump. Despite a very strong economy, complete with low unemployment, Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives. They are now down by about 37 seats to the Democrats. On the other hand, the party increased its control of the Senate by one and now hold a two-seat lead in that chamber of Congress.

 

Most parties in power get defeated – often quite badly – in the mid-term elections. Trump’s losses are somewhat less that those suffered by Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama in 1994, 2006 and 2010 respectively. Democrats had a significant advantage in fund raising as almost all of Hollywood and the ultra-rich US elite support “The Resistance” against Trump. And nearly every single close election recount had Democrats winning over Republicans, which was almost certainly due to election stealing/tampering (more common in the US than many suppose).

The demographics of the election show the usual breakdowns. Non-whites voted for Democrats with the following percentages:

Blacks – 90%

Asians – 77%

Hispanics – 69%

Actually, Trump did slightly better among non-whites in 2016 than previous Republicans such as Mitt Romney and John McCain.

Among whites, Republicans only won by a margin of 54% to 44%. White men broke 60% to 39% for Republicans while white women were split 49% to 49%. The fact that so many whites decided to vote for Democrats is a big warning sign for Republicans. For years, the Republican party has been drifting toward becoming the party of white people. With roughly 80% of non-whites voting Democrats, and with the electorate getting less and less white with every election, the writing is on the wall for the GOP. Unless Trump can get the white vote up to 60% Republican in 2020, he will likely lose reelection.

Donald Trump pursuing the white working class vote in West Virginia during his 2016 presidential campaign

Working class whites in states such as Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania gave the election to Trump in 2016. This was due to his stance on issues such as immigration and trade and his populist rhetoric on economic issues. This base has been slowly drifting away from Trump in the last two years.

Likewise, the Dissident Right, which also came out for Trump in 2016, has been disappointed with his performance in the last two year. Ann Coulter routinely calls out Trump on Twitter for his tough talk but inaction on a border wall, birthright citizenship and stopping caravans of illegal immigrants. Gregory Hood of American Renaissance is even more blunt:

“President Trump has governed like a moderate, while speaking like a hardliner—the worst possible combination. He has done so unnecessarily. One struggles to recapture the sense of the 2016 campaign. In retrospect, it seems like something out of Homeric times, with almost supernatural forces intervening in the affairs of men. Everything had to break Donald Trump’s way; Hillary Clinton had to make every possible mistake. Somehow, everything happened exactly the way it had to, leading to one of the most remarkable upsets in American political history.

During both the primary and general election, candidate Trump seemed to run as much against the Republican as the Democratic party. Some of his promises had cross-party appeal—notably his calls for a massive infrastructure program and his pledge to protect certain entitlements. His health care proposals were admittedly vague, as he simultaneously promised to repeal Obamacare and replace it with “something great.” However, because President Trump had directly attacked the policy preferences of Republicans such as Speaker Paul Ryan and free-market institutions such as the Club for Growth, it seemed reasonable to believe he could lead the GOP away from the unpopular, wonkish economic policies that had little appeal outside the Beltway Right. The victory of President Trump was a victory for right-wing critics of Conservatism Inc., as he showed that its support for a liberal immigration policy, an interventionist foreign policy, and slashing entitlements had no real support among the conservative grassroots, let alone the larger public.

Yet since taking office, with rare exceptions, President Trump has governed like just another Republican. The president’s first major legislative initiative was a disastrous attempt to replace Obamacare. It is not surprising that President Trump did not have a specific “great” plan regarding healthcare, yet the conservative establishment’s failure to provide a workable alternative to Obamacare is testament to its uselessness.”

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter, once a pro-Trump campaigner, is now a critic

Demographic Realities

Since the election, the press has been making much of how demographics are turning formerly red states (Republicans) into blue states (Democrats). This is entirely due to mass immigration. The US takes in over 1 million legal immigrants every year. About 90% of these people are non-white.

My own Congressional district in northern Virginia (VA-10) is indicative of this. It went for the Democrats for the first time in 40 years. Conservative Republican Frank Wolf won the seat in the Reagan landslide of 1980 and didn’t relinquish it until he retired in 2014. That year, moderate Republican Barbara Comstock (who favors high immigration) won the seat by 16 points (56% to 40%) over her Democratic challenger. In 2016, her margin of victory was only 5.5 points. This year she lost by a margin of 56% to 44% to liberal Democrat Jennifer Wexton.

While there are many reasons for her loss, the main one is this. In 2008, VA-10 was 80% white. It is now 65% white.

Virginia used to be a rural, Southern and conservative state. It is now less than 56% white. Republicans have not won a state-wide election since 2009. This same trend is about to turn once solidly red states such as Georgia, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona and even Texas blue. Orange County, California (outside Los Angeles) used to be perhaps the most reliably conservative district in the nation. It was the home of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. Yet it now has all Democrat representatives in Congress.

In terms of the 2020 elections, President Trump still has time to right the ship. Building his promised border wall with Mexico would be a great first step. He has also mentioned ending birthright citizenship (where children born in the US – even to illegals – are automatically given US citizenship) and affirmative action. If his actions can match his talking and threats, Trump can win reelection. But after 2020, demographics may permanently sweep the GOP away at the national level.

James Knight writes from increasingly vibrant northern Virginia.

Illegal immigrant ‘army’ arriving in UK every year

A new report reveals that the illegal immigrant population of the UK is rising by 70,000 each year – equivalent to the size of the British Army – and contributing to a steadily increasing total which has now reached more than a million.

More than 105,000 illegal immigrants turn up each year, with only about 35,000 leaving the country each year as our grossly overstretched border forces struggle to cope. This means a net annual increase of around 70,000.

Police forces have been heavily brainwashed by political correctness, and simultaneously suffer from inadequate training in how to enforce immigration law. Moreover the National Crime Agency reported in May this year that “corrupt public and private sector workers” were helping gangs to facilitate illegal immigration. Small seaports around our coastline are particularly vulnerable to exploitation by immigration racketeers.

Think tank Migration Watch urgently recommends that “funding for immigration enforcement should be boosted by around £100 million. There should also be a major boost in the amount of support and training provided to HO staff.” Migration Watch also warns that “attempts to ‘weaponise’ the Windrush issue in order to destroy sensible border controls should be firmly rejected”.

 

 

 

 

Next Page »

  • Find By Category

  • Latest News

  • Follow us on Twitter