4a - Calais Jungle
Immigration

TGI Monday: Should we allow Calais Jungle refugees to enter the UK?

 

One of the TGI Monday team wanted a week off (it being Easter and all), so it’s the Rev’d (former policeman) Dan Stork Banks on his own for this TGI (Bank Holiday) Monday.

The topic is the Calais Jungle refugees and asylum seekers. Laura Whitmarsh has visited Calais twice, to find there (surprisingly) a place of hope; and then a place of despair. Some 5,000 people were crammed into a mile-wide slum of camp fires, broken tents and sewage-strewn mud. What faith was to be found in their cardboard churches and liturgies of longing for somewhere to call home?

Two thirds of the camp has been bulldozed. It isn’t clear where many of the inhabitants of gone. There are now satellite makeshift camps sprouting up around the original Calais Jungle, and so the cycle of despair goes on. But these are stories of humanity: a 12-year-old boy saw his family blown up, and travelled from Afghanistan to Calais all by himself. A boy. A 12-year-old boy. Do we just leave him there, terrified, physically and mentally scarred, without documentation, without hope of journeying anywhere, among the people-traffickers and child-abusers?

What can we do to help (apart from praying)?

Listen to the stories, for they break down the mental and emotional barriers to compassion. Or should some barriers remain? Should the economic migrants be treated differently from the refugees? Laura Whitmarsh wants to welcome them all. Apparently, we have to re-arrange the whole of society to accommodate them…

For future episodes, please feel free to send your questions directly to the TGI Monday team.

  • Anton

    Of course there is a difference between economic migrants and genuine asylum seekers – and between both and sleeper terrorists. The problem is how to tell who is who.

    If you are a genuine asylum seeker then your papers are your most valuable possession. Failure to have them is therefore a warning red flag. This woman should be asked how she knows that the stories she has been told are true. The man bangs on about illegal entrants being terrified of the police without stopping to think that they did their utmost to come here illegally from France.

    Then there is the question of why they are at Calais. It is because they want to come here. But they are not French, so the question arises: Why Britain rather than France? Why bother to trek across at least one more large European country? The answer is, clearly, because we offer better benefits. Yet our government is still spending more than it takes in taxes. The solution to two problems at once is glaringly obvious: reduce benefits – for everybody, not just asylum seekers.

    Then there is the question of numbers and culture. If you take a few people from an alien culture then the good bits of their culture that yours doesn’t have can be taken up. If you take large numbers, you imperil your own culture. Especially if they are from a culture that wishes to take over rather than integrate. Today we hear a lot about the social contract between generations. The phrase is commonly used when discussing the amount of debt thrown forward onto our children, but what about the the social contract with the past? Our parents and grandparents bothered to fight to the death, twice in living memory (just), and would not have made those supreme sacrifices if they had believed this insane generation would simply give away the country, and all of the accumulated capital of generations, to people who hate us.

    I question, urgently, the assumption underling this TGIM discussion that we must let them all in and that it is unChristian not to.

    • Mock Turtle

      Why is the answer to the question of choice about destination country “clearly benefits?”

      Isn’t it equally likely to be about language? English is spoken all over the world; don’t you think they want to be somewhere they can get along without having to learn a new language? If there are significant numbers of migrants from historically French colonies in Calais, trying to get to the UK, I’ll accept your point.

      And benefits are already quite difficult to come by for new arrivals. The idea you rock up, sign on and start milking the state is deluded.

      • Anton

        Human rights legislation?

      • Fred

        Why is the answer to the question of choice about destination country “clearly benefits?”

        The French benefits system pays out to those who have previously paid in. In principle it pays them to the extent they have previously paid in. So why hang around in France when there is a non-contributory benefits system here in the UK.

      • The Explorer

        “And benefits are already quite difficult to come by for new arrivals. The idea you rock up, sign on and start milking the state is deluded.”

        Have they realised that yet? It might take a while for awareness of that to filter through the system. I saw a documentary on Lampedusa a few years back. A young man straight off the beached boat said, “I have the right to be here.” He went on to say that he did not intend to stay in Italy. “Paris or London.” London? Was he ignoring the fact that Britain was not a signatory to Schengen, or didn’t he know about Schengen? A recent arrival in Germany apparently asked, in all sincerity, “When do I get my house and my car?” I don’t have authenticated sources for that, so it could be apocryphal. But a lot of wrong information/misinformation/half information seems to be floating around among would-be immigrants.

        • Pubcrawler

          Another in a centre in Germany I read about (Breitbart a few weeks ago, make of it what you will) said he preferred money to vouchers so he could send some home to his mother — in Syria. Nice…

          • The Explorer

            There’s something rather touching about that story. Immigrants in work send money back to where they’ve come from: Poland, Romania, Mexico. I suppose this one considered it his salary: earned by successful entry into Europe. Add that to what I said above about the jizya, and the meaning of welfare is in need of redefinition.

        • Phil R

          When do I get my house and my car?”

          In our friends’ village in central Germany. A group of 30 houses were done up quickly and the migrants moved in. Most have only been there a few weeks but I would say 30% also have cars from somewhere.

          BTW the houses are mostly 3 or 4 bedroomed double glazed with attic and cellar, garage and gas central heating. smallish garden for Germany, but next to some woods.

          Not bad houses at all.

      • David Harkness

        It may or not may be deluded, that matters not. It is what these people think the reality is that motivates them, doubtless encouraged by the traffickers tales of streets paved with gold. The mayor of Calais testified to H o C select committee that it was the uk benefits system that was attracting people to the jungle and thence to the uk. I understand that asylum seekers are on an allowance from day one .

    • DanJ0

      One reason may be that the UK has a better reputation for fairness, or quality of life, or upholding human rights than other countries. Or, the migrants believe it is easier to move around because we don’t have an ID card system. Possibly some already have relatives or family friends here.

  • DanJ0

    I wouldn’t take anyone from the Calais camps, on principle. Once they have claimed asylum in France and provided personal details, a system could be used to transfer people to the UK if they have good reasons for coming here. Our border with France will always attract people so if we take the entire Calais camp tomorrow then it would be full again within weeks when the message was passed back.

  • Dreadnaught

    post deleted

  • len

    Children without adults are in real danger in’ the Calais Jungle’ and need protection (however that can be arranged)
    But adults migrants should never have been allowed (or encouraged) to come as far as Calais.

  • The Explorer

    The Council for Europe human rights commissioner says the term for those who enter Britain without permission should be “irregular” rather than “illegal”.

    Got that? How far do we extend it? I’m a bit blurred about the laws of trespass at the best of times, but If someone enters your home without permission, is it now no longer illegal but simply unusual?

    If ‘illegal’ now means ‘irregular’, what does ‘irregular’ mean?

    • Anton

      The Council for Europe human rights commissioner is being irregular.

  • Dreadnaught

    Without knowing anything about you Rev Banks its difficult to take you seriously by this submission. I would take it that you appreciated before your calling, that the Vicar of Dibley was a fictional construct and not the blueprint for a career (or calling) of you own.

    You have asked for opinions on what should be done about the people massing at Calais and although not mentioned you I presume that to include all points of access to the UK from the Continent. Surely the question that should have been asked is why has it taken France so long to move them on?

    Introducing an unsubstantiated tale of a 12 year old from Afghanistan is a rather feeble attempt to guilt trip the reader into some syrup laden emotional state that deflects from the bigger, much bigger issue, that is before us and in my opinion falls below par of the standard fare set by Cranmer and previous headliners.

    Compassion and empathy is a core human trait in humanity that has to be balanced against surrendering reality and logic that is necessary in quantifying and qualifying decisions that affect an entire nation. The UK is on the verge of seceding from the corrupt EU and the outcome is likely to be greatly influenced by the question of what to do with illegal immigrants that wish to gatecrash out border. All of them will have a sob story to tell and some may well be true, but many more will be lies.

    It is not the British citizens that are putting them and their children at risk; it is themselves. Even the middle-class Syrians who are paying the traffickers thousands of pounds to cross the Med in rubber dinghies, could have helped themselves by approaching our embassies in Turkey or elsewhere, where they were at least safe, if not necessarily comfortable or by buying travel tickets instead and taken their chances with our own immigration and asylum procedures.

    Britain is a soft-touch compared to most countries: there is no justification in compounding the problem with a doe-eyed Disney mindset preamble such as you have presented today.

    • David Harkness

      Agreed dn, in reality it is our soft touch approach that has condemned many to death by drowning in an attempt to cross the med, while the jungle exists, many more will die.

  • Richard Hill

    It would be good to get a response to this reading of the “Good Samaritan” story…
    The Good Samaritan applied first aid and paid for accommodation at a nearby Inn.
    A very humanitarian response, but it stopped there.
    The Good Samaritan did not say “why not come to Samaria?” and “it doesnt matter if you bring your strange Judean ways, and disparage our Samaritan culture”.

    • carl jacobs

      States aren’t people. You can’t anthropomorphize a state into a person in one of Jesus’ parables. States don’t function like individuals. They have much different responsibilities.

      • Damaris Tighe

        This is the problem I struggle with – transferring Jesus’s teaching on the right relationships between individuals to political policy. I think the central issue is free will. Charity is only meaningful when it’s the exercise of free individual choice. States can’t do charity, even if sanctioned by a referendum. There will always be some people for whom it’s coerced, and then it isn’t charity. A state’s first responsibility is to provide security for its citizens, not to ‘do good’. That’s down to the free choice of each person.

        • Anton

          To see a model for Statehood, start with ancient Israel’s God-given constitution. Not all of it is relevant only to a covenant people.

  • carl jacobs

    Am I missing something? There is no video…

    • IrishNeanderthal

      I had to allow Javascript for it to appear.

    • The Explorer

      There is a video, but if you haven’t seen it you aren’t missing anything.

  • preacher

    I have to agree with Danjo’s point on this, namely that if we throw open our borders to all comers, the problem would just get worse as the ‘ Jungle ‘ would simply refill in days, rather than weeks.
    The Chancellor has shown the tip of the iceberg recently in trying to balance the books by cutting disability benefits & attempting to pressurise the disabled to return to work.
    So how will this country cope with thousands of people, many with no skills, often unable to speak English suddenly arriving & needing to be fed & housed ?.
    We must also consider the problems that Belgium is currently facing, namely the enemy within it’s walls. We already are seeing the problems in Bradford, Germany & elsewhere that are inherent with the different cultures attitude to women. Add to this the almost certain influx of terrorists to link with sympathetic radicals already here & you have a recipe for the eradication of the Nation Is it not possible that this whole situation has been a plan by Radicals to infiltrate the West in a ‘ Trojan Horse ‘ manner ?.

    A better option would surely be to send aid – Food, medical, shelter etcetera to safe areas nearer to the suffering migrants origins, which would mean that when the crisis was over, they could move back & rebuild their countries again as they wouldn’t have to travel hundreds of miles to do so & the richer countries of the West could continue to assist with finance, education & training, to help them rebuild. Not perfect admittedly, but a better solution than the mass immigration plan surely ?.

    • Anton

      I agreed with IDS that the disability budget should not be cut. The tax credit budget should, however.

    • Merchantman

      The real issue is that although most come with nothing many do come with ‘the baggage we hardly dare name’. It may even lie fallow for a couple of generations. It is something we don’t ask for and we certainly don’t need.

  • LoveMeIamALiberal

    The answer to the question is no. It would be rewarding those who have jumped the queue for entry into this country, penalising those who have tried to play by the immigration rules and go through the proper channels. It will also encourage many others to make the journey to Calais, putting more people into the hands of people traffickers whose only care is the money they make from others’ misery (remember Aylan Kurdi and the 70 people suffocated in a lorry in Austria). Australia has shown the only way to stop the exploitation and death that comes with illegal migration is not to reward those who make the perilous journey.

    For children such as the Afghani boy, we should use our foreign aid budget to run an orphanage in Kabul where he can be educated and local authorities can seek to re-unite him with what family he may have.

    • Martin

      And, of course, we have to take into account that any support for migrants does not come from a bottomless pit and must mean that some other deserving cause, the poor we already have, must get less.

  • Malcolm Smith

    Am I missing something? I was under the impression that refugees are supposed to claim asylum in the first safe country. Why haven’t they applied for asylum in France (assuming that it had somehow been their first destination)?

    • The Explorer

      You’re not missing anything. What’s missing is the EU’s application of its own precepts. They shouldn’t apply for asylum in France because they should have applied for asylum before they got as far as France.

      Apply for asylum in the first safe country may be the theory, but the reality seems to be get into the EU and then choose where suits you: language of preferred country, employment prospects, whereabouts of others of your own nationality and welfare all being factors. Countries that are points of entry, and that should be enforcing the asylum claim rule, seem happy to send them on elsewhere to avoid being totally swamped.

      No first-hnd experience, but I have friends in Greece and Italy, and i’m going by what they say.

      • Merchantman

        Today I was reading a French magazine where an exception was made so the French could quite dramatically cheat by breaking their own rule- for the advancement of the common good! I jest not.

        All to often this is the case and particularly in EU circles.

        We should shun such dishonesty even if there is a financial cost.

  • Uncle Brian

    From the BBC, a late addition to His Grace’s Good Friday and Holy Saturday posts on the sufferings currently inflicted on Christians worldwide:

    Pakistan Taliban splinter group Jamaat-ul-Ahrar told local and Western media it was behind the attack [in Lahore]. “We claim responsibility for the attack on Christians as they were celebrating Easter,” spokesperson Ehansullah Ehsan told Pakistan’s Express Tribune.

    Have the Taliban learned from UK students to demand a Christian-free “safe space” or is it the other way round?

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-35908512

    • Dreadnaught

      Bombing a funfair and deliberately targeting dozens of children is a new low even for bottom feeding Pakistanis who are trying to outdo IS.

      • Uncle Brian

        Speaking of IS, the destruction of ancient monuments in Palmyra is yet another way to create a “safe space” in which today’s Muslims can avoid being constantly reminded of the embarrassingly magnificent achievements of their pre-Islamic predecessors.

  • carl jacobs

    The people living in this camp have other options inside France. They simply don’t want to leave because they fear it will damage their ability to get into the UK.

    • Dreadnaught

      The majority are vagrants and nothing more.

      • carl jacobs

        Desperate people fleeing war and famine aren’t vagrants. What rational decision would you have them make? To stay and die? You can’t blame them for trying to rescue themselves.

        • Dreadnaught

          To stay and die?
          No; stay and fight – and maybe die.

          • carl jacobs

            Fight whom? With what? Many of these refugees are women and children. They aren’t autonomous men of fighting age. Besides, the problem is that there isn’t one faction strong enough to win and thus impose order. Syria has descended into a Hobbesian condition. Fighting is a chronic symptom of a deeper problem.

          • sarky

            But that’s the point Carl, the majority aren’t women and children. In fact I read an article recently where the women left behind were decrying the men as cowards because they would rather run than fight and thats just amongst the 20% that are genuine refugees. The rest are purely economic migrants who have no more been in a war zone than you or I.

          • carl jacobs

            Source?

          • sarky
          • The Explorer

            I saw a YouTube video of an elderly German woman complaining about six hundred or so refugees being imposed on her village of three hundred or so pensioners. A Muslim teenager joined the interview without invitation to put the Muslim point of view, and said he was from Albania. It makes one wonder.

          • carl jacobs

            I’m getting impression that the problem is that these refugees are “here” and not “there.” Like this is a giant game of musical chairs and no one wants to be caught without a chair when the music stops.

            Why don’t you just say “We don’t want the responsibility”?

          • The Explorer

            How does that follow? My point is that an eighteen- year-old Albanian male is not a woman or child, and is not a Syrian.

          • Anton

            Because we don’t HAVE the responsibility.

          • Dreadnaught

            Many of these refugees are women and children. They aren’t autonomous men of fighting age.

            The majority in Calais are by far in a way of single men of 18 to 30.

        • Royinsouthwest

          They may have been fleeing war and famine but now they are in France.

          • carl jacobs

            Is that the problem? That they are in France and not in Jordan, Turkey, or Lebanon? Well, then how about this? How about you take all those EU Battle Groups and send them to Syria to restore order. Europeans love the idea of the Responsibility to Protect. Here’s a prime opportunity to show how it’s done.

          • Royinsouthwest

            The point is that they have reached a safe destination. Therefore they are no longer fleeing anything.

        • Inspector General

          They are born to it. Have developed racial traits to deal with it. The same racial traits that cause many of their problems, like killing men who don’t agree with you. Just isn’t our problem. It simply isn’t…

    • cacheton

      My query from what was said in this video was why is it possible to claim asylum in the uk with no papers, but not claim anywhere else with no papers. Or is that just misinformation? If that is correct (I suspect it isn’t, but anyway…) that would explain why people want to get to the uk if they have no papers. And maybe why some people destroy their papers.

      I was also wondering how many more of these videos will so spectacularly fail to address the question that is asked in the title!

  • The Explorer

    The fiver statements from the New Testament most loved by unbelievers, and as interpreted by unbelievers:
    1. Judge not, that you be not judged: anything goes.
    2. Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed: pride yourself on believing things without any evidence.
    3. Turn the other cheek: let other people walk all over you.
    4. Good Samaritan parable: let other people walk all over you.
    5. Love your neighbour: let other people walk all over you.
    As unbelievers see it, five good reasons not to believe. As I see it, a good argument against Bible translation when it puts the Bible in the hands of those without any sense of context. .

    • cacheton

      Even with a sense of context, if you cannot show how the bible is the word of god or even influenced by him, you are not even providing a reason to interpret or translate the bible at all. I think that is the main reason for unbelievers not to believe.

      • The Explorer

        Okay, six good reasons not to believe.

  • big

    …yes ,but only if they are true Christians,not difficult,because the UK now has very few…..let’em in.

    • Inspector General

      Greater love hath no man than he would give up his own right to UK citizenship and give it to a refugee. Get packing, big boy…

      • Phil R

        This is one argument to remember and reuse.!

      • big

        the point is to revitalise Christianity in England

        • Inspector General

          A similar project is under way to revitalise law and order in England by allowing Eastern European criminals to live here, apparently forever and in ever increasing numbers at that….

          • big

            a total revolt against the ruling order is necessary to restore Carry on England

          • Inspector General

            Agreed, dear fellow. Vote UKIP! UKIP, I say! Unless you want to see the English relegated to just another ethnic whatever in their own country. It’s happening now, slowly but surely…

          • big

            last night i watched Guy Martin and the wall of death,what a hero and true Brit! however before this i inadvertently tuned into Iranian state TV news,at least thats what i thought,but no it was C4 news presented by someone who only looked like she worked for the Islamic Republic……..what the hell has happened to Britain?

          • Inspector General

            It would be a nasty old world if there was no immigration anywhere. One merely questions the quality of the product which has arrived in the UK over recent years. When you see, in Gloucester, the white smock wearing straggly bearded fellows who would otherwise probably have become hillsmen in Pakistan, and their black clad wives with only a slit to see through, you have to ask the question. Though it would most likely be a waste of time asking them due to lingo difficulties…

  • Inspector General

    The Inspector has published this before on Cranmer, but it’s a solid tale of a ‘refugee’ coming to his senses and giving up on his untenable dreams and regaining his life’s destiny…

    It concerns a young African fellow. He’d been trying to get to the UK for years. He one day realised that he’d spent a full ten years on this quest and life really was passing him by. So he went back home and did what he should always have done. Made a life in the place he was meant to be.

    Sure you’ll all agree that is a charming, heart warming and inspiring anecdote of hope…

    • big

      ITV 3 Carry On Films … real England…..honestly ….sad but true i cry for what was sacrificed

      • Inspector General

        Yes, one agrees. Fine British types fast disappearing to be replaced by rubbish people with unsavoury ways from sad parts of the world. Absolutely no need for it…

        • big

          ……must agree but one of the iconic cast ,Cyd James, was South African,having said that he is one of my favourite actors,especially his more serious parts.

  • len

    The intervention of the West in places like Iraq , Libya, Syria have made bad situations incredible worse. America and Europe bears a direct responsibility for many(not all) of the migrants fleeing their war torn lands and seeking refuge in Europe.
    Bush and Blair were only too happy to ‘go in’ with no plan for when the time to come ‘out’ came….

    • DanJ0

      We’re not responsible for Eritrean, Somalian, Sudanese / South Sudanese, Iranian, Pakistani, or Syrian refugees [1]. Most Syrians are escaping the effects of civil war, rather than directly from Daesh in the East. Daesh have crossed the border from Iraq because of instability through civil war, though its existence in Iraq is in part down to us.

      [1] “The largest number of applications for asylum [in the UK], including dependants, came from nationals of Eritrea (3,756; +465), followed by Iran (3,694; +1,195), Pakistan (3,254; -722), Sudan (3,014; +1,399) and Syria (2,846; +493). There were an additional 1,194 Syrian nationals granted humanitarian protection under the Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme.”

      http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/february2016#main-points

      • big

        Don’t believe the government

    • Anton

      Bush far more than Blair or other Europeans. Europe would not have dreamed of going in if the USA hadn’t. By your logic the USA should take these people.

      • big

        the logic is don’t do it,…..simple really

      • big

        EU/NATO = indivisibile

      • carl jacobs

        [Breathe, breathe, breathe. Calm visions of little bunnies. Flowers…deep breath]

        The US went into Iraq to preempt the possibility of a nuclear-armed Saddam Hussein. It wasn’t particularly relevant whether he had them yet. What was important was that he never get them. The Army was there. The support in the US was there. Iraq was only going to get stronger. There was no reason not to fight that war at that moment. It had to be fought eventually, and, no, Hans Blix and his opera buffa inspection regime doesn’t make any difference. Just work backwards from Saddam having nukes to the consequences that would have attached, and you can understand why. The only way the entire ME outside of Israel doesn’t become Finlandized is if the US Army gets deployed as a tripwire in perpetuity. With All Qaida acting as guerillas for Saddam. And if course …every g*ddamn European on the entire m_____ing continent of Europe would have expected the US to do just that while they sat on their collective asses and guzzled the products of their welfare state …

        [Jake! Bunnies, Jake. Flowers. Breathe.]

        I suppose we could have just nuked Iraq if it got a weapon. Or maybe the Israelis would have done it.

        I learned two things from Iraq.

        1. The US has exactly one reliable ally in Europe – for which you should thank Tony Blair.

        2. NATO as a concept is past its “sell by” date. The US should seek arrangements with reliable allies who will actually pull their weight. As for Europe – it can defend its own damn borders.

        • Dreadnaught

          you should thank Tony Blair.
          You mean Dubya’s Poodle.
          19 Saudis fly planes and passengers into icons of American power leaving 3000 dead on the day and Bush chases after a crazy Iraqi dictator while allowing Bin Laden’s relatives to get out of town before the dust settled into the lungs of New Yorkers.
          And now Oh Bummer has paved the way for an Iranian nuclear future.
          Blair is toxic and a proven lying, millionaire, ‘Middle Eastern peace envoy’ (oh the irony!) who opened the UK borders to mass immigration: you the US is welcome to him any time Ducky.

          • dannybhoy

            Ducky?
            Bit camp, Dreaders..

          • Dreadnaught

            Hahaha – well thats true but not an indication of my orientation I assure you, but I’ll leave it in anyway.

          • Inspector General

            Dreaders. A bit of history here. When Cranmer told you to get lost, some years ago, you went onto the site where the late David B was a moderator. One recalls you were hit on by some queer. Tis true. The Inspector witnessed it…

          • Dreadnaught

            Wow that was some time ago when I vexed Cranmer but nice of you to remember the late David B. I don’t recall however being hit on by someone with such overt sexual identity. If that was the case and I don’t doubt you excellent memory, it has had little effect on me Sweetie.

          • dannybhoy

            Methinks the Inspector has a nose like a trufflehound for such matters…

          • carl jacobs

            As I said, you should be grateful for Tony Blair. If every major NATO power had told the US to pound sand (by itself) in 2003, that would have left a mark. It would not have been forgotten. Especially since just a few years earlier those selfsame Europeans had whined and moaned and bitched and complained and cried and pleaded and whimpered and sniveled and begged the Americans to help with Yugoslavia. Europe being utterly incapable of doing anything about Yugoslavia on its own. The post-war continent was a little embarrassed by the war in its midst and needed someone to fix it. So the US helped. For the sake of NATO. Tony Blair was wise enough to realize this. That’s one of the reasons he lead the UK to help.

            Many times I have mentioned on this weblog that Europe had better figure out how to defend itself. The world is changing and it is becoming decidedly non European centric. There will come a time in the future when the US won’t be there anymore. When people like me starting questioning the value of NATO, then you better worry about its viability not just in the long-term but in the short term. Because I am your natural base of support.

          • Dreadnaught

            | agree that the old alliance has been weakened to the point of irrelevance and that a new strategy is needed in Europe whether the US is involved or not. Obama is totally useless as much as Bush was incompetent.
            So now you have a choice between a liar and a reality show front-man for president; it couldn’t be much worse if you substituted Congress for the Jerry Springer show; another American gift to the world.
            The last time I visited the US I was struck by how much it had declined since my previous visits in terms of going from a positive cohesive proud fit nation to a fractured embittered conglomeration of dumbed down disaffection and poverty ridden morbid obesity. Not a pretty sight.
            Your foreign policy is an object lesson in ignorance over intelligence and you have now lost face to Putin and his showcase performance in Syria and the US has turned its back on Israel.
            Europe will carry on as much as it has done in one form or another with or without the US (assuming that you are correct of course) but Britain will no longer tolerate the like of Blair. Toxic Tony is history and the old world order is indeed in a state of flux. It is also extremely unlikely that you or I will have any influence on it.

          • Phil R

            “The world is changing and it is becoming decidedly non European centric”

            It seems to me that every involvement in major wars by the US has come about because a balance of self interest occurred that made that involvement imperative.

            This was certainly true of WW2. WW1 less so. Post WW2 conflicts seemed to become more irrational and wars are started but the US seems to lack the will to finish them (In some cases allies are left high and dry), which makes it look weak. (Iraq and Afghanistan, appeared to much of the world to be based on impulse rather than strategy.) It is difficult to go to war with any ally that may not stay the course.

            As for NATO. Well NATO was no help with the Falklands and I would certainly not want the UK to go to war to defend the Baltic States (Indefensible also not direct benefit to Britain) or even countries like Greece. (To be honest what interests do we have in common with Greece?. How would going to war with Greece help Britain? That should always be the first consideration. NATO country or not. Can you imagine most of (Esp Southern European) NATO going to war if Britain is attacked?

            No chance..

        • Anton

          For protecting Western Europe during the Cold War I shall always be grateful to the USA. Iraq is another issue. A lesser issue, too, but it is Iraq that I am discussing.

          Al-Qaeda, based in Afghanistan, blow up half New York and George Bush invades… Iraq. So far as I am concerned the USA was entirely justified if it wished to invade Afghanistan and run it as a militarised colony. But Saddam Hussein had no beef against the West and only noxious chemicals that could be put into shells – not ballistic missiles. He wanted to develop nuclear or biological WMDs? Sure, so did every other fiend in the area. Bush invaded Iraq to show his father he was a Big Boy and had no plan of how to run it after that. Bremer disbanded the Iraqi Army instead of putting it under US control, thereby showing his total ignorance of how to run a conquered country (a lesson freely available from 2000 years of human history) and loosing several hundred thousand unemployed young men with automatic weapons.

          ISIS got its start when one of Saddam’s sons was caught by fundamentalists trying to flee the country with half a billion in money. This was put to use buying property and people in areas close to US bases, which provided local services to those bases. This was coordinated with the mass escape form a jail, by now run by the USA, of fundamentalists whom Saddam had kept locked up. Those two events were the Genesis of ISIS. ISIS now fights for Syria, a land on which Assad Jr had kept the lid and had no beef with the West. Obama managed to support his opponents. The upshot is a zillion refugees slowly invading Europe. i know that the USA did not intend that outcome, but it is largely responsible.

          • carl jacobs

            The Cold War ended 25 years ago. What is NATO for? If the Europeans are only willing to fight with us in Europe, then NATO is just an elaborate scheme to get the Americans to defend Europe. Tell me the purpose that NATO serves in the 21st century. Tell me how Europe is a military asset to the US instead of a military liability.

            a lesser issue, too, but it is Iraq that I am discussing.

            I am also talking about Iraq. And, yes, it was a lesser issue than Global thermonuclear war. That doesn’t make it a trivial geostrategic concern.

            Bush invaded Iraq to show his father he was a Big Boy now,

            If you actually believe that, then you know nothing about the US or how it goes to war. I heard Vice President Cheney say “It was a war of nuclear risk mitigation.” That’s why it was preemptive – because a war like that has to be preemptive. And the strategic case for the war is absolutely unassailable. Not in Europe, of course, because none of the consequences would have accrued to Europe. The US would have been expected to unilaterally contain the new would-be regional hegemon. That would the hegemon who saw himself as Nebuchadnezzar reborn, and was actively seeking to re-create the Babylonian empire.

            How do you keep Hussein from taking over Jordan and Syria? Well, you put the American Army in Jordan and Syria. In perpetuity. Perhaps involuntarily as far as Syria and Jordan are concerned. Otherwise, we would have Iraqi forces on one side of the Jordan river and Israeli forces on the other side. There’s a stable situation.for the world to deal with. Let’s just risk a nuclear exchange in the ME. And let’s not overlook the sudden enablement of aggressive cross-border attacks on Israel now that the presence of Hussein would inhibit any Israeli retaliation. The Israelis might have preemptively popped Hussein themselves if he got nukes.

            How do you maintain the independence of the Gulf Oil states? (Remember the first Iraq war in 1991? That’s why that war was fought, you know.) Well, we put the American army in Saudi Arabia. In perpetuity. And we have to extend nuclear guarantees. Now, how long do you think Al Qaida and Hussein would have stayed separate in this circumstance? Al Qaida becomes Hussein’s proxy force to attack the Americans – whom you might remember are fixed in place by the need to deter Hussein and keep him from dominating the ME. Do you have any idea how little the Americans wanted to face this situation? Do you really think the US was going to risk this circumstance in order to allow Hans Blix time to do his little inspections?

            Now, where would Europe be in all this? At home. In Europe. Telling us about its wonderful new International Criminal Court. Would there have been European soldiers in the desert with us? Hell, no. The force was a tripwire (that would btw have been fighting a perpetual guerrilla war against Islamic fighters not in the uniform of Iraq, but I digress.) The tripwire would have to be backed up by nukes to be credible, and no one would actually believe the Europeans would use nukes in the ME. No, it would have been an American responsibility. Because that is how Europe thinks.

            Europe can bitch all it likes about the post-war. If Saddam Hussein had gotten his hands on those weapons, Europe would have been first in line begging the US to “do something about it.” Europe has the luxury of carping because it doesn’t take responsibility for anything anymore. Not even its own security. It simply bites the hand that protects it. Over and over and over and over and over again.

            What was the risk? GF question. The intelligence in 1993 from a lot of different countries said it was pretty high. A President acts on the information he has available. But ultimately it doesn’t matter. The only way this war could have been avoided is if Hussein decided not to pursue those weapons. Otherwise it had to be fought at some point. There was no reason to leave the American army in Saudi through the summer. There was no reason to wait at all. That’s why the war was fought. It had everything to do with preempting the possibility of an outcome more disastrous than anything we face today. It had nothing to do with GWB proving what a big boy he was.

          • Anton

            Carl, I’m not going to be drawn into a wider battle of words with someone who sees himself here as representing a country I regard as an ally, and to which (unlike many Europeans) I am grateful for protection during the era in which I grew up. I unhappily agree that Europe is craven today and I was (and remain) all for Gulf War I (1990/1). But I am going to discuss here only Iraq and the birth of ISIS.

            The problem with your narrative is that the presence of WMDs was touted in realtime as the reason for the US invasion of Iraq, but when they weren’t found the justification changed from presence to prevention. Retrospection is not a way to run a coherent or an honest foreign policy. You say that military action would have had to be taken anyway, but that assertion is counterfactual history, which is fraught with uncertainty. You can’t know that Saddam wouldn’t have been deterred by US-Israeli threats, for instance, or by a Western alliance with Jordan. Those are just two alternative histories to the one you present as inevitable.

            Bremer made an idiotic mistake of disbanding the Iraqi army, and that was in the Bush era. That led to chaos amid which the money grabbed from Saddam’s son, trying to flee the country, funded the Abu Ghraib jailbreak of July 2013 which really kicked off ISIS. Had Bremer known the first thing about running a conquered country, from ancient Rome to the present, he would have co-opted the Iraqi military. How different would history have been then? It wouldn’t have been worse, that’s for sure.

          • carl jacobs

            You introduced the subject, Anton.

          • Anton

            I widened it from Iraq mainly and briefly in an attempt to show that (unlike many persons with whom I do not wish to be bracketed) I wasn’t being mindlessly anti-American or taking the USA for granted. US policy in Iraq and its consequences is what I have my differences with, for the reasons I have explained and, latterly, expanded on.

          • carl jacobs

            If you want to blame something for the post-war situation in Iraq, then blame the stock market crash in 2008 four weeks before the election. That’s what got Obama elected. Whatever mistakes the US made in 2003 (and they were legion) the US had learned its lessons. The Surge shot the resistance to pieces. But then Obama got elected and he had no commitment to the war. That’s why things fell apart.

            And don’t blame the US for this crisis. This has far more to do with European angst over losing its demographic predominance than it has to do with refugees. This is an existential fear of Islam brought about by European attitudes and behaviors that find their roots decades ago. The US didn’t make Europeans stop having children. The US didn’t make Europe import vast numbers of Muslims to make up the difference. The US didn’t make the EU create its border rules or its asylum policies or its generous welfare benefits. Europe did that all on its own.

          • dannybhoy

            It is the fault of the US Carl. It goes with the territory of strategic interests and superpower status.
            But it’s also true that pompous* Europe is responsible for allowing in huge numbers of migrants, and instead of changing them, being changed by them.
            However blame games get us nowhere, and if it weren’t for the US military umbrella, Europe would either be goose stepping Nazis or members of the Proletariat..
            What we really need is some real political leaders to step up and do what needs to be done to bring some stability to the world.
            * yes, we really are pompous imo.

          • carl jacobs

            The fundamental mistake we made in Iraq was not giving the country over to an Iraqi General. Trying to “democratize” Islam was always going to fail. But in 2003, how could we have done that? We had to try.

            The failure of the war was down to a failure of will. If McCain had been elected, things would have been very different. So you can blame the US for the politicians it chooses. But you can’t blame the fact of the war itself. There are only two ways to refute what I said below:

            1. “Hussein wouldn’t have got nuke” – which was a fool’s hope.

            2. “The war should have been fougt later” which added pointless unnecessary risk.

            The world is so fortunate Bush was President to make that decision. If Obama had been President in 2003, then you would really know what catastrophe looks like in the ME.

          • dannybhoy

            There is imo no failsafe solution.
            Perhaps if the Coalition forces led by the US had left the military command intact, then Iraq could have been preserved as a viable nation. One thing we should all know is that the Arabs are a proud people. They don’t take kindly to being humiliated.
            As I understand it the Iraqis wanted rid of him and “we wanted rid of him because..
            a) He had something to do with 9/11
            b) The Saudis were not involved in 9/11, so we needed a fall guy
            c) He had weapons of mass invisibility
            d He was the the head of the axis of evil
            d) We didn’t want him to escape to Tora Bora
            e) His mustache.

            Truthfully, there had to be something more to it.
            Are we all seriously to believe that despite intensive Western diplomacy,
            coupled with intelligence sources,
            listening devices,
            drones and the like,
            plus friendships such as the Bush family and the Saudi royal family (who were busy spreading wahabbism and funding terrorist groups), the Western leadership knew absolutely NOTHING about what was going on?!
            Puh-lease!

    • “Russia has completed in 6 months in Syria what the US lead coalition has not been able to complete in 2 years…”

      Exactly. The US led coalition had no clear goals except ousting Assad.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/why-is-david-cameron-so-silent-on-the-recapture-of-palmyra-from-the-clutches-of-isis-a6955406.html

      • dannybhoy

        The Arab Spring became the Arab Nightmare as the old established rules were overthrown in favour of Kentucky Fried Democracy as promoted by the “Yes We Can Man..”
        What arrogance to suddenly abandon men who however repulsive to us, kept their country together and were feted and called ‘our friends’ all the time it suited us.

        • Ivan M

          …and cackle like a witch when Gaddafi was sodomised to death.

          https://youtu.be/UtH7iv4ip1U

          Like the crackling of thorns is the laughter of a wicked woman…

          Gaddafi had given up a nascent nuclear program when he saw the gleam in Jorge Bush’s eyes. In return the Americans had given him certain “understandings”. Yet all that was torn up on a whim. The blood of the Libyans are on the likes of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy. If you can do nothing else but f**k things up like the Americans, why get involved in the first place.

          • IanCad

            So right Ivan. No other nuclear power will ever again give them up.

          • Anton

            Ukraine was the place that gave up (ex-Soviet) nukes after receiving Western assurances of defence against Russian attack.

          • IanCad

            Of course! I’d forgotten about that. Quite a few years back.
            Now; about North Korea—-

          • Ivan M

            It gave it up because of Chernobyl, and that Russia as the successor state of the Soviet Union, was endowed with the responsibility for the nuclear arsenal. And a good thing it was too for the purpose of nuclear non-proliferation, which was the major concern at that time. Kazakhstan had given up its nuclear stockpile under the same arrangement. Have the Russians invaded it to secure their space launch facilities? Have they interfered with Kazakhstan’s development, and foreign affairs? Due regard for Russian interests would have taken care of things in the Ukraine. But this was not to the liking of the “F**k the EU” brigade, who sought to enclose the bear at the low ebb of its power. Finlandisation was an honourable course for the Ukraine, but no amount of prudence can ever resist the tidal wave of cash, that well known troublemakers can bring to bear.

      • Ivan M

        Robert Fisk, from the days of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 has turned out to be right all along.

        From the article:

        “If the Americans wanted to destroy Isis, why didn’t they bomb them when they saw them?” a Syrian army general asked me, after his soldiers’ defeat His son had been killed defending Homs. His men had been captured and head-chopped in the Roman ruins.

        • Anton

          I doubt that an article written in 1982 mentioned ISIS.

    • dannybhoy

      Well said Len.

    • Ivan M

      The Israel Firsters must be eating their hearts out.

  • The Explorer

    Silence from Findarato. Unless he’s had a religious experience over Easter, I surmise two reasons.

    1. His two favourite female targets are missing (although the new one might give him ammunition).

    2. The views expressed in the video are not unlike his own position: that European illegal immigration is a non-problem whipped up by right-wing tribalists intent on scaremongering. But If they should want to come, let ’em in.

    • Anton

      He’s probably on holiday, or has been persuaded that his time is not best spent here. He hasn’t pulled his posts, has he?

      • He’s been posting on an earlier thread all over Easter.

        • Pubcrawler

          Talking to himself?

          • Essentially that is all he ever does.

          • CliveM

            He’s his own biggest fan.

          • Pubcrawler

            One word too many.

          • Pubcrawler

            Good point

  • IanCad

    Well, it seems the Reverend Banks and the Revess Whitmarsh are tender souls. Good souls, kind souls, and take seriously the admonition to help the needy.

    All well and good. Help requires money. Whose money? Sure, both are likely to return a 10% tithe as all good Christians should. That won’t be enough; the government must cough up and doubtless will.

    They will come. They will stay. Many will work, and work for little. They will mostly work in the less-skilled sector, that refuge and security for millions of British workers who already struggle with wages that do not reflect the ravages of inflation.

    Struggle they will continue to do, for, even if wages cannot fall below the state mandated level, competition for jobs will force the rate of productivity up and up. Families will be strained further, suicides, divorces, domestic violence; all will rise as financial stresses overwhelm the poorest of our nation.

    It feels good to advocate fo the foreigner, even better to welcome them. Guilt will be assuaged, consciences cleared and sleep will be sweet. Sin will not be at the door. Or will it?

    To force the working people of this land to pay the penalty for the crackpot ideas of silly vicars is sin.

    • dannybhoy

      Well said.
      We should help, but not this way.
      We should be establishing secure well provided and guarded refugee camps in the areas away from the conflict zones
      By bringing them here we further increase the risk of terrorism, cultural practices alien to our way of life.
      There will be further strains on our health provision and education.
      Further pressure on our open land for more housing.
      More mosques made from redundant adapted churches,
      More potential for community strife. More inter community strife, drugs and crime.
      When these youngsters grow up we will have the same cycle of unemployment, non assimilation, alienation, frustration and resentment, quite likely leading to more violence.
      We know this is true, because that’s the story so far.
      But perhaps as long as it makes some of us feel good and virtuous, that’s all that matters.
      I just don’t buy into it.

      • Well said. It would be crass stupidity to let them in.

      • IanCad

        Thanks Danny,
        We have to help the vulnerable. The women, children, the elderly, the halt and the lame. Healthy men are a different matter. It is a mess.
        OK! let’s not beat about the bush. Muslim men of warrior age should not be accommodated. Christians of the same vintage should. Their lives are in jeopardy.
        It may sound extreme, but I am coming to the conclusion that re-colonization of the Arabian Peninsula – there’s plenty of oil to pay for it, and, arguably, it belongs to the West anyway. A military occupation of Mesopotamia. A perfectly clear policy, explained to the Muslim world, that the West is quite capable – if it gets mad enough – of completely overpowering and controling the makers of the mischief visited on the civilized peoples of the world.
        Of course, this isn’t likely to happen. However, a rogue nuke, a sunk cruise ship, a biological attack, and then it will be a different story.
        Sooner or later….

        • dannybhoy

          One heck of a move to make Ian. We saw from Iraq and Afghanistan how difficult it is to control factions. So difficult that the West couldn’t do it – or at least they weren’t prepared to do it.
          Times have changed and the warfare has changed, and you don’t necessarily know who you’re fighting.

          • IanCad

            It would be a drastic move Danny but one that necessity could provoke. When the gloves come off the civilized world can be ferocious.

        • Anton

          Russia and probably China would not tolerate it. The 1920s was the time for that.

          • IanCad

            Although, of course, not the West, they could well be the main players in such an event.

        • “I am coming to the conclusion that re-colonization of the Arabian Peninsula – there’s plenty of oil to pay for it, and, arguably, it belongs to the West anyway. A military occupation of Mesopotamia…”

          2 points to note:

          1. This is always morally wrong – to take what does not belong to you. The oil belongs to them.

          If any country attacks or otherwise supports an attack on your country – in this regard Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Turkey (all important allies in the war on terror) are culpable of providing support to Islamic extremists – then retaliation is justified. If they are defeated, you could possibly force them to pay reparations.

          The US led coalition has been attacking specifically those ME leaders that Saudi Arabia doesn’t like – the foreign policy has been outsourced to the Saudis. Bombing countries like Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq and others has destabilised countries and spread the Jihad further afield.

          2. A military occupation is bound to fail. The military adventures of the US led coalition in the last 15 years has shown that superior weaponry and whatever other advantages the West may possess are insufficient to achieve success. Something else is needed – I don’t know what – but it is clearly lacking.

          • Anton

            Recognition that there is a major clash of civilisations, and the will to win it.

          • IanCad

            Anna,
            Oil is a strategic necessity for the entire world.
            It is the resource that has raised billions out of poverty. Powered the pumps and machinery that produce the world’s food.
            Has provided the energy to heat our homes, fuel our transportation. It is the very stuff of life.
            It was American and western technology, fortitude, and foresight that developed the commodity.
            The desert dwellers did nothing to produce it, develop it or maintain it, yet, those who did so assigned to those very nations the right of control over what lay beneath their feet.
            We have, for too long been hostage to the whims and peculiarities of the Saudis. Sure, it is their oil, but we cannot allow them to spread their poisonous Wahhabism, to the hurt of civilization, from the profits of our endeavours.
            The rest of your first point I accept.
            As to your second; I disagree entirely. The limited, restrained, and defensive failure of the coalition is no indication of how those same powers would act were the ferocity of necessity needed.

          • Agreed, western technology was instrumental in developing the petroleum industry in the gulf. Having spent a significant part of my life in the ME – and without trying to apportion blame – let me give you the Arab perspective on these issues.

            Western motives were never altruistic, and the West is widely seen as ruthlessly exploiting the internal problems of the ME to gain control over this resource; cynically befriending and then betraying regional strongmen, and propping up greedy puppets in fake democracies. They do not trust the West; and can you blame them?

            The fact that the gulf nations were able to enjoy much of the benefits – of the single resource they ever possessed – says something about the shrewd negotiating skills of the (then) semi-literate desert herdsmen. The West has often underestimated the Arabs to their own peril – they should have made fair and proper deals with them early on, and not meddled in their internal affairs. Compare this to the situation in Africa and elsewhere, native populations were less ‘business savvy’ and caved under the superior military might of European powers.

            To the Muslims, the West has never been their friend. As Putin rightly pointed out, it is hard to know who is exploiting whom. From their point of view, they are crippling – pre-emptively – a dangerous enemy. I hope they will not be successful in their efforts because a militarily resurgent Islamic world could destabilize the whole world.

            The superior military capability of the West will never translate into success on the battlefield in the current global scenario for several reasons. Anton (see below) has mentioned two. I would add that in the absence of a strong, organised and capable leadership, no amount of ferocity would help.

            If ferocity alone was sufficient, then the Germans should have won the WW2. As a Christian I believe that it was prayer that turned the tide for Britain then – with the King calling for a national day of prayer, Rees Howells and his group of intercessors building up a wall of prayer. Soon after WW2, Europe again turned their backs on God – He is mocked and blasphemed everywhere with freedom of speech as an excuse. The only thing that might help Europe now is true repentance – which we should all pray for.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/28/read-putins-u-n-general-assembly-speech/

          • IanCad

            An excellent post as usual Anna and I agree that the West exploited and cynically played off the producers one with another. The overthrow of Mosaddegh being, perhaps, the vilest act of all, and one for which the world is still paying.
            As to “A militarily resurgent Islamic world” – I believe your fears are unfounded. When they swept all before them in the days of conquest they were the technological giants of the world. Damascus steel, gunpowder, tactics; they had it all. Not so today, they neither build or develop the weapons essential to modern warfare, and, if conflicts arise, their enemies are hardly going to re-supply them.
            We can in no way discount what fervent prayer availeth. Neither can we know how those prayers will be answered. Hitler was beaten. The Russians did it.
            Oh, How we need prayer and repentance!

    • Anton

      The problem is that vicars are accountable to their hierarchy and not to their congregation. If the latter were the case things would be rather different.

      • IanCad

        So; yesterday’s episode had the blessing of the AoC? Oh Dear!
        I am ignorant of the politics of the CofE and shall accept what you said.

        • Anton

          What I said is that vicars are accountable to their hierarchy. That is not identical with your words…

          • IanCad

            I was assuming that, if indeed, The CofE is a hierarchy, policy would be directed from the top down. Thus Welby would be aware of what his lesser lights were getting up to.

          • Anton

            A hierarchy is such that each man in it is able to personally direct those beneath him. There are so many vicars that for this to be possible there is another layer between the Archbishop and vicars, namely diocesan bishops. The diocesan bishop(s) of these folk are probably aware of it; Welby probably isn’t. But anybody is free to inform them.

          • IanCad

            OK Anton, I therefore was really describing “Subsidiarity” an entirely different thing altogether. A policy which, although directed from the top, delegates enforcement to the lower levels, provided they toe the company line.
            Big difference.

          • dannybhoy

            Justin has encouraged the CofE and the whole country to welcome in refugees.
            He even offered a cottage or two.
            (But not to Nissar Hussain…)

          • Anton

            What exactly did he say, please? Welcoming genuine refugees is no bad thing provided it is done in coordination with other countries so that the numbers are copeable with. The tough question is how to determine who is a genuine refugee, and the onus is not on us to prove that they are not.

          • dannybhoy

            I think this is the one..
            (Going back through the archives I have to again express my respect for HG for offering us such a useful and wide ranging blog.)

            http://archbishopcranmer.com/ukip-mep-bashes-archbishop-for-offering-sanctuary-to-refugees/

          • dannybhoy

            Further searching outside of AC yields this item
            http://home.bt.com/news/uk-news/archbishop-of-canterbury-urges-uk-to-welcome-more-refugees-11364028744430
            and for balance this one..
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11021672/Archbishop-of-Canterbury-urges-Britain-to-open-doors-to-persecuted-Iraqi-Christians.html
            but the second with the emphasis on Christian refugees seemed to have been forgotten. Certainly I had never seen it.

  • dannybhoy

    Just read this article from Aish about Belgium, and think about what is happening there..
    http://www.aish.com/ci/s/Breeding-Ground-for-Islamic-Extremists.html?s=feat

    • The Explorer

      Interesting article. It’s a paen to American integrational success. Belgium can’t assimilate 650 000, while America can assimilate 3.3 million. But Belgium has a population of 11.2 million ( that makes for 5.8% Muslim), while the US has 312 million ( that makes for 1.05% Muslim). Also, there’s no reference that I can see to Dearborn, Michigan, where most of the US tension is.

  • len

    Christians whilst being forgiving, gentle, and non judgemental, are not called to be ‘gullible’.” Jesus said ” I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves”.(Matthew 10:16)

    Jihadists returning from the Middle East will find an easy entry back into Europe through migrant camps such as the ‘Calais Jungle’. Welcoming all migrants (regardless) will /is/ having some fairly disastrous consequences for Europe.

  • Findaráto

    Hipster Vic interviews Little Bo-Peep, who has found her sheep, in a muddy field near Calais. She doesn’t want to leave them alone because those nasty border police won’t let them come home, bringing social conflict and a wave of xenophobia behind them.

    “Oh please, please let all the tewwibly depwived migwants into England!” pleads Peep. “They say they’ll be nice to evewyone and they were vewy nice to me.”

    “I say, what a good idea!” weplies … sorry, replies Hipster Vic. “Think of all those lost souls who’ll look to me for spiwitual guidance. This could be a gwoth opportunity for my caweer … sowwy, of course I mean for my pawish and the whole Church! All those gwateful migwants knocking on my vestwy door and begging me to lead them to Chwist! Let’s lobby our MPs now and demand they get the Pwime Minister to thwow open the borders!”

    “Oh yes, what a gweat idea!” enthuses Peep. “And with that big bushy beard, who could possibly contwadict you, you natuwal leader of men, you?”

    “Aha!” Hipster Vic thinks to himself. “I knew the beard was a good idea. You can camouflage finely-boned wetwoussé-nosed feyness with a lumberjack’s thatch after all! Now if only a few of those darned migwants this simpewing vicawette wants to let in will have the decency to convert, Canterbuwy will finally be mine. Mwah, hah, hah!”

    “Ooooh, look at that beard bobbing about,” thinks Peep. “Isn’t it hypnotic? If I half-close my eyes and squint a bit he could almost be Tom Hardy. Almost. What a dweamboat!”

    And thus the Anglican Church continued its long, slow slide into iwwelevance and oblivion.

    • What do you do for a day job? Are you a cartoon writer by any chance Fungus? Or one of those homosexual critics for the arts that spouts a load of waffling spite.

      Granted these youngsters are wet behind the ears and full of youthful enthusiasm, they need to learn to look at all the angles not just one.