As has been noted above, that’s a really really strange choice of picture. It looks incredibly aggressive and is in considerable poor taste considering the public concern about knife crime.
“Haha what a great front page, it ticks all the boxes on why the Express will be soon going out of business.”
Sorry to diappoint you, Matt but this great newspaper is going from strength to strength and will be around long after you have been forgotten. It is the only paper I know that I can trust to tell the truth and puts the likes of the Guardian and Independent to shame.
Hurrah for the immegrants. Admittedly, now that we’re letting in a load of elderly immegrants who want to make use of the NHS we’ll probably want some og the younger tax paying immegrants as well so they can be looked after properly.
‘Express Reader’ is being sarcastic surely? The alternative is too grim to contemplate!
Looking forward to next weeks ‘Two years without Maddy’ special issue of ‘OK’. Perhaps I should reserve a copy and avoid the risk of being disappointed……………..
Got to say this is possibly the only issue I agree with the Express on.
When we’re allowing hate preachers on benefits to stay, and allowing thousands of angry, young, illiterate south asians in every year who largely despise our culture through scam arranged marriages, it absolutely shocks me that we do everything we can to prevent a group of people gaining residency who have done nothing but sacrifice for the country and are known for being extremely hard working and tolerant.
On a side note, is it just me or have the comments gone to shit lately? I remember when it used to be insightful debate about the headlines, but recently it just seems to have devolved into a daily bunch of cheap sarcasm and LOLs.
…just to clarify too, I’m not anti-immigration, just don’t see why we open our doors through cheap loopholes like arranged marriages to people who hate us, then disallow a demographic who love us even after they’ve fought and died for us.
“this great newspaper is going from strength to strength”
But…
Figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in December 2008 showed gross sales of 728,296 for the Daily Express. By comparison, it was selling more than 2 million copies a day in 1983, so its sales have reduced by roughly 60% over the same period.
Doesn’t sound like it’s going from strength to strength to me. HTH!!
“…just to clarify too, I’m not anti-immigration, just don’t see why we open our doors through cheap loopholes like arranged marriages to people who hate us…”
Not anti-immigration, just anti-asian?
I kid, I kid, but not all arranged marriages are done while standing on the British flag reciting Al-Qaeda inspired poetry before a dinner over which light conversation about infidels takes place.
I’ve been to three, and the third one wasn’t like that at all!!
Oh yeah, the headline. I agree with them on the Ghurka thing. But, as per usual, the front page has been formatted by a toddler with a spray gun.
The Daily Express seems to hate everything about Britain today themselves, you’d think they’d have a lot in common with these ‘angry, illiterate south Asians’!
Nah, not anti-Asian, just anti-extreme Muslim, anti-immigration loophole abusers, and anti-uneducated immigrants, most of which come from Pakistan.
If I was a racist, I’d condemn Indian immigration too (as until the act of partition, Pakistan was part of India, meaning they’re both the same race of people) yet I think the Indian community have made an absolutely amazing contribution to society.
My issue is why on Earth we’re inviting huge numbers of people from backwards, tribal areas that are violently opposed to our culture and ideals and have very little to contribute in return under the acknowledged sham of arranged marriage (which is simply a cover for a financial transaction and a life of misery for the bride)
If I was anti-Muslim, I’d attack North African and Arab immigration too (I’m not) If I was a racist I’d attack Indian and Bangladeshi immigration too (I’m not)
There’s a danger here where political correctness prevents the discussion of real world issues, and even though it sounds very BNP-ish to state it (and that couldn’t be further from my politics), it’s the truth that we have a huge issue with Pakistani immigrants failing to (and having no desire to) integrate and effectively ghettoising themselves by choice, especially in the North.
Why we make Ghurkas crawl through broken glass to get a passport, yet have effectively an open door policy towards tribal attitude Pakistanis by virtue of their medieval marriages is absolutely beyond me.
…by the way, I’m not attacking Pakistanis as a people, culture or race, just a large segment of Pakistani immigrants to the UK who mainly come from the backwards tribal areas which is not representative of Pakistani society or culture as a whole.
It’s like the Brits in Spain. Would you say the huge amounts of drunken, chavvy, racist, fat, lobster-skinned, right-wingers were representative of Britain? Not at all. Is it fair game to criticise them as a sub-demographic without being a racist? Absolutely.
In both cases neither popular image is at all representative of their parent group, or even their own sub-group as a whole, but it is a fair picture generally of a majority, and a valid topic of criticism.
@Steven having read the last two, I agree that the comments here have gone to shit. I remember when we used to make insightful comments about news values, these days it’s just all cheap tabloid-fueled racism.
And yes, yes you are. Accept this and change your behavior, not the definition of racism.
Foreign black people in an anti-ZaNuLabour cause, the only sort the DE can really really get behind.
Throw in years of service in the British Army and they’re practically soiling themselves to use them for a bash at this Gov.
Nevermind that their tory heros did f*ck all for them and that it’s actually this Lab Gov who moved to change the rules from the date they came to power (1997).
@ Steven:
I genuinely wonder how “ghettoized” British society was in the past. People tend to have a rose-tinted view of British society in the late nineteenth and first-half-of-the-twentieth century. Surely there has always been an underclass that fails to ‘fit in’. How dangerous a place was it? Have things changed? I have no idea.
Dai – That attitude is just as bad as that of the Mail, albiet just at a different end of the political spectrum. My comments are not attacking races of people, but self-marginalised communities, which is exactly the same as attacking Brits in Spain (which I do too) but I don’t see you getting on a moralistic high horse there when people do, because it doesn’t fit into a comfortable left-wing biased perspective to do so maybe?
I do a lot of work in communities and near me is Burnley where we had race riots a few years ago, and to not address the problem that it’s a specific demographic of people who are not fitting in and slamming any debate about it by accusations of racism because it’s fashionable to do so is adding to the problem, not helping it. The fact is there are not anywhere near the same issues with Chinese, Black or Indian immigrants that there are with Pakistani immigrants, that’s a fact, not racism, or did I miss the Han Chinese 7/7 bomber? Or the Hindu race riots?
Pole – I agree that society has always been ghettoised to some degree or another, my view isn’t being rose tinted. In fact I’d argue the largest community to ghettoise themselves is the past and present are sections of the extremely poor white community. The only difference is as they’re born here we have to prevent it by other means. With immigration from poor, uneducated tribalistic areas who’s values are diametrically opposed to ours, we can stop it at the source.
I have no issues with immigration at all, I believe all the Ghurkas (and in fact the entirety of Hong Kong after 1997, and the inhabitants of Monserrat and Diego Garcia) should have been given the option of residency without clauses. And that the Indian community is one of the most successful communities to contribute to the nation, so am not racist as they are the same race as Pakistanis.
What differentiates Pakistani immigrants coming in via arranged marriage from the rest is a lack of education, tribal attitudes and religious extremism. All of those are cultural traits, not genetic, so therefore simply a series of idea that are as open to criticise and attack as Nazism and Communism are without moral-equivalists bandying around ‘-isms’ as attacks for anyone who tries to have a genuine debate about a genuine problem.
In the race riots in Burnley, the backwards white community was equally to blame as the backwards Pakistani community, the only difference is we’re stuck with the white idiots as they’re born citizens, but we can prevent the Pakistani idiots arriving. That’s not racism, and if you can’t see it, then it’s your failing not mine Dai.
When I liven in London I had a few Pakistani friends who were students who were great, tolerant, liberal guys, and even they expressed their despair about the Pakistani community on Britain, as outside the London (where they’re mainly from the urbane cities) the communities in the North largely originate from the northern tribal areas who are hated by Pakistanis themselves in their own country, and they’re the ones we’re inviting in huge numbers every year through arranged marriages.
If you’ve even once made a derogatory comment about ‘ex-pats’ then you’re a hypocrite to claim my position is racist without therefore being one yourself. Pakistanis in Britain are no different than Brits in Spain.
…sorry, meant to write “citizenship without clauses” not residency, which is of course a different thing and may make me seem all racist again!
If there were contemporary white communities with values totally opposed to ours who were regularly emigrating here (like apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia), I’d attack allowing them entrance too. There’s plenty of other tribalist communities who try to enter in numbers, but only the Pakistanis succeed in large numbers because we tolerate the scam and general abhorrence that is arranged marriage because we’re scared of being accused of racism (yet are happy to condemn some poor girl to a lifetime of misery as a casualty to make us feel all smug and liberal about ourselves)
I see your point Steven, and I do not think it is racist.
However, It seems to me the government cannot legislate against immigrants based on their social class or religious beliefs, no matter how extreme or otherwise. Is there any precedent for allowing mass immigration but rejecting many on the basis of seeking to protect British culture? Should a mass immigration policy discriminate? Shouldn’t it allow for freedom of belief/lifestyle no matter how repugnant it may be to the British population? Of course people would prefer immigrants who are keen to integrate, but is it right for there to be any law or government policy that discriminates?
The thing is though, we have a very firm immigration structure in principle, but it’s riddled with holes. If you have skills, or education or are from the EU (so generally from a non-clashing culture) you get a free pass, as it should be. Elsewhere though, it becomes extremely difficult (and here’s where the problem is) UNLESS you get married, then it’s free pass time again.
My issue with Pakistani immigrants is that they’re the largest community that practices arranged marriages and it’s used en-masse as a strategy to bring impoverished and un-educated villagers across, usually in response to a financial transaction, and in terms of integrating with Western culture, these are some of the most undesirable people you can have coming in (North Pakistan being the world’s epicentre of the worst anti-Western sentiment and the base of the Afghan Taleban and Al-Qaeda)
You get footballers from Brazil that are already millionaires refused work permits for the Premiership (like they’re going to scam benefits?) and Ghurkas refused despite fighting and dying for Britain and families who’ve been here for 10 years being deported for slight visa issues simply because their cases do not meet our incredibly strict immigration criteria, yet if you culture allows arranged marriage, you can essentially buy your way into the country legitimately by purchasing someone’s daughter,
I’m not saying we should discriminate, and I’m not coming from a position of trying to protect ‘cultural purity’ or some other notion, which I think is racist. It’s not different cultures I have an issue with, but intrinsically incompatible cultures. If you’re from an upbringing where you believe fervently that women are your property and homosexuals should be killed, then I’m not discriminating against the immigrant, but preventing them from discriminating against people already here.
Citizenship should be an earned privledge, not a right, and if they hate the beliefs and lifestyles of the people already here and have nothing to contribute economically, then I’d argue we have no moral obligation to allow them in in the first place. I concentrate on immigrants from rural Pakistan as they essentially have an open door policy to come here, yet if you listen to any government or intelligence agency around, they all say that north Pakistan is basically responsibly for exporting violent anti-western activism worldwide.
There’s no less suitable people to be allowed to settle here and yet there’s no other demographic outside the EU who have an easier time getting here, and as the citizenship isn’t even tied to having work, there’s not even a requirement to speak English whereas the recent waves of Polish immigrants all needed it to find and sustain work, meaning they integrated flawlessly, yet still kept their own culture without any issues.
It is certainly a very worthwhile debate since views on immigration tend towards one’s views on SUITABILITY of the immigrants involved — and suitability is a very unmeasurable aspect of anyone’s personality; thus it is difficult to assess the rights and wrongs of who is let in to Britain. It is interesting as there is no obvious right and wrong, and it is an emotive subject.
As you may have guessed, I am pretty ignorant of the government’s policy to immigration. (That’s POLICY in WRITING and LAW, not whatever the press PRESENTS as government policy.)
For what it is worth, I spent two weeks in Kashmir (which ain’t northern Pakistan, but I assume is not a million miles away culturally or literally) and there seemed, in my personal experience, to be an antiquated marital system in which the wife generally must obey the husband and presumably (or not) suffer.
Maybe the government already takes into consideration the “desirability” of prospective immigrants. If so, I find it hard to accept that any government can be so prejudiced, even if there are (many) individuals I might myself find undesirable.
Steve what you are essentually asking is that people of certain beliefs and religions should not be allowed into Britain. How on earth would such a system be enforced? They can hardly ask “are you an extreme muslim” or “do you intend to become a suicide bomber” now can they? The only alternative is to declare that Pakistanis for example should not be allowed in. This is obviously racist, as it ignores the vast majority of peaceful ones. How would you propose to stop people who “hate britain” coming in in the first place?
Knife crime is getting out of hand!
Feck me it’s a Crusade!
White blonde woman, the acceptable face of the Ghurkas.
Joanna Lumley wielding a big knife with a vicious grin. There’ll be some frantic wanking in Middle England today…
What a good idea, let’s glorify knives.
What disturbs me more is the freakish length of Joanna Lumley’s arm. Has she recently passed through a cloud of cosmic radiation?
Haha what a great front page, it ticks all the boxes on why the Express will be soon going out of business.
As has been noted above, that’s a really really strange choice of picture. It looks incredibly aggressive and is in considerable poor taste considering the public concern about knife crime.
Bull. When has the Express ever given a shit about foreigners?
Gah thats scary pictre.
Plus ‘Quarantine’. You mean they are staying at home with a cup of chicken soup and some daytime tv
Glad to see swine flu, which is taking the lives of trillions every 3 seconds, has been relegated in favour of bashing the government.
“Haha what a great front page, it ticks all the boxes on why the Express will be soon going out of business.”
Sorry to diappoint you, Matt but this great newspaper is going from strength to strength and will be around long after you have been forgotten. It is the only paper I know that I can trust to tell the truth and puts the likes of the Guardian and Independent to shame.
Hurrah for the immegrants. Admittedly, now that we’re letting in a load of elderly immegrants who want to make use of the NHS we’ll probably want some og the younger tax paying immegrants as well so they can be looked after properly.
‘Express Reader’ is being sarcastic surely? The alternative is too grim to contemplate!
Looking forward to next weeks ‘Two years without Maddy’ special issue of ‘OK’. Perhaps I should reserve a copy and avoid the risk of being disappointed……………..
Oh god. Maddie 2nd anniversary. The papers won’t be able to control themselves. ‘Has Maddie got Swine Flu?’ Front page.
Got to say this is possibly the only issue I agree with the Express on.
When we’re allowing hate preachers on benefits to stay, and allowing thousands of angry, young, illiterate south asians in every year who largely despise our culture through scam arranged marriages, it absolutely shocks me that we do everything we can to prevent a group of people gaining residency who have done nothing but sacrifice for the country and are known for being extremely hard working and tolerant.
On a side note, is it just me or have the comments gone to shit lately? I remember when it used to be insightful debate about the headlines, but recently it just seems to have devolved into a daily bunch of cheap sarcasm and LOLs.
…just to clarify too, I’m not anti-immigration, just don’t see why we open our doors through cheap loopholes like arranged marriages to people who hate us, then disallow a demographic who love us even after they’ve fought and died for us.
Insane!
@ Express Reader:
“It is the only paper I know that I can trust to tell the truth”
You should get to know more than one paper!
@ Express Reader (again, sorry)
“this great newspaper is going from strength to strength”
But…
Figures according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations in December 2008 showed gross sales of 728,296 for the Daily Express. By comparison, it was selling more than 2 million copies a day in 1983, so its sales have reduced by roughly 60% over the same period.
Doesn’t sound like it’s going from strength to strength to me. HTH!!
“…just to clarify too, I’m not anti-immigration, just don’t see why we open our doors through cheap loopholes like arranged marriages to people who hate us…”
Not anti-immigration, just anti-asian?
I kid, I kid, but not all arranged marriages are done while standing on the British flag reciting Al-Qaeda inspired poetry before a dinner over which light conversation about infidels takes place.
I’ve been to three, and the third one wasn’t like that at all!!
Oh yeah, the headline. I agree with them on the Ghurka thing. But, as per usual, the front page has been formatted by a toddler with a spray gun.
The Daily Express seems to hate everything about Britain today themselves, you’d think they’d have a lot in common with these ‘angry, illiterate south Asians’!
Nah, not anti-Asian, just anti-extreme Muslim, anti-immigration loophole abusers, and anti-uneducated immigrants, most of which come from Pakistan.
If I was a racist, I’d condemn Indian immigration too (as until the act of partition, Pakistan was part of India, meaning they’re both the same race of people) yet I think the Indian community have made an absolutely amazing contribution to society.
My issue is why on Earth we’re inviting huge numbers of people from backwards, tribal areas that are violently opposed to our culture and ideals and have very little to contribute in return under the acknowledged sham of arranged marriage (which is simply a cover for a financial transaction and a life of misery for the bride)
If I was anti-Muslim, I’d attack North African and Arab immigration too (I’m not) If I was a racist I’d attack Indian and Bangladeshi immigration too (I’m not)
There’s a danger here where political correctness prevents the discussion of real world issues, and even though it sounds very BNP-ish to state it (and that couldn’t be further from my politics), it’s the truth that we have a huge issue with Pakistani immigrants failing to (and having no desire to) integrate and effectively ghettoising themselves by choice, especially in the North.
Why we make Ghurkas crawl through broken glass to get a passport, yet have effectively an open door policy towards tribal attitude Pakistanis by virtue of their medieval marriages is absolutely beyond me.
…by the way, I’m not attacking Pakistanis as a people, culture or race, just a large segment of Pakistani immigrants to the UK who mainly come from the backwards tribal areas which is not representative of Pakistani society or culture as a whole.
It’s like the Brits in Spain. Would you say the huge amounts of drunken, chavvy, racist, fat, lobster-skinned, right-wingers were representative of Britain? Not at all. Is it fair game to criticise them as a sub-demographic without being a racist? Absolutely.
In both cases neither popular image is at all representative of their parent group, or even their own sub-group as a whole, but it is a fair picture generally of a majority, and a valid topic of criticism.
@Steven having read the last two, I agree that the comments here have gone to shit. I remember when we used to make insightful comments about news values, these days it’s just all cheap tabloid-fueled racism.
And yes, yes you are. Accept this and change your behavior, not the definition of racism.
Not one mention of Asian Babes!
How deeply depressing that over 700,000 people still buy this garbage on a regular basis.
Foreign black people in an anti-ZaNuLabour cause, the only sort the DE can really really get behind.
Throw in years of service in the British Army and they’re practically soiling themselves to use them for a bash at this Gov.
Nevermind that their tory heros did f*ck all for them and that it’s actually this Lab Gov who moved to change the rules from the date they came to power (1997).
@ Steven:
I genuinely wonder how “ghettoized” British society was in the past. People tend to have a rose-tinted view of British society in the late nineteenth and first-half-of-the-twentieth century. Surely there has always been an underclass that fails to ‘fit in’. How dangerous a place was it? Have things changed? I have no idea.
Dai – That attitude is just as bad as that of the Mail, albiet just at a different end of the political spectrum. My comments are not attacking races of people, but self-marginalised communities, which is exactly the same as attacking Brits in Spain (which I do too) but I don’t see you getting on a moralistic high horse there when people do, because it doesn’t fit into a comfortable left-wing biased perspective to do so maybe?
I do a lot of work in communities and near me is Burnley where we had race riots a few years ago, and to not address the problem that it’s a specific demographic of people who are not fitting in and slamming any debate about it by accusations of racism because it’s fashionable to do so is adding to the problem, not helping it. The fact is there are not anywhere near the same issues with Chinese, Black or Indian immigrants that there are with Pakistani immigrants, that’s a fact, not racism, or did I miss the Han Chinese 7/7 bomber? Or the Hindu race riots?
Pole – I agree that society has always been ghettoised to some degree or another, my view isn’t being rose tinted. In fact I’d argue the largest community to ghettoise themselves is the past and present are sections of the extremely poor white community. The only difference is as they’re born here we have to prevent it by other means. With immigration from poor, uneducated tribalistic areas who’s values are diametrically opposed to ours, we can stop it at the source.
I have no issues with immigration at all, I believe all the Ghurkas (and in fact the entirety of Hong Kong after 1997, and the inhabitants of Monserrat and Diego Garcia) should have been given the option of residency without clauses. And that the Indian community is one of the most successful communities to contribute to the nation, so am not racist as they are the same race as Pakistanis.
What differentiates Pakistani immigrants coming in via arranged marriage from the rest is a lack of education, tribal attitudes and religious extremism. All of those are cultural traits, not genetic, so therefore simply a series of idea that are as open to criticise and attack as Nazism and Communism are without moral-equivalists bandying around ‘-isms’ as attacks for anyone who tries to have a genuine debate about a genuine problem.
In the race riots in Burnley, the backwards white community was equally to blame as the backwards Pakistani community, the only difference is we’re stuck with the white idiots as they’re born citizens, but we can prevent the Pakistani idiots arriving. That’s not racism, and if you can’t see it, then it’s your failing not mine Dai.
When I liven in London I had a few Pakistani friends who were students who were great, tolerant, liberal guys, and even they expressed their despair about the Pakistani community on Britain, as outside the London (where they’re mainly from the urbane cities) the communities in the North largely originate from the northern tribal areas who are hated by Pakistanis themselves in their own country, and they’re the ones we’re inviting in huge numbers every year through arranged marriages.
If you’ve even once made a derogatory comment about ‘ex-pats’ then you’re a hypocrite to claim my position is racist without therefore being one yourself. Pakistanis in Britain are no different than Brits in Spain.
(apologies for the wall of text)
…sorry, meant to write “citizenship without clauses” not residency, which is of course a different thing and may make me seem all racist again!
If there were contemporary white communities with values totally opposed to ours who were regularly emigrating here (like apartheid-era South Africa and Rhodesia), I’d attack allowing them entrance too. There’s plenty of other tribalist communities who try to enter in numbers, but only the Pakistanis succeed in large numbers because we tolerate the scam and general abhorrence that is arranged marriage because we’re scared of being accused of racism (yet are happy to condemn some poor girl to a lifetime of misery as a casualty to make us feel all smug and liberal about ourselves)
I see your point Steven, and I do not think it is racist.
However, It seems to me the government cannot legislate against immigrants based on their social class or religious beliefs, no matter how extreme or otherwise. Is there any precedent for allowing mass immigration but rejecting many on the basis of seeking to protect British culture? Should a mass immigration policy discriminate? Shouldn’t it allow for freedom of belief/lifestyle no matter how repugnant it may be to the British population? Of course people would prefer immigrants who are keen to integrate, but is it right for there to be any law or government policy that discriminates?
The thing is though, we have a very firm immigration structure in principle, but it’s riddled with holes. If you have skills, or education or are from the EU (so generally from a non-clashing culture) you get a free pass, as it should be. Elsewhere though, it becomes extremely difficult (and here’s where the problem is) UNLESS you get married, then it’s free pass time again.
My issue with Pakistani immigrants is that they’re the largest community that practices arranged marriages and it’s used en-masse as a strategy to bring impoverished and un-educated villagers across, usually in response to a financial transaction, and in terms of integrating with Western culture, these are some of the most undesirable people you can have coming in (North Pakistan being the world’s epicentre of the worst anti-Western sentiment and the base of the Afghan Taleban and Al-Qaeda)
You get footballers from Brazil that are already millionaires refused work permits for the Premiership (like they’re going to scam benefits?) and Ghurkas refused despite fighting and dying for Britain and families who’ve been here for 10 years being deported for slight visa issues simply because their cases do not meet our incredibly strict immigration criteria, yet if you culture allows arranged marriage, you can essentially buy your way into the country legitimately by purchasing someone’s daughter,
I’m not saying we should discriminate, and I’m not coming from a position of trying to protect ‘cultural purity’ or some other notion, which I think is racist. It’s not different cultures I have an issue with, but intrinsically incompatible cultures. If you’re from an upbringing where you believe fervently that women are your property and homosexuals should be killed, then I’m not discriminating against the immigrant, but preventing them from discriminating against people already here.
Citizenship should be an earned privledge, not a right, and if they hate the beliefs and lifestyles of the people already here and have nothing to contribute economically, then I’d argue we have no moral obligation to allow them in in the first place. I concentrate on immigrants from rural Pakistan as they essentially have an open door policy to come here, yet if you listen to any government or intelligence agency around, they all say that north Pakistan is basically responsibly for exporting violent anti-western activism worldwide.
There’s no less suitable people to be allowed to settle here and yet there’s no other demographic outside the EU who have an easier time getting here, and as the citizenship isn’t even tied to having work, there’s not even a requirement to speak English whereas the recent waves of Polish immigrants all needed it to find and sustain work, meaning they integrated flawlessly, yet still kept their own culture without any issues.
It is certainly a very worthwhile debate since views on immigration tend towards one’s views on SUITABILITY of the immigrants involved — and suitability is a very unmeasurable aspect of anyone’s personality; thus it is difficult to assess the rights and wrongs of who is let in to Britain. It is interesting as there is no obvious right and wrong, and it is an emotive subject.
As you may have guessed, I am pretty ignorant of the government’s policy to immigration. (That’s POLICY in WRITING and LAW, not whatever the press PRESENTS as government policy.)
For what it is worth, I spent two weeks in Kashmir (which ain’t northern Pakistan, but I assume is not a million miles away culturally or literally) and there seemed, in my personal experience, to be an antiquated marital system in which the wife generally must obey the husband and presumably (or not) suffer.
Maybe the government already takes into consideration the “desirability” of prospective immigrants. If so, I find it hard to accept that any government can be so prejudiced, even if there are (many) individuals I might myself find undesirable.
Steve what you are essentually asking is that people of certain beliefs and religions should not be allowed into Britain. How on earth would such a system be enforced? They can hardly ask “are you an extreme muslim” or “do you intend to become a suicide bomber” now can they? The only alternative is to declare that Pakistanis for example should not be allowed in. This is obviously racist, as it ignores the vast majority of peaceful ones. How would you propose to stop people who “hate britain” coming in in the first place?
And that is definatly the strangest photo I have ever seen!
Joanna Lumley: Zombie Killer.
- express reader.
OBVIOUS TROLL IS OBVIOUS
jeeeze, how has no-one said this yet?