Look at this reasonably: I have no real objection to immigration and I'm not a BNP supporter or little Englander. I think that a "reasonable" influx of foreign immigrants is a good thing.
My objection lies in the fact that the Government doesn't simply aim to allow a healthy level of immigration. The Government's aim is to restructure society completely.
The British Isles were originally made up of populations of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish in the same way as Japan is populated by Japanese. The only difference is Japan has some Chinese influence in its history and the British Isles also has other ethnic influences such as Celtic, European, Roman and even Viking.
As Limerickman pointed out we also have some Commonwealth influences from India and Pakistan e.t.c.
However, when the Government proposes that the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish should become an ethnic minority (as they freely admit on the quiet), that gives me some right to ask the question: How can becoming an ethnic minority be to my advantage personally? Would it benefit the Japanese, Chinese or Russians to become ethnic minorities, for example? Did it benefit the Australian Aboriginees? Will it benefit the Welsh or English?
Let's be realistic: We're already taking in immigrants who have a right to be here from the Commonwealth countries such as India and these are basically massive countries that can supply sufficient immigrants where needed.
However, that isn't enough for Blair. He is still inviting immigration from Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltics, Poland, Western Europe, the Middle East and Somalia. To cap it off, we're not proper members of the E.U. or subject to full E.U. law - which is why Blair went to war in Iraq against E.U. wishes. We don't have the single currency or the same levels of E.U. welfare and pensions.
Added to that, as Wolfix stated earlier on. If the politically correct Blairites attack people for wearing crosses or supporting democracy and free speech, there will be some kind of social rejection of what is taking place. My views are now gaining a of of ground but I should stress I don't oppose sensible, controlled immigration so long as it's genuinely needed.
Neither is it a racial matter as I oppose huge levels of Polish immigration too or even from Germany if jobs are taken up as a result.
EoinC said:
Carrera, that would be relevant, IF Crucifixes had been banned at the workplace. They have not. What IS banned at the workplace (for this particular position is exposed jewelry worn around the neck. This includes Crucifixes, Buddhist symbols, and anything else worn as exposed jewelry around the neck.
My wife is Buddhist. She wears an amulet around her neck. She wears it under her clothing in order to prevent it getting caught in anything. She would not remove it for anyone, therefore she can not work in a job that requires no jewelry, but (assuming she met all the other criteria) she could work at a BA check-in counter as she does not wear it exposed around her neck.
BA do not prohibit religious symbols being worn in the workplace - BA prohibit the wearing of exposed jewelry around the neck by employees stationed at check-in counters. Ms Nadia appears to have a problem with this (her perogative), and is unwilling to comply with the workplace rules. Best she look for a job which does not have those requirements. BA is not responsible for her inability to accept workplace requirements.