Migrants are a boon to UK economy, says study

Dear Readers,

Here is the truth that the government seem to forget to inform everyone about regarding immigtaion.

Serendib

Alan Travis, home affairs editor
Wednesday October 17, 2007
Guardian

Migrants are more skilled and often more reliable and hardworking than British workers, and are fuelling the country's economic growth to the tune of £6bn a year, according to the first official study of their impact published yesterday.
The report for the government's Migration Impact Forum also concludes that migrants on average earn more and so pay more tax than UK workers.

The joint Treasury, Home Office and Work and Pensions study says that the arrival of hundreds of thousands of Polish and other east European workers has had "no discernible" impact on unemployment and has led to only a "modest dampening of wage growth" for British workers at the bottom end of the earnings league.

The economic study says 574,000 migrants came to live in Britain for the long term in the 12 months to June 2006; in the same period 385,000 left, giving a net inflow figure of 189,000 - down 28% compared with the previous year's net inflow of 262,000.

The forum meets today to discuss the findings and whether the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarians coming to Britain should be lifted.

The first "regional" soundings by the government also published today show that in seven out of eight regions in England migration has caused pressure on housing and five out of eight regions report difficulties on crime and education.

However, the overwhelmingly positive official verdict of the economic and fiscal impact of the largest wave of migration to Britain in recent years is bound to prove highly controversial.

The shadow home secretary, David Davis, reacted to that verdict last night by accusing Labour ministers of ignoring the fact that relying on immigration to boost the economy was only a short-term answer.

The immigration minister, Liam Byrne, insisted, however, that the report demonstrated that Britain was better off with immigration than without it.

But he admitted that the pace of change, particularly in communities that do not have a history of absorbing large numbers of migrants, has been unsettling and has created challenges for public services and said it was time for a "new balance" in immigration policy.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007

http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,330994146-115620,00.html

Nobel scientist snubbed after racism claims

The Telegraph
By Stephen Adams
Last Updated: 3:01am BST 20/10/2007

The Science Museum last night cancelled a talk by Nobel Prize winning scientist Dr James Watson after he was accused of making “racist” comments implying Africans were not as intelligent as whites.


Dr Watson is no stranger to controversy
DNA pioneer Dr Watson, who discovered the double helix with Briton Francis Crick, has been roundly condemned for saying he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really”.

The 79-year-old American was due to talk at the Science Museum’s Dana Centre on Friday but last night a spokesman said Dr Watson’s comments had gone “beyond the point of acceptable debate”

He announced the Musuem was cancelling the sold-out talk as a result.

On Tuesday night the Dana Centre had coincidentally hosted a debate entitled “Scientific Racism: A history”.

advertisement
Dr Watson, who flew into Britain to promote a new book, has also provoked uproar by saying the assumption that different racial groups shared “equal powers of reason” was backed by “no firm reason”.

His comments have been fiercely attacked by fellow scientists, anti-racism campaigners and politicians.

Neourobiologist Prof Steven Rose of the Open University, a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said such “racist” comments were also “genetic nonsense”.

“He should recognise that statements of this sort have racist functions and are to be deeply, deeply regretted,” he said.

“Making statements of that sort is certainly a great day for the British National Party but it’s a sad day for scientists and racial harmony.”

Dr Watson has courted controversy before, saying darker-skinned people have a higher sex drive and that women should hypothetically have the right to abort fetuses that “may have a tendency to become homosexual”.

He has also backed genetic screening.

Prof Stevens thought the 79-year-old American was stirring up trouble to raise publicity for his new book, entitled 'Avoid Boring People’.

He said: “He doesn’t need to do it. He had a distinguished reputation as a molecular biologist and he should keep out of areas in which he is not well qualified.”

No evidence that claimed to find people of African descent were less intelligent than Europeans or other racial groups had stood up to scientific scrutiny, he stressed.

Koku Adomdza, director of the black equality pressure group The 1990 Trust, labelled Dr Watson a “complete dinosaur” and pressed him to apologise to “Africa and all people of African origin”.

He said: “Dr Watson is really a relic of the oldest stock and deserves to be made to account for his extremely offensive and ignorant remarks.

“His very poisonously racist opinions put students and the unsuspecting public at serious risk.”

Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, commented: “It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson’s personal prejudices.

“These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was considering Dr Watson’s remarks “in full”.

The comments by Dr Watson, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962 together with Britons Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins, were first made in The Sunday Times.

Dr Watson was also quoted as saying that while he hoped all races were equal, “people who have to deal with black employees find this not true”.

He wrote that “there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically.

“Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."

However, he said people should not discriminate racially, because “there are many people of colour who are very talented”.

He said he thought it would be 10 to 15 years before the genes for intelligence were identified.

Despite the fierce barracking received by those who have put forward the theory of a racial basis for intellectual difference, the idea has refused to die.

IQ testing has consistently shown that racial groups perform differently, say advocates.

In 1994 the publication of Richard Hernnstein and Charles Murray’s book The Bell Curve, that put forward evidence for the theory, caused a huge storm.

In March last year Leeds lecturer Dr Frank Ellis caused a furore when he said he found such evidence “extremely convincing”.

He refused to withdraw his comments, prompting a wider argument over freedom of academic thought. He resigned that July.

And last November Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist at the London School of Economics, published a paper claiming African states were poor because their populations were less intelligent than Europeans and Asians.

Dr Kanazawa refused to comment on Dr Watson’s thoughts yesterday.

Both sides agree there is far more variation in intelligence and genetics within racial groups than between them.

However, opponents argue IQ tests are culturally biased and say lower average scores among blacks can also be explained by social rather than genetic factors.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/17/nwatson217.xml

Police: stop more black suspects

· Top black officer urges more searches to tackle gun and knife crime
· Call set to reignite racism row

Mark Townsend, crime correspondent
Sunday October 21, 2007
The Observer

One of Britain's leading black police officers is to demand that more people from ethnic minorities must be stopped and searched if the fight against inner-city gun and knife crime is to succeed.
In a speech that will reignite one of the most contentious issues in British policing, the president of the National Black Police Association will dramatically call for an increase in the policing strategy in black communities. It marks a U-turn by the association, which has previously questioned the high proportion of black people stopped and searched by police.

Speaking at the group's annual conference, Keith Jarrett will ask Police Minister Tony McNulty and Sir Ian Blair, Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, to consider escalating stop-and-searches among black people to reduce the number of shootings that have claimed the lives of another two teenagers in the past week.
The disputed use of stop-and-search has arguably caused more conflict than any other modern policing tactic and first achieved national notoriety during the Eighties, when it was blamed for precipitating inner-city race riots. Black people are four times more likely to be stopped than white people, according to Scotland Yard's figures, which continues to give rise to charges of police racism.

Jarrett admitted he was braced for a negative backlash during his headline speech in Bristol last Wednesday. It is the first time that a senior black officer has called for an increase in stop-and-search among the black community.

Traditionally the association, which has 8,000 members ranging from senior figures such as Tarique Ghaffur, assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan police, to backroom staff, has pointed to the 'alarming' and disproportionate numbers of black people who are stopped and searched.

Jarrett told The Observer: 'From the return that I am getting from a lot of black people, they want to stop these killings, these knife crimes, and if it means their sons and daughters are going to be inconvenienced by being stopped by the police, so be it. I'm hoping we go down that road. I am going to be pressing him [Blair] to increase stop-and-search. It's not going to go down very well with my audience, many of whom are going to be black. We have talked about disproportionate use of stop-and-search in the past, but what I am proposing is quite the reverse. The black community is telling me that we have to have a look at this.' Controversially, Jarrett said he would not oppose a random use of stop-and-search when officers had 'reasonable suspicion' an offence had been committed. He argued that, as long as officers used the powers courteously and responsibly, many within the black community would accept it as a necessary evil. He added that the toll of shootings and knife crime meant that deep-seated misgivings over the policing strategy were being increasingly outweighed by fears over mounting violence.

The backlash was led last night by Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman Nick Clegg, who said stop-and-search only 'increased community tensions and distrust in the police'.

He added: 'Effective policing depends on good intelligence and smart ways of fostering community co-operation. This suggestion points us in exactly the opposite direction and risks repeating all the worst mistakes of the past'.

Although widely viewed by senior officers as an effective policing tool, stop-and-search use was blamed for the 1985 Handsworth riots in Birmingham which erupted after the arrest of a black man. Its predecessor, the discredited 'sus law' which empowered the police to arrest any person they suspected of loitering with intent to commit an arrestable offence, was abolished after its widespread use against young black men sparked the 1981 Brixton riots.

In the wake of the south London uprising, new rules for stop-and-search determined that officers required 'reasonable suspicion' that an offence had been committed. Yet its use against the black community has continued to attract claims of racism.

Publication of the Macpherson Report in February 1999 into the murder of the teenager Stephen Lawrence, which found that police were institutionally racist, condemned the use of stop-and-search. Racial equality watchdogs have also threatened the police with legal action over stop-and-search, claiming its use has single-handedly poisoned relations with ethnic minorities.

Until Jarrett's speech this week, senior black and Asian officers publicly agreed that stop-and-search risked criminalising and alienating ethnic minorities. Last year Ghaffur warned that counter-terrorism laws, including an increased incidence of stop-and-search, had indirectly discriminated against Asians.

Nothing changes?

In the new-fangled world of ID cards and DNA, police attitudes on race remain stuck in the past

Laura SmithTuesday May 15, 2007 The Guardian

Being in possession of a black or brown skin has never been much of an advantage when it comes to dealing with the criminal justice system. But figures released by the Home Office have revealed just how many from Britain's minorities are being targeted.

A quarter of those whose DNA details have been stored on the national police database after being arrested, but not charged or convicted, were black, Asian, Chinese or Middle Eastern. As these groups form 9% of the overall population, it means that innocent members of ethnic-minority communities are almost three times more likely than innocent white people to have details of their DNA on the database - and up to eight times more likely in rural areas such as Avon and Somerset.

These figures will confirm what minorities have known for a long time: that we are far less likely than white people to be allowed to go about our everyday business undisturbed. They will also reinforce the feeling that police find it hard to view members of ethnic minorities as anything other than suspect - even when they are demonstrably the victims of crime. The database also includes DNA samples from victims and witnesses who have given their "consent". One can only wonder how many white, affluent suburban dwellers are asked for a DNA swab after calling the local bobby to a break-in.

Such intrusions look set to become more common if the government pushes ahead with identity cards, due to come into force next year. While carrying a card will not be compulsory for Britons, it will be for non-EU nationals - handily covering the majority of non-white migrants. How many times will police officers fail to differentiate between a British or European-born black or Asian person and somebody who has arrived from outside the EU?

Despite a range of safeguards - and a great deal of hand-wringing since the Stephen Lawrence case - the police still routinely misuse their discretionary powers. Black people are five times more likely than whites to be stopped and searched - 14 times more likely in predominantly white suburbs. Stops of black people are more likely to involve searches, including strip searches, and to end in arrest. When police action is challenged further down the line, for example when the Crown Prosecution Service decides if cases are worth pursuing, those involving black people are more likely to break down. And the Home Office itself admits that only 10% of stops result in arrests, with only 5% leading to cautions or convictions.

A Home Office race equality impact assessment into identity cards reported that the chief concern of ethnic minorities was that the police would disproportionately demand to see their cards. "Education and training" of police officers - and other public- and private-sector employees - would be necessary. Yet, bizarrely, it concluded that the scheme would be "non-discriminatory" and promote good community relations, by improving citizens' faith that immigration rules were not being flouted.

When Tony Blair came to power a decade ago there was a sense of optimism about how the fraught relationship between black communities and the police might be healed. Here was a government committed at last to holding a public inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and the resulting report appeared to be a watershed.

It is heartbreaking, then, to see how little has changed as Blair resigns. Last year the Guardian revealed that the authorities currently hold the DNA profiles of nearly four in 10 black men in the UK - meaning that 40% of black husbands, sons and fathers have been tarnished as suspects for the rest of their lives. One wonders how long it will take for that proportion to reach 100%.

Home Office aware of NBPA issues in 2001

Home Office aware of NBPA issues in 2001

Exclusive by Claire Haynes and Chris Herbert

THE Home Office knew about the problems with the National Black Police Association's accounting procedures as early as 2001, Police Review can reveal.

An internal Home Office letter sent from the department's audit and assurance unit to its police resources unit in August 2001 shows the Home Office found supporting documents relating to NBPA funding to be 'poor, incomplete and unreliable'.

The letter also says the Home Office's police resources unit 'acknowledges that the appropriate management of the funding arrangements for the NBPA were not in place'.

It added there was 'a high level of risk of poor value for money and irregularity' with regards to the association's funding. The letter also states it is unclear what the agreed overall budget for the NBPA in 1999/2000 should have been.

Despite being aware of the problems, the Home Office continued to increase the NBPA's funding each year up to a peak of £180,000 for 2006/07.

Last month, it froze the association's funding, pending another Home Office investigation into 'financial irregularities'. It is unclear whether the NBPA has ever submitted audited accounts (PR, 27 April).

The internal memo, obtained by Police Review, sets out the results of a Home Office review into the paperwork supporting the NBPA's funding during 1999/2000 and 2000/01.

The review also investigated the 'effectiveness' of the Home Office's 'management arrangements and internal controls' to do with the funding. It concluded there was 'insufficient accountability' for funds. The review was launched following meetings between the audit and assurance unit, and the Met's anti-corruption unit.

One of the other conclusions the report reached was that 'there was insufficient accountability for monies expended by the NBPA'.

Before May 1999, the Home Office did not formally fund the NBPA, but some payments were met before this date.

In May 1999, the then home secretary, Jack Straw, agreed initial funding of £45,000 and to meet the costs of a trip to the US by NBPA officials. The NBPA was formally launched in November 1999.

The Home Office review, launched in 2001, found no formal agreement between the NBPA and the Home Office of the detailed arrangements setting out the expectations and accountability requirements.

'Expected financial controls such as pre and post checks and the monitoring of activities were generally weak and ineffective', it said.

The letter continued to say the overall funding for the first year, initially set at £45,000, was increased on an 'ad hoc basis without proper evaluation of value for money considerations and was not assessed against well defined needs and that it would appear that detailed costings were not obtained'.

The letter recommends the NBPA put controls in place to better deal with the day-to-day management of the grant monies and added it needed to review its 'overall management arrangements' to ensure Home Office expectations were met.

An NBPA spokesman told Police Review this week the association had been unaware of the report mentioned in the Home Office letter until this February and therefore could not comment.

A Home Office spokesman said: 'Auditors are now completing a review of the NBPA's accounts. We do not propose to comment on further details at this stage.'

JANE'S POLICE REVIEW COMMUNITY - MAY 25, 2007

Where next will they succeed?

BNP seat in 'non-political' town

By Dickon Hooper BBC News

The BNP has its first councillor in the South West - and no votes have yet been cast.

Michael Simpkins, 47, is the new councillor for the Rudloe ward of Corsham Town Council, after no other contenders put themselves forward.

"I'm very pleased and looking forward to it," the married father-of-two said.
Sitting in north Wiltshire and just east of Bath, Corsham has a growing population of more than 12,000 residents.

Its council has historically been "non-political", with decisions taken in the best interests of the town.

Party politics is even banned in the chamber.

Indeed, less than half of the 24 candidates (for the 20 seats) declared a political allegiance on the nomination papers: four for Labour, three for the BNP and two Lib Dem.

The rest described themselves as independent, or left the box blank.

Mr Simpkins said he would follow in this tradition.

"Party politics don't come into it, he said.

"I am a local councillor and it is important to listen to what people want."

High parking charges and anti-social behaviour top this list, he insisted.

Other candidates cited the improvement of the leisure centre, reopening the railway station and the growing population.

This harmony is designed to work to everyone's advantage, but some candidates did express concern about how Mr Simpkins had been elected unopposed.

'Ignored and frustrated'

Labour candidate for the Pickwick ward, Chris Lynch said: "It is unfortunate when there is not more than one candidate. We will have to wait and see how he acts.
"It is up to him and up to the electors in four years' time."

Roy Jackson, Lib Dem candidate for Pickwick, said the election was a "surprise".

"One woman put in a nomination against him - but she is standing somewhere else now."

Although candidates can put themselves up for election in two wards, they can only stand in one.
"He was given a free ride. It is always good to see an election," Mr Jackson added.

But Allan Bosley, who is standing as an independent in Pickwick, said: "Anyone can stand and everyone has a right to stand."

Mr Bosley, who is also council chairman, said the authority only has a statutory duty to maintain a public cemetery and listen to requests for allotments.

Listening to what people want and reflecting it back up the chain is part of the council's duty.

The election of a BNP councillor shows people are not being listened to, Mr Bosley said.

"There are a range of views expressed here like everywhere. It tells me people feel ignored, particularly by central government... and frustrated."

Like Roy Jackson, Mr Bosley did not think the BNP councillor would change how the council was run.

And Dick Tonge, leader of the Conservative group in north Wiltshire, added: "The BNP will not exercise undue influence as they will be lone souls on a large council."

But the BNP is "growing" in Wiltshire, said Mr Simpkins, an ex-RAF policeman.

It is fronting three candidates in Corsham, two in Calne and four in the North Wiltshire District Council elections.

"We've got a bad name," he said. "My aim is to prove the BNP is not the two-headed monster people think it is.

"It's up to us to prove we're nice people."

Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/wiltshire/6582729.stmPublished: 2007/04/30 13:23:22 GMT© BBC MMVII

Tell us something new!

Greater Manchester police investigates claim it has BNP members in ranks·

Off-duty colleagues said to have been at pub event· Force seizes CCTV footage of St George's Day incident

Vikram Dodd Tuesday May 8, 2007

Guardian

One of Britain's biggest police forces is investigating allegations that it has British National party members among its frontline officers, the Guardian has learned.

Greater Manchester police launched the investigation after complaints from its own officers, who say they saw colleagues at a BNP event to mark St George's Day.

The supporters of the extreme rightwing party had gathered outside a pub in Manchester city centre and police were called after complaints that they had turned rowdy.

The allegations are especially embarrassing for Greater Manchester police, (GMP) which was one of the forces whose trainee officers were caught making racist remarks by an undercover television programme. After the revelations in the BBC Secret Policeman documentary the force vowed to stamp out racism in the ranks.

The force says it has seized CCTV footage and its detectives will scour it frame by frame for evidence. The force vowed that any officer found to be a BNP member could be sacked. But the BNP claimed it has members among the force's ranks.

The incident happened at 4.30pm on April 23. Around 120 BNP supporters were reported to be milling around Sinclair's Oyster Bar, and were reported to be chanting abuse at passers by. Some were wearing T-shirts saying "Love Britain or Fuck off" and shouting BNP slogans. One officer present claims he saw a fellow officer wearing a BNP badge. Bar managers feared trouble and called police to help them clear away the BNP supporters.

The report that sparked the investigation came from an inspector sent to the scene to help quell the disturbance.

Police sources say the inspector does not claim he saw officers whom he recognised as part of the BNP group. His report relays allegations from other officers that they recognised some of the crowd as off duty policemen.

Senior GMP officers are sceptical of the claims of BNP members in their ranks. The force's initial reaction to the undercover footage obtained by the BBC of their trainee officers being racist, was to arrest the undercover reporter who obtained it.

Police officers are not allowed to be members of the BNP, which is widely seen as being racist and which has members with convictions for violence. The policy was passed by police chiefs three years ago. They say membership of the party is incompatible with officers' duties under race equality laws.

Ali Dizaei of the National Black Police Association, who is a chief superintendent in the Metropolitan police, called for an independent investigation: "It beggars belief that in today's police service we appear to have serving police officers who are members of the BNP."

He added: "These allegations must be investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Police should now carry out an investigation of all police forces to find the extent of the problem which, if not addressed, will have significant impact on legitimacy of policing in the UK."

Chief Superintendent Terry Sweeney, head of the GMP's professional standards branch, said: "There is absolutely no evidence at this time to suggest that any GMP employees took part in the disturbance.

"GMP's professional standards branch received a report on May 2 from an officer who was present on April 23 and was concerned there may have been off-duty police employees in the vicinity.

"The officer did not see any GMP employees involved in the disturbance himself, but has rightly brought to our attention the information he received from other people. We will investigate this thoroughly to establish if any off-duty officers or staff were involved. If it emerges that any staff were part of the disturbance, we will take the strongest possible action. As part of the investigation, we have taken CCTV from the city centre and will be looking at it frame by frame.


"The chief constable has made it clear that BNP members are not welcome in the GMP. No police officer or member of police staff may be in the BNP and anyone found to be a member is likely to be dismissed."

Asked if there were serving police officers who were also BNP members, Phil Edwards, a spokesman for the extremist organisation, said: "I believe there are."

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007


Whilst the Police Service constantly hides behind the belief that its members are only representative of wider society then why is this so surprising? After a quarter of a century of experience in the service, I am surprised that so few officers are open about support of such a party.

Whilst the BNP is still a legitimate political party though I have difficulty in accepting a viewpoint that some form of ‘Inquisition’ into the service to root these officers and staff out should start.

Although I find the views of the BNP in the main abhorrent I have to accept that it is not unlawful to be a member of such a party hence a member of the service has every right to be supportive of this party in the same way that others are supportive of the Conservatives, New Labour and even the Liberals.

Of course if the staff members have breached either the Police Regulations or their employment contract in overtly supporting this party then perhaps things are different. I remember the charade over membership of the Freemasons a few years ago and how that quickly became farcical.

How about the Service just creating an environment that is completely at odds with people who hold such bigoted opinions rather than ‘closing the door after the horse has bolted’ so to speak? Although in this case I believe that there is many a foal hidden in the corners of the barn dressed up to look sweet and innocent.

Serendib