'Britain must ban migrants'.
Macer's Hall article goes on to favourably report the words of Labour peer Lord Glasman, which were published by the Telegraph yesterday. Shouldn't the 'World's Greatest Newspaper' have got the interview first, rather than treating it as front page news a day later?
Here's what the Telegraph reported:
Glasman has previously accused New Labour of lying about the extent of immigration. Now he goes further, arguing – in terms more radical than the Conservative front bench would dare use – that Britain should renegotiate the rules on European workers and freeze inward migration for EU and non-EU citizens, except where employers or universities make a case for a specific, skilled individual.
"We've got to reinterrogate our relationship with the EU on the movement of labour. The EU has gone from being a sort of pig farm subsidised bloc... to the free movement of labour and capital. It's legalistic, it's administrative, and it's no good. So I think we've got to renegotiate with the EU.
His call is to restrict immigration to necessary entrants such as highly skilled leaders, especially in vocational skills. "We might, for example, bring in German masters, as we did in the 15th and 16th centuries to renew guilds."
But exemptions should be made on a case-by-case basis? "Yes. We should absolutely do that... Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first." Even if that means stopping immigration completely for a period? "Yes. I would add that we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed. To be more generous, we have to draw the line."
So although Glasman does say a temporary halt to immigration might be necessary, he seems to contradict that by saying that he does still want to allow in people with specific skills and that:
we should be more generous and friendly in receiving those [few] who are needed.
Yet the Express have turned 'restrict immigration to necessary entrants' and 'more generous and friendly to those who are needed' into 'ban migrants' - whatever that might mean.
But this headline isn't really about Glasman's words. It's about what the Express thinks and wants. It's in much the same vein as their 'Keep out, Britain is full up' front page from 23 September 2009 and their use of 'ethnics' in July 2010, and it's insidious stuff.
Posts
And, as time passes, fewer and fewer people read this dishonest, badly-written, bigoted crap in the Express. And society benefits.
ReplyDeleteMost papers would love to splash a story about the mysterious death of a rival corporations journalist over their front pages, but the Express goes for another bigoted non-story,
ReplyDeleteOne would think that the Express is trying to play down the hacking scandal because they have been up to some questionable things over at Desmond HQ as well.
I think it's important we renew the guilds - bring in the German masters I say!
ReplyDeleteSo the 'report' in the subhead is merely a report in the Telegraph and not some bit of badly-done outside research that they selectively quote from? Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteIs the paper still claiming it hates the BNP or has it just given up that lie now?
ReplyDelete10p cheaper than the Daily Mail - and just as racist!
ReplyDeleteStumbled open this elitist mumbo-jumbo site by accident.
ReplyDeleteThe basic premise seems to be tabloid papers are for those racist working class thickoes and the Guardian and The Observer are for educated middle-class lefties like us!
Otherwise, am I missing something?
Anonymous (16:57) - The 'basic premise' is no such thing. You couldn't be more wrong. If that's what you think then it sounds like you are missing everything about what this blog is about.
ReplyDelete