The Cenotaph of a Dark Day

Autumn bares its teeth and whistles,
Through naked stands of trees,
As feuds of wind and rain, restless,
In their wild frenzy for war,
Bring forth their baggage trains,
And gather their battalions,
Preparing for the petty battles,
That the season now commands.
As Northern gales follow summers trail,
And legions of whirling golden leaves,
Swirl as tea leaves in a cup,
Or a murmuration of starlings,
Burst like shrapnel from a bush,
A sudden shell shock of sound and motion,
As the coffin lid of dusk snaps shut.
The rush and rustle of a vortex, skittish
As the broken black branches,
That scratch a watery eye of sun,
Keeping score for each side,
As the storm front stalks closer,
With boom and bang, flash and crash,
To wrap the world in widows black.
Sunlight gilds the earth with sudden spurts,
As blood blushes from a severed limb,
Then clouds with scudding cataracts,
A blind, maimed moon in its tomb,
That rises to ride the West, nimbus wreathed,
As a memory of the fallen and forgotten,
Murmurs to me, now a century away,
In the cenotaph of a dark November day.

Superb Article on Nick Griffin and Globalism

http://www.examiner.com/x-9462-LA-Nonpartisan-Examiner~y2009m10d31-Labors-attack-on-Nick-Griffin-shows-hypocracy-of-globalist-agenda


Justice Secretary Jack Straw of the Labor Party took on BNP leader Nick Griffin in a televised debate called Question Time that was watched by millions. Straw said he was "delighted to make the argument for people against the BNP." Straw attacked Griffin as a racist, xenophobe, and a neo-nazi. Straw said that any party that bases itself on race is wrong and beyond the pale and falsely accused Griffin of being a holocaust denier. The Labor party has gone out of its way to vilify the BNP as a racist and fascist party.

During the debate Straw said "There isn't a constitutional obligation to appear on Question Time. That gives the BNP a legitimacy they do not deserve. These people believe in the things that the fascists believed in the Second World War, they believe in what the National Front believe in. They believe in the purity of the Aryan race. It is a foul and despicable party."

While Griffin has views that some may find objectionable, unlike Straw he has never caused the direct loss of innocent life through his policies. Jack Straw is a major leader of the labor party and was foreign secretary under Tony Blair. He oversaw Britain's role in the pre-emptive Iraq War, which many estimated put the loss of lives at up to a million Iraqi civilians. Even though Nick Griffin is anti-Muslim in the sense that he does not want Muslims immigrating to England, Straw is directly responsible for the deaths of up to a million Muslim civilians in Iraq.

Nick Griffin had an excellent response to the claims that he is a racist and fascist exposing who the real offenders are. He said, "Genocide, as codified by international law, of the United Nations convention, doesn't just mean machine gunning or gassing people, wiping out populations. It also means arranging things so that the young people of any given population find it hard, some way or another, have a disadvantage to meet and to fall in love and have children. And there's various ways, everything from taxes through to relentless multiracial propaganda, in which that war is waged against our people right now, day in and day out. And there's another way. It's depriving the young people of a population of a knowledge of their own heritage and their own culture and their own identity. And the United Nations says that is genocide, and that is precisely what is being done to us today."

Recently Labor was exposed as secretly plotting to change the demographics of Britain through mass immigration without the consent of the electorate, because it would benefit their party's agenda. The relevation surfaced last week in an article by a former speech writer and adviser for Tony Blair and Jack Straw. He wrote a speech in 2000 for than immigration minister Barbara Roche calling for greater immigration, despite the fact that Labor promised its working class base it would not increase immigration. Jack Straw denied the allegations against his party.

There is a big difference between the nationalism advocated by the BNP and the imperialistic policies of Labor. Neocons and neoliberals such as Labor believe that western nations can assimilate massive third world immigration yet at the same time colonize nations like Iraq and turn them into western style democracies. That globalist agenda is not just destroying western nations through large scare third world immigration but their imperialist foreign policy is destroying the middle east through wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestinian territories. The economic plundering of the international bankers who back the globalist have destroyed the economies of many third world nations. The combination of meddling in Muslims nations and allowing massive immigration from those nations is a recipe for disaster and that is what led to the terror attacks in London. The BNP's is right that western nations should stop meddling in other nations affairs and end massive immigration. Even though this takes place in the UK, this is relevant to Americans since most of our major politicians follow the same ideology coined as "invade the world invite the world".

Baxter Bio-Weapon Released in Ukraine

Well it appears that Baxter has released the virus that they have been creating to deplete the worlds population.




http://www.rense.com/general88/bax.htm


Evidence appears to suggest that Baxter International may be responsible for a new deadly outbreak of viral pneumonia in Ukraine.

(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I)

In February of 2009, Bloomberg reported that Baxter "accidentally" sent vaccine material containing both live Avian bird flu and seasonal influenza to multiple laboratories worldwide. A laboratory decided to test the vaccine on its ferrets and the ferrets all unexpectedly died.

(http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I) http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aTo3LbhcA75I

It must be noted that Baxter has made a "mistake" like this before. (http://www.aegis.com/news/re/1996/RE960283.html)

Blood products produced by Baxter once contained HIV. Thousands of haemophiliacs died due to this, and many went on to infect their spouses.

http://www.aegis.com/news/re/1996/RE960283.html

Later in the year, a bizarre story emerged on the internet. The news was full of reports on (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/man-suspected-of-making-t_n_259330.html)

A man named Joseph Moshe who was arrested after a hours long standoff with the police because he had supposedly made threats against the White House. The man was able to withstand multiple rounds of tear gas...which left L.A. police officers amazed.

However, the internet community was very skeptical of the true reasons behind the man's arrest. Comments on the Huffington Post website immediately began pouring in about an unreported side to this story, namely that Joseph Moshe was a Mossad Agent who specialized in biological warfare and who called into a radio show to warn people about a biological weapn that was being made by Baxter international that would be spread through vaccine and would cause a plague upon its release.

Although anyone can make a doomsday claim and we should never believe anyone (and it must be said that the Truth movement handled this well, the message was spread without being proclaimed as gospel) the amazing part about Moshe's claim was the location where Moshe said the biological weapon was being produced.

Moshe claimed that Baxter's laboratory in the Ukraine out of all places was creating this biological weapon. All of this came out in the beginning of August, which is more than 2 months before the situation that is currently unfolding. For Moshe to correctly name the country where a new epidemic would be unleashed, requires either inside information, or an incredible coincidence as anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics can confirm for himself.

Let us assume for a moment that every person on our planet has an equal chance of giving rise to a new lethal epidemic due to a virus that mutates as it spreads through his body. (http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2009/ds/kn/kn_e/kn0609_e.html)


(http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/operativ/operativ2009/ds/kn/kn_e/kn0609_e.html) Ukraine has 46 million inhabitants. (http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html)

The current estimated global population is about 6.7 billion. This means that if a new epidemic were to arise, the chance of this epidemic starting in the Ukraine would be 0.69%. (http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2009/10/29/202374)

However, it appears that this virus is a form of flu. This makes the odds of being right when guessing that a deadly flu is going to break out in the Ukraine even smaller. The reason for this is that back in early August the vast majority of influenza infections were found in different countries than the Ukraine. (http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/292540,
ukraine-confirms-first-swine-flu-death-quarantine-ordered.html)

In fact, on 30 Oktober, Earthtimes reported that Ukraine had officially reported only two cases of swine flu, and no deaths, until last Friday. This deadly epidemic appears to have arrived out of nowhere in the Ukraine.

(http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/78637/Moshe_Bar-Joseph)


(http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/78637/Moshe_Bar-Joseph)

Moshe's biomed profile appears to confirm his position as a microbiologist. Furthermore, this page with Baxter's contact information for its Ukraine office confirms that Baxter has a presence in the Ukraine.

http://www.biomedexperts.com/Profile.bme/78637/Moshe_Bar-Joseph

(http://www.stevequayle.com/dead_scientists/UpdatedDeadScientists.html)

It must also be noted that massive numbers of microbiologists have been dying bizarre deaths. This case of what appears to be a brave man who sacrificed it all to bring us this message may explain why so many microbiologists have been murdered. The fact that this man managed to predict an outbreak of highly lethal influenza in a place where we would least expect it, 2 months before it a actually occured, lends credence to his claim that Baxter International is responsible for the outbreak and shows that top microbiologists can pose a problem to the people responsible for this ongoing disaster.

This is a developing story, expect to see possible updates on David Rothscum Reports as more information on what is happening in Ukraine becomes available.

Update 1: For the purpose of keeping information from disappearing, I am going to mirror most information I can find on here.

Comments on the Huffington post website on an article about Moshe's arrest documenting his claim that the Influenza virus in a vaccine manufactured by Baxter in Ukraine replicates RNA from the 1918 flu and is meant as a bioweapon:

(http://www.infowars.com/images/josephmosheukraine.JPG)

Update 2: (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jlasqqSlUIt56rnsbgDSaDdjU9kw) The Ukrainian government wants to impose travel restrictions on people across the nation to stop the virus from spreading.

Update 3: According to the Huffington post comments I cited above, Dr. Moshe claimed that the virus used replicated RNA of the 1918 Spanish flu.

(http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/influenza%
20phil%201918.htm) Symptoms of the 1919 Flu include victims being drenched in blood:

American were familiar with the flu; it sent you to bed, made you miserable for 3 or 4 days with fever, muscle aches, and congestion, then left you shaky for about a week. It made millions sick, yet killed only the oldest, youngest, and most feeble.

The 1918 influenza was not the flu Americans were familiar with. It was a horror that turned victims bluish-black then drowned them with their own body fluids. the death toll was highest in the ages 15 to 40, those in the peak of health. The victims would be fine one minute and the next incapacitated, fever-racked, and delirious. Temperatures rose to 104-106 degrees, skin turned blue, purple, or deep brown from lack of oxygen. Massive pneumonia attacked the lungs, filling them with fluid; blood gushed from the nose. Death was quick, savage, and terrifying.

(http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2009/10/29/202374) Compare this to reports that are coming out from Ukraine:

Five persons have died from the flue in Lviv, four men and one woman, says emergency hospital chief doctor Myron Borysevych.

Two of the dead patients were in the 22-35 age group, with 2 others over 60. He diagnosed the disease as viral pneumonia.

Viral tests can last from one to two weeks. They are complicated and not done in Lviv. The course of the disease was very quick. The symptoms included very high temperature and short-wind cough.

All the six dead young people had symptoms of severe hemmorhagic pneumonia. The disease starts slowly, with temperature rising to 37.2 ­ 37.3 degrees, slight cough and pain in joints. Nasal catarrh developed at the end of the second or third day. Autopsy revealed that the lungs were soaked with blood, the oblast chief specialist said.


Baxter legal case complaint here ;

http://www.unfictional.com/pdf/baxter-lawsuit.pdf



And here how Polish unemployed and homeless people were killed after being injected with a vaccine for swine flu - that supposedly didnt even exist at that time !



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/2235676/Homeless-people-die-after-bird-flu-vaccine-trial-in-Poland.html

The medical staff, from the northern town of Grudziadz, are being investigated over medical trials on as many as 350 homeless and poor people last year, which prosecutors say involved an untried vaccine to the highly-contagious virus.

Authorities claim that the alleged victims received £1-2 to be tested with what they thought was a conventional flu vaccine but, according to investigators, was actually an anti bird-flu drug.

The director of a Grudziadz homeless centre, Mieczyslaw Waclawski, told a Polish newspaper that last year, 21 people from his centre died, a figure well above the average of about eight.

Although authorities have yet to prove a direct link between the deaths and the activities of the medical staff, Poland's health minister, Ewa Kopacz, has said that the doctors and nurses involved should not return to their profession.

"It is in the interests of all doctors that those who are responsible for this are punished," the minister added.

Investigators are also probing the possibility that the medical staff may have also have deceived the pharmaceutical companies that commissioned the trials.

The suspects said that the all those involved knew that the trial involved an anti-H5N1 drug and willingly participated.

The news of the investigation will come as another blow to the reputation of Poland's beleaguered and poverty-stricken national health service. In 2002, a number of ambulance medics were found guilty of killing their patients for commissions from funeral companies.



And here an article from Canada that shows that research proves the flu jab causes the immune system to weaken so that you are more likely to get the disease ;


http://www.naturalnews.com/027102_vaccines_H1N1_flu_shot.html

To hear it from the vaccine makers, their vaccines are perfectly safe and have no side effects. A person can receive an unlimited number of vaccines (10, 100 or even 1000) and have absolutely no ill effects, they claim. This is the quack science mythology upon which mass vaccination policies are currently based. But new evidence is emerging that people receiving a seasonal flu shot are made more susceptible to H1N1 swine flu as a result.

CBC News in Canada is now reporting disturbing findings you need to know about: "Four Canadian studies involved about 2,000 people, health officials told CBC News. Researchers found people who had received the seasonal flu vaccine in the past were more likely to get sick with the H1N1 virus."

The story doesn't cite the percentage increase in H1N1 virus risk, but it's apparently enough to give pause to many doctors and infectious disease experts. "We don't know with this year's flu shot how it interacts with the pandemic flu shot, so it's a worry," said Dr. Michael Gardam in the CBC News article quoted below. He's the director of infectious diseases prevention and control at the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion.

The upshot of all this is that Canadian health officials are now scratching their heads, wondering whether the seasonal flu vaccines will actually make the H1N1 pandemic worse!

It's fascinating that this data is coming out of Canada, not the U.S. In the United States, the mainstream media has engaged in a virtual blackout of any information that questions the safety of vaccines, even while openly pushing outrageous lies about the swine flu vaccine (http://www.naturalnews.com/027055_s...).

Vaccines weaken your immune system

What this information reveals is further evidence that flu shots damage or weaken your immune system, making you more susceptible to subsequent infections. Flu shots don't even work to reduce your risk of getting the flu that they're targeting! Most people who get the flu are the very same people who routinely receive flu shots.

This will hold true with H1N1 swine flu as well: The people getting the swine flu virus will be primarily those who routinely receive flu vaccinations.

You know why? Because a flu shot trains your immune system to be lazy. It exposes your immune technology to an artificially weakened virus, resulting in a lazy adaptive response from your immune technology. In much the same way that your leg muscles atrophy if you stop walking, your immune system begins to weaken if you don't exercise it. And this leads to an increased risk of being unable to defend against future exposure to infectious disease, which is exactly what we're seeing with this Canadian study.

Vaccines are the quackery of modern medicine. They not only don't work to protect people from the diseases they target; they also increase the risk of being infected with other diseases. And that doesn't even include the ways in which vaccine ingredients (adjuvants or preservatives) can cause permanent damage to your nervous system.

Melanie Phillips - Britains Premier Zionist Hypocrite.

Finally Melanie Phillips reveals the truth in her own writings that contradict the lies she spouts from her foam flecked lips.


http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/5492961/ed-husain-and-me.thtml#comments


Heres what she says in this article ;

" I gave him a quick history of the Jews and their ancient relationship with the land of Israel, explaining to him the symbiotic relationship between the people, the religion and the land."


You may remember that Melanie calls the BNP 'Nazis and Racists' for daring to demand that Britain remains a predominantly Christian nation, with a British culture and that the indigenous British people remain the demographic majority in their own country.

Because we believe this Melanie calls us Nazis.

Yet when it comes to Israel, Melanie believes that Israel must remain a predominately Jewish nation with a predominant Jewish religion, a predominant Jewish culture and a country for Jews.

Yet she never calls Israel 'Nazi'.

Oh no, for Melanie Israel is the 'only democracy in the Middle East' and a bastion of the Enlightenment in the midst of Islamist barbarism.

Can there truly have been a more revolting example of utter hypocrisy in British history.

On one hand this vile woman bangs the drum for Israel and yet seeks to undermine the ONE political party in Britain, the BNP, that seeks to ensure the UK becomes a nation that acts simply to benefit its own people - and not just the odious Zionists like Phillips that control much of the British media, politics and economics.

If Britain had a British Nationalist government, as Israel has an Israeli Nationalist government, then there would have been no Iraq War and Afghanistan war.

Instead Britain was taken into this war by the Zionist Tony Blair on the orders of the Zionist George Bush, both of whom used the Zionist media from the Daily Express owned by the Zionist Richard Desmond and The Times and The Sun owned by the Zionist Rupert Murdoch to pump out the bogus war propaganda that Phillips and her ilke were paid to peddle to the masses.

There can be no greater act of whoring than the whore that serves the interest of another nation whilst being paid to betray their own.

Whilst Melanie joined in the rush for war with her Zionist masters, the British Army were led like sacrificial lambs to the Zionist slaughter.

Now melanie is still undertaking her Zionist crusade and wants a war with Iran.

My god, how cynical, manipulative and hypocritical is this vile, demented woman !

We now have the Zionist John Bercow as the speaker of the House of Parliament attacking the BNP in breach of hundreds of years of political etiquette - but hey, he is a Zionist and therefore thats okay that he is pissing on our British traditions and using the role of speaker as a tool of the Zionist elite.

No surprise there then - for as Tam Dalyel reminded us the Zionists already have a death grip on our democracy by poisoning democracy at its heart ;

http://http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2999219.stm">


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dalyell-attacks-jewish-cabal-538006.html


The next time I have the dubious pleasure of debating with Melanie and she has the temerity to attack the BNP, I will throw this quote straight back in her face.

The Zionist Pitbull Of British Politics has finally barked so loudly, it has revealed to everyone its own bullshit.

Thanks Melanie.

Muslim Taking The Piss

Thanks to Green Arrow for this excellent video of a Muslim piss taking idiot trying to rip off a Church of England school for 'racism compensation'.

Note how this idiot can barely even speak English, and yet they employed her.

Serves them right - that will teach them to lick the arse of political correctness and employ a 'token' for a job.

Watch the final section where the BBC reporter keep asking 'were you interviewed by a man without wearing a veil'.

Gotcha.

No doubt he will now be sacked / disciplined for sexism / racism / islamphobia. (Tick the box as applicable).


http://www.thegreenarrow.co.uk/index.php/extras/videos-4-u/510-moslem-teacher-gets-caught-out-on-tv

The Real New Labour Fascists

Finally a media commentator has the brains to realise where the true fascists are - in New Labour.





http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article6898174.ece


Can the recent success of the British National party be explained by the misguided immigration policy of the government? That was the killer question from the floor during the notorious episode of Question Time 10 days ago. Four times it was put to Jack Straw, the justice secretary, and four times he avoided answering it. Until that evening I had thought Straw was a fairly decent sort of bloke, for a politician. No longer. In a man so central to the new Labour project, who has served in cabinet under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, who has been home secretary and foreign secretary, evasion on such an important subject is shocking.

In his first evasion Straw waffled about Enoch Powell’s recruitment of immigrants to work for the National Health Service. But that was more than 40 years ago and, as David Dimbleby pointed out, Labour has been in power for the past 12 years and Straw should answer the question. Again he waffled irrelevantly, this time about identity.

Dimbleby challenged him for a third time: “Are you saying there is no worry about the scale of immigration in this country? Is that the point you’re making? I can’t get out what you’re saying.” Straw responded by saying that new figures show a reduction in the rate of increase in migration and added something about the new points system, all of which was offensively irrelevant.

So, for a fourth time, Dimbleby pressed him to answer the question. Again Straw failed to do so, but concluded by saying: “I don’t believe it is.”

It was a farce. As Baroness Warsi, the Muslim peer, protested: “That answer is not an honest answer.” Watching Straw’s face, I was puzzled about what he was thinking. Was he knowingly dishonest or had he somehow blinded himself to all the facts about the mass immigration of the past 10 years and its consequences?

An answer emerged the next day in a London evening newspaper. I then learnt that giving Straw the benefit of this doubt had been naive: the explanation is much more sinister. In an astonishingly insouciant article Andrew Neather — a former adviser to Straw, Blair and David Blunkett — revealed that Labour ministers had a hidden agenda in allowing immigrants to flood into the country.

According to Neather, who was present at secret meetings during the summer of 2000, the government had “a driving political purpose” which was: “mass immigration was the way that the government was going to make the UK truly multicultural”.

What’s more, Neather said he came away “from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended — even if this wasn’t its main purpose — to rub the right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date”.

Ministers longed for an immigration boom but wouldn’t talk about it, he wrote. “They probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn’t necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men’s clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.”

The revelations get worse. “There was a reluctance ... in government,” he wrote, “to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour’s core white working-class vote.” The social outcomes that ministers cared about were those affecting the immigrants. This, Neather explains, shone out in a report published in 2001 after these confidential deliberations.

One must question whether this is true. Needless to say, Straw has denied all this and Neather has since tried to back-pedal. But I believe he meant what he said the first time, precisely because of where he was coming from as a true supporter of immigration, urging Brown to be more open about its great benefits. His were not the words of someone fearful of immigration or angry at the government’s open-door policy: Neather is the personification of the toxic supporter. As for Straw’s credibility, he lost it on Question Time.

Accepting Neather’s allegations, it is hard to decide which is the worst of these crimes against morality and democracy. To frame a radical social policy, with wide-reaching consequences, just to embarrass and marginalise the opposition party, is grotesquely immature and irresponsible; it is the behaviour of spiteful children mucking about with our destinies just to settle imaginary scores. That’s pretty bad, but it is just as bad for the Labour party to abandon and hoodwink its traditional supporters — the core white working-class vote, those on whose shoulders the Labour party was built — and to ignore their wishes and “social outcomes” in favour of a mass of strangers.

It is little wonder that sensing this abandonment, which we now know was deliberate, many white working-class Labour voters are tempted towards a party that does acknowledge their grievances. Knowingly to impose a transformative policy without truthfulness on the government’s side or informed consent on the people’s side was simple fascism — and to do so with silly propaganda about multiculturalism and unjust sneers about racism has made these injustices only more bitter.

Under these circumstances, Labour’s obvious gerrymandering by mass immigration — black and ethnic minority people are very likely to vote Labour — is perhaps the least of its crimes.

To accuse Labour of failures and worse in its immigration policy is not to exonerate the Conservatives. They have failed again and again to confront the real problems of immigration. They are to blame for abandoning the policy of counting everyone out of the country as well as in, which they did on grounds of cost in 1994. Of course it was expensive, particularly before the arrival of time-saving technology. But it is obvious that if you abandon any attempt to know whether a visitor has left, according to the rules of immigration, then you have given up control of your borders and what would also be a useful security measure.

That policy could and should be reinstated, as should the rule to crack down on marriages arranged to get British nationality; that is a clear abuse that could be restrained by bringing back the primary purpose rule, which Labour abandoned on coming to power.

There are lots of such practical things that could be done to ensure immigration is controlled in future. But the first thing to do is to expose the patronising lies, the seigneurial arrogance and the criminally foolish social engineering of the Blair-Brown regime; it does not deserve the name of Labour government.

The Great Betrayal Confession

Here it is - the confession of the New Labour conspiracy on immigration.

Keep it and download it.

Remember it - as one day these traitors will pay.




http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers---london-needs-immigrants.do



Don't listen to the whingers - London needs immigrants
Andrew Neather Andrew Neather
23.10.09
Sponsored links
Ads by Google

Migrate to Australia

Free Online Assessment Professional, Friendly & Efficient

www.Thamesmigration.com

Immigration lawyers

Our lawyers can provide you with legal help and advice. London.

www.vincentbuffoni.co.uk

Migrate to Australia

Specialists: UK Applicants Free Initial Assessment & Advice

www.australianmigrations.com.au

Amid the sound and fury over Nick Griffin, there's a sad but unnoticed fact: it has taken this fiasco to make politicians talk about the impact of immigration.

Yesterday MPs Frank Field and Nicholas Soames called for a 75 per cent cut in immigration and accused the Government of "clamping down" on any debate.

What's missing is not only a sense of the benefits of immigration but also of where it came from.

It didn't just happen: the deliberate policy of ministers from late 2000 until at least February last year, when the Government introduced a points-based system, was to open up the UK to mass migration.

Even now, most graduates with good English and a salary of £40,000 or the local equivalent abroad are more or less guaranteed enough points to settle here.

The results in London, and especially for middle-class Londoners, have been highly positive. It's not simply a question of foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners - although frankly it's hard to see how the capital could function without them.

Their place certainly wouldn't be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.

My family's east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.

But this wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London's attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.

It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it's pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.

Field and Soames complain about schools where English is not the first language for many pupils.

But in my children's south London primary school, the international influence is primarily the large numbers of (mostly middle-class) bilingual children, usually with one parent married to a Brit.

My children have half- or wholly Spanish, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Croatian, Bulgarian, Congolese, Chinese and Turkish classmates.

London's role as a magnet for immigration busted wide open the stale 1990s clichés about multiculturalism: it's a question of genuine diversity now, not just tacking a few Afro-Caribbean and Bengali events on to a white British mainstream. It's one of the reasons Paris now tends to look parochial to us.

So why is it that ministers have been so very bad at communicating this? I wonder because I wrote the landmark speech given by then immigration minister Barbara Roche in September 2000, calling for a loosening of controls. It marked a major shift from the policy of previous governments: from 1971 onwards, only foreigners joining relatives already in the UK had been permitted to settle here.

That speech was based largely on a report by the Performance and Innovation Unit, Tony Blair's Cabinet Office think-tank.

The PIU's reports were legendarily tedious within Whitehall but their big immigration report was surrounded by an unusual air of both anticipation and secrecy.

Drafts were handed out in summer 2000 only with extreme reluctance: there was a paranoia about it reaching the media.

Eventually published in January 2001, the innocuously labelled "RDS Occasional Paper no. 67", "Migration: an economic and social analysis" focused heavily on the labour market case.

But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date. That seemed to me to be a manoeuvre too far.

Ministers were very nervous about the whole thing. For despite Roche's keenness to make her big speech and to be upfront, there was a reluctance elsewhere in government to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all for Labour's core white working-class vote.

This shone through even in the published report: the "social outcomes" it talks about are solely those for immigrants.

And this first-term immigration policy got no mention among the platitudes on the subject in Labour's 1997 manifesto, headed Faster, Firmer, Fairer.

The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000; last year, with immigration falling thanks to the recession, it was 148,000.

In addition, hundreds of thousands of migrants have come from the new EU member states since 2004, most requiring neither visas nor permission to work or settle. The UK welcomed an estimated net 1.5 million immigrants in the decade to 2008.

Part by accident, part by design, the Government had created its longed-for immigration boom.

But ministers wouldn't talk about it. In part they probably realised the conservatism of their core voters: while ministers might have been passionately in favour of a more diverse society, it wasn't necessarily a debate they wanted to have in working men's clubs in Sheffield or Sunderland.

In part, too, it would have been just too metropolitan an argument to make in such places: London was the real model. Roche was unusual in that she was a London MP, herself of east European Jewish stock.

But Labour ministers elsewhere tend studiously to avoid ever mentioning London. Meanwhile, the capital's capacity to absorb new immigrants depends in large part on its economic vitality and variety. There's not a lot of that in, say, south Yorkshire. And so ministers lost their nerve.

I hope it's not too late now, post-Question Time, for London to make the case for migration.

Of course we're too small a country to afford an open door - but, by the same token, if the immigrants dry up, this city and this country will become a much poorer and less interesting place. Why is it so hard for Gordon Brown to say that?