Illegal immigrants and ‘modern day slavery’

 

It’s the ‘day after’ but it is forgivable that there are no election results on the MSM front pages: counting was still ongoing when the papers had to go to the printers. However, ‘staff’ at Auntie Beeb were exceedingly sly and manipulative when penning their headline for this morning’s collection of MSM printed front pages. Remember that most people only scan the headlines on their smartphones but don’t read the whole article.

So was I wrong when I saw this: “Newspaper headlines: ‘Obscene’ energy profits and King still ‘relaxed’” (link) and thought that the King was relaxed about ‘obscene energy profits’? Isn’t this the insinuation wanted by the anti-monarchist Beeb? Isn’t this the effect they want to elicit in the brains of the non-thinking smartphone-holding masses, inducing them to demand an end to the monarchy? Isn’t this precisely the effect the string-pullers want, in order to present their beloved ‘polling results’ showing ‘people want a republic’?

Don’t make the mistake and believe that there are no ill-effects induced by such sly insinuations. Usually they’re especially effective when people haven’t got a clue of what they’re actually talking about. They are utilised by those who wish to profit from a situation, with hair-raising results.

For example, last evening The Times published a report under this extraordinary headline: “Most Channel migrants facing deportation claim to be slavery victims” (link, paywalled). For some readers, this is excellent clickbait. Others will nod wisely and support the Lefty drive to take in all who come. If, reading yon headline, you associated ‘slavery’ with ‘reparations’ and all the rest, you’d be excused, because, thanks to incessant images in the MSM, we associate ‘refugees’ and especially the Channel crossing variety with Sub-Saharan people. So now read this (all emphases are mine):

Albanians continue to be the largest group of people reported to the Home Office’s national referral mechanism for assessing claims of modern slavery. They accounted for 1,452 of all potential victims, 31 per cent of the total. Britons were the second most common, followed by Sudanese. […] Government sources attributed the overall rise in claims to a significant increase in those made by small boat migrants. They said the migrants, mainly Albanian, were lodging the claims to avoid deportation. Anyone who claims to be a victim of modern slavery must have their case assessed before they are removed, with an average of 566 days taken from referral to a “conclusive grounds” decision.” (link, paywalled)

Instead of an outcry about ‘modern day labour gang bosses’ exploiting their workers – the clue is in ‘Britons … complaining’ –  Remain Central has slyly twisted this report which in fact ought to have been about the Illegal Immigration Bill:

“The Illegal Migration Bill aims to prevent migrants who enter illegally from claiming protection under modern slavery laws. Theresa May, the former prime minister, is attempting to block the measure, arguing that it will “shut the door” to victims of modern slavery and has urged the government to exempt victims.” (link, paywalled)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t this outcry about modern slavery apply in the first instance to those who are already here? I now expect the future lot of dinghy drivers to claim they’ve also been subject to modern slavery and that’s why they fled. After all, the various ‘refugee’ organisations and the people traffickers will certainly instruct them to do so.

No question that the whole disgusting scandal of illegal immigration has become a playball for virtue-signallers, ‘human rights’ lawyers, lefty politicians and HO mandarins who wish to get rid of any Minister trying to get to grips with this issue. Obviously none of those are sparing a thought for us taxpayers who are paying for this while there’s no money left for anything else.

Just think how wonderful our glorious Sacred Cow could be if the money spent on illegal migrants were spent on the NHS!this country’s infrastructure crumbles. Equally obviously, Labour is extremely relaxed about this, not least because their erstwhile PMs, both Blair and Brown, kicked off this flood for political gain. 

I leave you with ‘news’ from yesterday’s elections. It was ‘a dark day for British democracy’, wails the DT because voter ID was demanded:

“The local elections have marked a “dark day for British democracy”, campaigners have said as the Electoral Commission acknowledged some people were “regrettably” unable to cast their ballot as a result of the voter ID requirement.” (paywalled link)

There’s more, and you won’t be surprised when you see who the moaners are:

“The change was piloted regionally before the national roll-out for Thursday’s elections and it will come into force for UK general elections from October. The policy is opposed by Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party whereas the Government argues the change is required to reduce electoral fraud.” (paywalled link)

However, I wailed silently (mustn’t upset the resident collie!) when I read that the Electoral Commission “was given £5.6 million to carry out a public awareness campaign,” (link, paywalled) – what the fluff? Let’s forget that this was a ‘pilot scheme’ run in a few constituencies only. Let’s not quibble that ElCom doesn’t have any numbers, and let’s not ask how successfully they spent the £5.6m of our money when people were turned away!

I am incensed by the outcry about a ‘dark day for British democracy’, as if preventing electoral fraud is unheard of here in the UK. I also wonder why the LibLabGreen leaders reject this scheme – shouldn’t it help with their aim to get more and more people to use postal voting which is far more open to fraud, something even the Westminster MSM have documented for years? 

Above all, let’s not ask why we peasants have to ‘document’ our existence to the government in all its forms! It is funny though that the same lot who want digital ID, who was happy with those smartphone Q Codes as ‘proof’ for compliance during he covid years, are now weeping about a photo ID demanded when voting. Shouldn’t they support this scheme to the hilt? 

That’s all I have for today. Why should we trust the Westminster ‘rulers’ in anything when they so obviously don’t trust us? Moreover, aren’t those ID ‘demands’, digital or not, akin to chains, making us into the modern day ‘digital’ slaves of yon Westminster ‘rulers’? Have a good day.