The State Runs The Left

An academic and leading campaigner against racism and fascism has been exposed as a police spy-master who led a network of undercover officers in political activist groups.

Bob Lambert, now a lecturer and expert on Islamophobia who regularly speaks at civil rights rallies, infiltrated organisations including Greenpeace as part of a covert police unit.

During his previous 26-year career as a Special Branch officer, he placed moles inside political protest groups, including anti-racism organisations, impeding their activities.
Spy: Bob Lambert during his undercover days in the mid-1980s (left) and the academic and lecturer as he is now (right). He has been exposed as a police spy-master who led a network of undercover officers in political activist groups

Mr Lambert became head of the unit after around a decade working undercover, reported The Guardian.

He has previously admitted working for special branch between 1980 and 2006, but has never revealed his past as a police spy.

Ironically, Mr Lambert's secret undercover work was revealed on Saturday at a Unite Against Fascism conference, at which he was a speaker.

Fellow activists at the event claimed he used the alias Bob Robinson while a member of London Greenpeace between 1984 and 1988.

More...Closer to the truth: Cameron promises 'full disclosure' on Hillsborough disaster ahead of MPs' debate sparked by 100,000-strong online petition

The group campaigned for environmental issues including nuclear disarmament and claims 'Robinson' attended numerous protests and meetings.

It is also believed that Mr Lambert infiltrated animal rights groups.

But he was actually a member of the Special Demonstration Squad, a police unit dedicated to infiltrating political groups thought to pose a threat to public order.

When urged to apologise at the conference for his undercover work, Mr Lambert refused to comment, the activists claim.

Undercover: Mr Lambert (wearing a red jacket) attends a protest during the period he infiltrated London Greenpeace

He last week urged people to attend to 'show a united front against hatred and bigotry and celebrate the diversity of our multicultural communities'.

In the late 1990s, Mr Lambert became head of the Special Demonstration Squad and was responsible for placing police moles in political organisations.

From 2002 to 2007, he was in charge of Scotland Yard's Muslim Contact Unit, tasked with preventing Islamic extremism by way of two-way dialogue with the Muslim community.

Since 2006, he has lectured at Exeter and St Andrew's universities.
Mr Lambert is the seventh police officer to be unmasked as a spy inside protest organisations.

Alternate life: Mark Kennedy spent seven years undercover as an eco-activist before allegedly going 'native' and naming another campaigner as an officer
The most high-profile of these was Mark Kennedy, who spent seven years undercover as an eco-activist before allegedly going 'native' and naming another campaigner as an officer when he was rumbled.

A spokesman for London Greenpeace today said: 'By publicly exposing this latest scandal, campaigners have demonstrated that the recent police spies outed were not "rogue officers", but part of an unacceptable pattern of immoral infiltration of environmental groups, condoned at a high level.

'We demand action to ensure that the full truth is revealed and that justice is done.'

A report into Kennedy and the work of undercover police officers in protest groups is scheduled to be published on Thursday.

Racked with guilt at betraying his new friends after seven years of pretence, Kennedy apparently confessed that a female officer in her 30s was also a spy.
She lived in Leeds and played a major part in organising a protest intended to close down the Drax coal-fired power station in North Yorkshire.

The group had already grown suspicious after she disappeared overnight in 2008 claiming she had fallen in love with a man in Coventry. She was never seen again.

Senior police chiefs were in January said to be worried Kennedy, who went under the name Mark Stone in his alternate life, had also compromised the safety of other officers working covertly.

Telling friends who were protesters that the officer was working undercover is a serious breach of protocol which could mean other operatives have to be moved for their safety.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050051/Lecturer-exposed-police-spy-master-infiltrated-Greenpeace-groups-posing-threat-public-order.html#ixzz1b3ByAYRh

The 600 Trillion Dollar Derivatives Bomb about to Explode

http://moneymorning.com/2011/10/12/derivatives-the-600-trillion-time-bomb-thats-set-to-explode/



Do you want to know the real reason banks aren't lending and the PIIGS have control of the barnyard in Europe?

It's because risk in the $600 trillion derivatives market isn't evening out. To the contrary, it's growing increasingly concentrated among a select few banks, especially here in the United States.

In 2009, five banks held 80% of derivatives in America. Now, just four banks hold a staggering 95.9% of U.S. derivatives, according to a recent report from the Office of the Currency Comptroller.

The four banks in question: JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), Bank of America Corp. (NYSE: BAC) and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS).

Derivatives played a crucial role in bringing down the global economy, so you would think that the world's top policymakers would have reined these things in by now - but they haven't.

Instead of attacking the problem, regulators have let it spiral out of control, and the result is a $600 trillion time bomb called the derivatives market.

Think I'm exaggerating?

The notional value of the world's derivatives actually is estimated at more than $600 trillion. Notional value, of course, is the total value of a leveraged position's assets. This distinction is necessary because when you're talking about leveraged assets like options and derivatives, a little bit of money can control a disproportionately large position that may be as much as 5, 10, 30, or, in extreme cases, 100 times greater than investments that could be funded only in cash instruments.

The world's gross domestic product (GDP) is only about $65 trillion, or roughly 10.83% of the worldwide value of the global derivatives market, according to The Economist. So there is literally not enough money on the planet to backstop the banks trading these things if they run into trouble.


How to Profit as Wall Street Insiders Push Oil Higher

Find out how high oil will go in this
free report.
Enter Email Address Here:


Cancel at any time | How it works


Compounding the problem is the fact that nobody even knows if the $600 trillion figure is accurate, because specialized derivatives vehicles like the credit default swaps that are now roiling Europe remain largely unregulated and unaccounted for.


Tick...Tick...Tick
To be fair, the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) estimated the net notional value of uncollateralized derivatives risks is between $2 trillion and $8 trillion, which is still a staggering amount of money and well beyond the billions being talked about in Europe.

Imagine the fallout from a $600 trillion explosion if several banks went down at once. It would eclipse the collapse of Lehman Brothers in no uncertain terms.

A governmental default would panic already anxious investors, causing a run on several major European banks in an effort to recover their deposits. That would, in turn, cause several banks to literally run out of money and declare bankruptcy.

Short-term borrowing costs would skyrocket and liquidity would evaporate. That would cause a ricochet across the Atlantic as the institutions themselves then panic and try to recover their own capital by withdrawing liquidity by any means possible.

And that's why banks are hoarding cash instead of lending it.

The major banks know there is no way they can collateralize the potential daisy chain failure that Greece represents. So they're doing everything they can to stockpile cash and keep their trading under wraps and away from public scrutiny.

What really scares me, though, is that the banks

think this is an acceptable risk because the odds of a default are allegedly smaller than one in 10,000.

But haven't we heard that before?

Although American banks have limited their exposure to Greece, they have loaned hundreds of billions of dollars to European banks and European governments that may not be capable of paying them back.

According to the Bank of International Settlements, U.S. banks have loaned only $60.5 billion to banks in Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Italy - the countries most at risk of default. But they've lent $275.8 billion to French and German banks.

And undoubtedly bet trillions on the same debt.

There are three key takeaways here:


•There is not enough capital on hand to cover the possible losses associated with the default of a single counterparty - JPMorgan Chase & Co. (NYSE: JPM), BNP Paribas SA (PINK: BNPQY) or the National Bank of Greece (NYSE ADR: NBG) for example - let alone multiple failures.

•That means banks with large derivatives exposure have to risk even more money to generate the incremental returns needed to cover the bets they've already made.

•And the fact that Wall Street believes it has the risks under control practically guarantees that it doesn't.


Seems to me that the world's central bankers and politicians should be less concerned about stimulating "demand" and more concerned about fixing derivatives before this $600 trillion time bomb goes off.

The Tabula Rasa, Race and the Liberals Lie

http://www.economist.com/node/21532247?fsrc=scn/tw/te/ar/transporterofdelight



THE idea that the human personality is a blank slate, to be written upon only by experience, prevailed for most of the second half of the 20th century. Over the past two decades, however, that notion has been undermined. Studies comparing identical with non-identical twins have helped to establish the heritability of many aspects of behaviour, and examination of DNA has uncovered some of the genes responsible. Recent work on both these fronts suggests that happiness is highly heritable.

As any human being knows, many factors govern whether people are happy or unhappy. External circumstances are important: employed people are happier than unemployed ones and better-off people than poor ones. Age has a role, too: the young and the old are happier than the middle-aged. But personality is the single biggest determinant: extroverts are happier than introverts, and confident people happier than anxious ones.

In this section
Frying tonight
»Transporter of delight
Chilling out in the winter sun
Reprints

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related topics
Race relations
Social issues
Africa
London
Science
That personality, along with intelligence, is at least partly heritable is becoming increasingly clear; so, presumably, the tendency to be happy or miserable is, to some extent, passed on through DNA. To try to establish just what that extent is, a group of scientists from University College, London; Harvard Medical School; the University of California, San Diego; and the University of Zurich examined over 1,000 pairs of twins from a huge study on the health of American adolescents. In “Genes, Economics and Happiness”, a working paper from the University of Zurich’s Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, they conclude that about a third of the variation in people’s happiness is heritable. That is along the lines of, though a little lower than, previous estimates on the subject.

But while twin studies are useful for establishing the extent to which a characteristic is heritable, they do not finger the particular genes at work. One of the researchers, Jan-Emmanuel De Neve, of University College, London, and the London School of Economics, has tried to do just that, by picking a popular suspect—the gene that encodes the serotonin-transporter protein, a molecule that shuffles a brain messenger called serotonin through cell membranes—and examining how variants of that gene affect levels of happiness.

Serotonin is involved in mood regulation. Serotonin transporters are crucial to this job. The serotonin-transporter gene comes in two functional variants—long and short. The long one produces more transporter-protein molecules than the short one. People have two versions (known as alleles) of each gene, one from each parent. So some have two short alleles, some have two long ones, and the rest have one of each.

The adolescents in Dr De Neve’s study were asked to grade themselves from very satisfied to very dissatisfied. Dr De Neve found that those with one long allele were 8% more likely than those with none to describe themselves as very satisfied; those with two long alleles were 17% more likely.

Which is interesting. Where the story could become controversial is when the ethnic origins of the volunteers are taken into account. All were Americans, but they were asked to classify themselves by race as well. On average, the Asian Americans in the sample had 0.69 long genes, the black Americans had 1.47 and the white Americans had 1.12.

That result sits comfortably with other studies showing that, on average, Asian countries report lower levels of happiness than their GDP per head would suggest. African countries, however, are all over the place, happinesswise. But that is not surprising, either. Africa is the most genetically diverse continent, because that is where humanity evolved (Asians, Europeans, Aboriginal Australians and Amerindians are all descended from a few adventurers who left Africa about 60,000 years ago). Black Americans, mostly the descendants of slaves carried away from a few places in west Africa, cannot possibly be representative of the whole continent.

That some populations have more of the long version of the serotonin-transporter gene has been noticed before, though the association has previously been made at a national, rather than a racial, level. In a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, published in 2009, Joan Chiao and Katherine Blizinsky of Northwestern University, in Illinois, found a positive correlation between higher levels of the short version of the gene and mood disorders (China and Japan have lots of both) and with collectivist political systems. Their hypothesis is that cultures prone to anxiety tend towards systems that emphasise social harmony and away from ones that emphasise individuals’ independence of each other.

This latter study may be a few steps too far along the road to genetic determinism for some people. But there is growing interest in the study of happiness, not just among geneticists but also among economists and policymakers dissatisfied with current ways of measuring humanity’s achievements. Future work in this field will be read avidly in those circles.

Uganda, Obama and George Soros

After President Barack Obama announced earlier this week that he would be sending American troops into Uganda, WND uncovered billionaire activist George Soros' ties both to the political pressure behind the decision and to the African nation's fledgling oil industry.

Soros sits on the executive board of an influential "crisis management organization" that recently recommended the U.S. deploy a special advisory military team to Uganda to help with operations and run an intelligence platform, a recommendation Obama's action seems to fulfill.

The president emeritus of that organization, the International Crisis Group, is also the principal author of "Responsibility to Protect," the military doctrine used by Obama to justify the U.S.-led NATO campaign in Libya.

Soros' own Open Society Institute is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect, a doctrine that has been cited many times by activists urging intervention in Uganda.

Authors and advisers of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, including a center founded and led by Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, also helped to found the International Criminal Court.

Several of the doctrine's main founders also sit on boards with Soros, who is a major proponent of the doctrine.

Unmask the powers behind Obama's curtain with Aaron Klein's "The Manchurian President," autographed at WND's Superstore!

Soros also maintains close ties to oil interests in Uganda. His organizations have been leading efforts purportedly to facilitate more transparency in Uganda's oil industry, which is being tightly controlled by the country's leadership.

(Story continues below)





Soros' hand in Ugandan oil industry

Oil exploration began in Uganda's northwestern Lake Albert basin nearly a decade ago, with initial strikes being made in 2006.

Uganda's Energy Ministry estimates the country has over 2 billion barrels of oil, with some estimates going as high as 6 billion barrels. Production is set to begin in 2015, delayed from 2013 in part because the country has not put in place a regulatory framework for the oil industry.

A 2008 national oil and gas policy, proposed with aid from a Soros-funded group, was supposed to be a general road map for the handling and use of the oil. However, the policy's recommendations have been largely ignored, with critics accusing Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni of corruption and of tightening his grip on the African country's emerging oil sector.

Soros himself has been closely tied to oil and other interests in Uganda.

In 2008, the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute brought together stakeholders from Uganda and other East African countries to discuss critical governance issues, including the formation of what became Uganda's national oil and gas policy.

Also in 2008, the Africa Institute for Energy Governance, a grantee of the Soros-funded Revenue Watch, helped established the Publish What You Pay Coalition of Uganda, or PWYP, which was purportedly launched to coordinate and streamline the efforts of the government in promoting transparency and accountability in the oil sector.

Also, a steering committee was formed for PWYP Uganda to develop an agenda for implementing the oil advocacy initiatives and a constitution to guide PWYP's oil work.

PWYP has since 2006 hosted a number of training workshops in Uganda purportedly to promote contract transparency in Uganda's oil sector.

PWYP is directly funded by Soros' Open Society as well as the the Soros-funded Revenue Watch Institute. PWYP international is actually hosted by the Open Society Foundation in London.

The billionaire's Open Society Institute, meanwhile, runs numerous offices in Uganda. It maintains a country manager in Uganda, as well as the Open Society Initiative for East Africa, which supports work in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda.

The Open Society Institute runs a Ugandan Youth Action Fund, which states its mission is to "identify, inspire, and support small groups of dedicated young people who can mobilize and influence large numbers of their peers to promote open society ideals."

U.S. troops to Uganda

Obama yesterday notified House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, that he plans to send about 100 military personnel, mostly Special Operations Forces, to central Africa. The first troops reportedly arrived in Uganda on Wednesday.

The U.S. mission will be to advise forces seeking to kill or capture Joseph Kony, the leader of the rebel Lord's Resistance Army, or LRA. Kony is accused of major human rights atrocities. He is on the U.S. terrorist list and is wanted by the International Criminal Court.

In a letter on Friday, Obama announced the initial team of U.S. military personnel "with appropriate combat equipment" deployed to Uganda on Wednesday. Other forces deploying include "a second combat-equipped team and associated headquarters, communications and logistics personnel."

"Our forces will provide information, advice and assistance to select partner nation forces," he said.

Both conservatives and liberals have raised questions about whether military involvement in Uganda advances U.S. interests.

Writing in The Atlantic yesterday, Max Fisher noted the Obama administration last year approved special forces bases and operations across the Middle East, the Horn of Africa and Central Asia.

"But those operations, large and small, target terrorist groups and rogue states that threaten the U.S. – something the Lord's Resistance Army could not possibly do," he wrote.

"It's difficult to find a U.S. interest at stake in the Lord's Resistance Army's campaign of violence," continued Fisher. "It's possible that there's some immediate U.S. interest at stake we can't obviously see."

Bill Roggio, the managing editor of The Long War Journal, referred to the Obama administration's stated rationale for sending troops "puzzling," claiming the LRA does not present a national security threat to the U.S. – "despite what President Obama said."

Tea-party-backed presidential candidate Michele Bachmann also questioned the wisdom of Obama's move to send U.S. troops to Uganda.

"When it comes to sending our brave men and women into foreign nations, we have to first demonstrate a vital American national interest before we send our troops in," she said at a campaign stop yesterday in Iowa.

Soros group: Send military advisors to Uganda

In April 2010 Soros' International Crisis Group, or ICG, released a report sent to the White House and key lawmakers advising the U.S. military run special operations in Uganda to seek Kony's capture.

The report states, "To the U.S. government: Deploy a team to the theatre of operations to run an intelligence platform that centralizes all operational information from the Ugandan and other armies, as well as the U.N. and civilian networks, and provides analysis to the Ugandans to better target military operations."

Since 2008 the U.S. has been providing financial aid in the form of military equipment to Uganda and the other regional countries to fight Kony's LRA, but Obama's new deployment escalates the direct U.S. involvement.

Soros sits in the ICG's executive board along with Samuel Berger, Bill Clinton's former national security advisor; George J. Mitchell, former U.S. Senate Majority Leader who served as a Mideast envoy to both Obama and President Bush; and Javier Solana, a socialist activist who is NATO's former secretary-general as well as the former foreign affairs minister of Spain.

Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is the ICG's senior advisor.

The ICG's president emeritus is Gareth Evans, who, together with activist Ramesh Thakur, is the original founder of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, with the duo even coining the term "responsibility to protect."

Both Evans and Thakur serve as advisory board members of the Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, the main group pushing the doctrine.

As WND first exposed, Soros is a primary funder and key proponent of the Global Centre for Responsibility to Protect.

Soros' Open Society is one of only three nongovernmental funders of the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect. Government sponsors include Australia, Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Rwanda and the U.K.

Samantha Power, Arafat deputy

Meanwhile, a closer look at the Soros-funded Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect is telling. Board members of the group include former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, former Ireland President Mary Robinson and South African activist Desmond Tutu. Robinson and Tutu have recently made solidarity visits to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip as members of a group called The Elders, which includes former President Jimmy Carter.

WND was first to report the committee that devised the Responsibility to Protect doctrine included Arab League Secretary General Amre Moussa as well as Palestinian legislator Hanan Ashrawi, a staunch denier of the Holocaust who long served as the deputy of late Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat.

Also, the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy has a seat on the advisory board of the 2001 commission that originally founded Responsibility to Protect. The commission is called the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty. It invented the term "responsibility to protect" while defining its guidelines.

The Carr Center is a research center concerned with human rights located at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.

Samantha Power, the National Security Council special adviser to Obama on human rights, was Carr's founding executive director and headed the institute at the time it advised in the founding of Responsibility to Protect.

With Power's center on the advisory board, the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty first defined the Responsibility to Protect doctrine.

Power reportedly heavily influenced Obama in consultations leading to the decision to bomb Libya, widely regarded as test of Responsibility to Protect in action.

In his address to the nation in April explaining the NATO campaign in Libya, Obama cited the doctrine as the main justification for U.S. and international airstrikes against Libya.

Responsibility to Protect, or Responsibility to Act, as cited by Obama, is a set of principles, now backed by the United Nations, based on the idea that sovereignty is not a privilege, but a responsibility that can be revoked if a country is accused of "war crimes," "genocide," "crimes against humanity" or "ethnic cleansing."

The term "war crimes" has at times been indiscriminately used by various United Nations-backed international bodies, including the International Criminal Court, or ICC, which applied it to Israeli anti-terror operations in the Gaza Strip. There has been fear the ICC could be used to prosecute U.S. troops who commit alleged "war crimes" overseas.

Soros: Right to 'penetrate nation-states'

Soros himself outlined the fundamentals of Responsibility to Protect in a 2004 Foreign Policy magazine article titled "The People's Sovereignty: How a New Twist on an Old Idea Can Protect the World's Most Vulnerable Populations."

In the article Soros said, "True sovereignty belongs to the people, who in turn delegate it to their governments."

"If governments abuse the authority entrusted to them and citizens have no opportunity to correct such abuses, outside interference is justified," Soros wrote. "By specifying that sovereignty is based on the people, the international community can penetrate nation-states' borders to protect the rights of citizens.

"In particular," he continued, "the principle of the people's sovereignty can help solve two modern challenges: the obstacles to delivering aid effectively to sovereign states and the obstacles to global collective action dealing with states experiencing internal conflict."

'One World Order'

The Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, meanwhile, works in partnership with the World Federalist Movement, a group that promotes democratized global institutions with plenary constitutional power. The Movement is a main coordinator and member of Responsibility to Protect Center.

WND reported that Responsibility doctrine founder Thakur recently advocated for a "global rebalancing" and "international redistribution" to create a "New World Order."

In a piece last March in the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, "Toward a new world order," Thakur wrote, "Westerners must change lifestyles and support international redistribution."

He was referring to a United Nations-brokered international climate treaty in which he argued, "Developing countries must reorient growth in cleaner and greener directions."

In the opinion piece, Thakur then discussed recent military engagements and how the financial crisis has impacted the U.S.

"The West's bullying approach to developing nations won't work anymore – global power is shifting to Asia," he wrote. "A much-needed global moral rebalancing is in train."

Thakur continued: "Westerners have lost their previous capacity to set standards and rules of behavior for the world. Unless they recognize this reality, there is little prospect of making significant progress in deadlocked international negotiations."

Thakur contended "the demonstration of the limits to U.S. and NATO power in Iraq and Afghanistan has left many less fearful of 'superior' Western power."



Read more: Why U.S. military in Uganda? Soros fingerprints all over it http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=356321#ixzz1b1PiwhlJ

Ian Dale and Fox's Mossad Links

http://www.iaindale.com/posts/fox-its-all-very-spooky?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



I am beginning to understand why Jim Murphy is playing the Fox saga so coolly and did not hysterically demand a head on a spike. He knows that there is a very good chance that from the acorn of a sorry tale of poor judgement and an unfortunate friendship, the mighty oak of a serious political story might grow. I doubt whether we will be ever told what input the security services input was into the Cabinet secretary’s report, but I would be amazed if it was not significant.



The first clue that his whole saga might take an unusual twist was a fascinating piece by Martin Kettle suggesting that Fox would be in trouble if he was running his own security policy underneath the Foreign Office radar. To be honest I couldn’t quite see where he was coming from until the jig saw pieces from other media outlets, particularly SKY’s Tom Raynor, suddenly begin to fit together.



I will summarise. Werrity gets his cash to travel the world from a number of donors. Fox has had a particular interest in bring peace and stability to Sri Lanka. He has been involved with the Sri Lankan Development Fund which was wound up in 1999. The fund was registered at 30 George Square, Marylebone. But so is a rather mysterious, Kroll like company called G3 Good Governance. This is chaired by Chester Crocker who was Reagan’s Deputy Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa. Crocker advanced the policy of constructive engagement towards Apartheid. He also served under Al Haig at the NSA. Crocker is also connected to C5 Capital which employs Lt General Sir Graham Lamb who was former director of UK Special Forces. G3 also funds a charitable organisation, Universal Exports Foundation, run by a lady said to be the daughter of a former MI6 Middle East Director. Paddy Ashdown (former SIS) is involved. G3 gave a donation to Pargav, who helped fund Werritty.



Now there is nothing illegal or improper about any of this. But there appear to be some very interesting connections which someone somewhere, ought to pay attention to. Oh, and to add to the drama of it all, Universal Exports was the fictional cover name in the James Bond books for M16.



So, as I once said to a judge, “there we are, your Honour”. To which his response with “But where are we? I haven’t got a clue!” And with this little tale I haven’t got a clue where we are either. But, I must say, it is all very spooky.

70 % want immigration cut

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britons-want-immigration-reduced-2371467.html






Most Britons want to see immigration reduced, but think the Government should focus on cutting the number of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers instead of foreign students and skilled workers, a survey showed today.


Half of those who want to see immigration reduced said most or even all of the cuts should come from among illegal immigrants, research by Oxford University's Migration Observatory found.


And of the three in 10 people who do not want to see immigration cut, three fifths still want to cut the number of migrants in the UK illegally, with two-fifths feeling strongly about this.


David Cameron appealed for the public to "shop" illegal immigrants last Monday as he pledged to reclaim Britain's borders, urging Britons to help tackle the issue by reporting suspicious individuals.


The Government has pledged to cut net migration from the current 242,000 to the "tens of thousands" last seen in the 1990s, with crackdowns on forced and sham marriages, bogus students and an annual cap on immigrants coming from outside the EU.


But the Migration Observatory report showed foreign students, which make up almost two fifths of all immigrants to the UK, appear to be of little concern to Britons with just a third wanting cuts to come from this area.


Meanwhile, more than half want to see a fall in the number of asylum seekers coming to the UK, despite the fact they make up the smallest proportion of immigrants, just 4% in 2009.


And while almost two-thirds backed reducing immigration among low-skilled workers, which come mostly from the EU, only a third wanted to see fewer skilled migrants.


But international conventions and EU membership constrain the Government from reducing the numbers of asylum seekers or EU migrants in the UK, the report said.


Dr Scott Blinder, its lead author, said the survey exposed the difficulties the Government faces in meeting public demand.


"The Government is stuck between a rock and a hard place," he said.


"A clear majority of people in Britain would like immigration reduced, but they want the cuts to come from specific groups of immigrants, and these are often groups over whom the Government has limited direct control, and sometimes groups that are comparatively small in number."


He added: "Blunt questions about whether the British public supports or opposes immigration in general do not capture the complexities of many people's real views, and are not nearly fine-grained enough to give policy-makers a real understanding of what a majority of the public wants."


But Immigration Minister Damian Green said: "We have made sweeping changes to get a grip on immigration in this country, closing down routes that were subject to abuse and taking action against those with no right to be here.


"This is clearly in line with what the public want us to be doing. There is much more to be done and we will stick to our course."


:: Ipsos Mori carried out face-to-face interviews with 1,002 people aged 15+ in Britain between September 2 and 8.

Fox and Mossad

The real reason Liam Fox had to resign was not a grubby little money scandal about firms funding Adam Werritty as he jetted round the world with the Defence Secretary.

It was much more important, and much worse, than that.

Last Sunday, ‘friends of Liam Fox’ were letting it be known that the investigation of Werritty would bring up nothing scandalous.

These friends were widely reported as saying that Werritty’s funding came from those wishing to promote U.S. and Israeli interests to the British government.


Yet that ‘defence’ of Fox touched on precisely the point that had started alarm bells ringing among senior civil servants throughout Whitehall.

Not only was Werritty being paid to act as an unofficial part of the Defence Secretary’s entourage, the money was coming from people who may have been ready to promote the interests of certain foreign governments, particularly the United States, Israel and Sri Lanka.


While the United States is a very close ally, its commercial and other interests are not always identical to UK interests.

Israel is not a military ally of the UK. There are often tensions between its interests in the Middle East and the UK’s interests, as in the attack on the Gaza Aid convoy which resulted in the death of Turkish citizens. Turkey is an ally of the UK, being a vital member of NATO.

As for the Sri Lankan government, there are serious concerns over its human rights record, particularly after major hostilities with Tamil rebel fighters had ceased.
The British Defence Secretary should be exclusively concerned with the interests only of Britain.

'It is plain as a pikestaff that Fox had retained his effective partnership with Werritty in lobbying activities that not only were concerned with Israel and Sri Lanka, but which actively sought to promote the geo-strategic interests of those countries – for money.' But it is plain as a pikestaff that Fox had retained his effective partnership with Werritty in lobbying activities that not only were concerned with Israel and Sri Lanka, but which actively sought to promote the geo-strategic interests of those countries – for money.

I was contacted early last week by a senior Whitehall source – somebody I have known for more than a decade – who has access to the Cabinet Office investigation.

They were worried the Cabinet Secretary Gus O’Donnell’s investigation was being misdirected onto only the very narrow question of whether Werritty received specific payments for setting up specific meetings with Fox – playing into Fox’s extraordinary House of Commons defence that Werritty was ‘not dependent on any transactional behaviour to maintain his income’.

But my source told me that what really was worrying senior officials in the MOD, FCO and Cabinet Office was the possibility that Fox could be being used as a ‘useful idiot’ by Mossad, Israel’s far-reaching and extremely effective intelligence service.

Key funding sources for Werritty were from the Israeli lobby and a rather obscure commercial intelligence agency.

Might Mossad be pulling Werritty’s strings, with or without his knowledge?

On Friday, two senior Fleet Street journalists also reported hearing similar concerns from other Whitehall officials about possible Israeli intelligence service involvement with Fox and Werritty.

By working closely with an unofficial aide with extraordinary access but no security vetting and murky funding sources, Fox had potentially compromised national security. That is the real story here.

Let us hope that Fox’s fall will remind future Defence Secretaries that there is only one country whose interests they should seek to defend – and that is this one.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2049642/Was-Mossad-using-Fox-Werritty-useful-idiots-Ex-Ambassador-reveals-links-advisers-set-alarm-bells-ringing.html#ixzz1awGQzj5U