War on the Home Front

BBC TV's Panorama programme on 25 February was about British soldiers maltreating Iraqis.
British soldiers risk their lives and are rightly liable for punishment if they maltreat people.
Why do they join up?
When everyday foreign and Commonwealth men are marrying someone in order to change their visa status and permanently occupy the UK. (On Sundays and bank holidays they are preparing for or celebrating their achievement.)
They can do this because on 11 May 1982 (during the Falklands Conflict) the European Commission of Human Rights determined in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK.
The ending of conscription by Britain coincided with the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act.
The ending of conscription should have been of benefit to young British men, but young foreign and Commonwealth men use Britain as a place in which to avoid conscription in their own countries. Marriage is their facilitator.
None of those young men who congregate in ports in Northern France awaiting their chance to come to England would be there if they were facing conscription on arrival.
The Council of Europe prevailed upon the Japanese to allow foreign men to live in Japan through marriage. This undercut my 1977 complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights about the system being inequitable, but it does nothing to prevent the day-by-day occupation of the UK.

Forced Migration

In the early '70s there was a letter in one of the first issues of Time Out by a Mr. Bannerjee, to the effect:-
I am an Indian. I want to restrict immigration into the UK. Labour won't do it. The Conservatives say they will, but they won't. So what else can I do but vote for the National Front?
Mrs. Thatcher destroyed the National Front in 1979 by promising she would restrict immigration - specifically ending the concession whereby foreign men can live in the UK through marriage.
The National Front vote collapsed, but she did not keep her promise.
On today's BBC Radio 4 News David Cameron described forced marriages as "bizarre". He should more accurately describe Mrs. Thatcher's failure to honour her election promise as immoral and undemocratic. Furthermore the Council of Europe acted illegally (I believe) by not investigating my complaint on this issue made in 1977; and it acted illegally in 1982 and 1985 by determining in favour of three women whose husbands were not allowed to live in the UK, because there is nothing in the European Convention of Human Rights concerning marriage and migration.
Today's Daily Telegraph reports (page 16): "David Cameron will today promise legislation banning forced marriages ..." The 300 forced marriages each year are only "the tip of the iceberg".
85% of forced marriages are by men wanting to live in the UK, and would not take place if Mrs. Thatcher had honoured her 1979 election promise (and the law had not subsequently been repealed).
The main Leader in today's Daily Telegraph comments on the "200,000 British citizens a year departing these shores." "... unchecked immigration over the past decade is creating a country many Britons no longer feel comfortable in."

A Peg for Cultural Relativism

The Council of Europe's activities concerning marriage and migration coincided with Japan's, which, in 1985, allowed foreign men to live and work in Japan through marrage.
This gives an appearance of equality with the UK and trumps my complaint to the European Commission of Human Rights in 1977 about the UK allowing foreign and Commonwealth men to live and work in the UK through marriage even though I (and other Englishmen) often cannot live in their countries through marriage.
In order to make a complaint a peg is needed. But that particular peg was not the problem.
Each country has its own problems. It is this cultural relativism that the Council of Europe was set up to address.
Winston Churchill was one of the inspirations behind the Council of Europe. It is inconceivable that he would have supported it had he known it would facilitate the occupation of the UK by foreigners.

The Illusory Quality of Equality

We would none of us be here were it not for sex discriminatiion.
If women enter the workplace on equal terms with men then they often have an advantage by being in a minority. This is particularly the case in the armed services, and in particular aboard ship.
That would not apply, of course, if the crew were homosexuals.