I decided to include this on my blog as it has a serious message on it and I would all to watch the youtube:
If people thought that a Labour Government was bad then obviously the lessons have not been learned anything as the likes of Thatcher, Major, Conservatives and Libdem, and Cameron Government has been far worse than a Labour Government both in the past and present time.
History can be both kind and crude towards government(s) yet I like many will recall when Labour Government implemented the National Wage the argument from the Conservatives, Libdems, SNP and others were it will drive business down and their will take their businesses elsewhere to places like India, and China where there are cheap labor although some big multinational companies did leave UK only for them to return to UK still under a Labour Government.
No we all have learn to our surprise that David Scameron wants Muslim Women to learn to speak English and to top it off the likes of Theresa May trying to outdo her commandeering chief by claiming the upper hand by putting him in his place. Could it be that Hameron days are coming to an end and all his successors are doing their best to impress their leader to seek his nomination to be the next leader of the nasty party.
As a former corporate PR man, Cameron understands how to create a public image while pretending to take a different stance and his Leeds speech was a prime example.
The PM insists that his intention is to unify society by integrating Muslims into it, but his highlighting of radicalisation and extremism in the context of some Muslim women’s inability to speak English well serves only to divide communities.
The tendency for some women to concentrate on home life and to socialise only with family or people from the same geographical and linguistic background was not invented by Muslim communities.
It has existed within, for example, some Indian or Greek Cypriot families, but that did not prevent these families’ children from being educated and fully integrated into social lives with their school friends and workmates.
The same applies to the children of Muslim families, as is self-evident wherever they have settled and grown up across Britain.
Where there have been difficulties the least credible explanation for it is that some Muslim women’s English is not up to scratch.
Assisting new citizens to improve their English and thereby help their education and employment prospects ought to be uncontroversial, yet Cameron’s government slashed spending on this essential area of public provision.
Apparently saving a paltry sum was more important to the Tories than risking what he now affects to see as a consequent risk of rampant extremism.
Better communication in English is in the interests of us all and free lessons should be universally available to achieve this.
Cameron’s thirst for pretexts to blame Muslim communities and families for the disturbing but marginal problem of hundreds of young people leaving Britain to join Islamic State (Isis) in Syria or Iraq is also whetted by his obsession with excusing Western imperialist wars for any role in increasing alienation. While individuals bear full responsibility for their own actions, especially criminal deeds, politicians’ efforts to deny that murderous invasions of several Muslim states and support for Israel’s dispossession of the Palestinian people have been contributory factors cannot go unchallenged.
That belief is not confined to Muslims but to large sections of society as a whole and even arch-war criminal Tony Blair has accepted that a link exists.
Cameron’s readiness to visit mosques and discuss matters there is positive, but it will be viewed as another hollow PR gesture if he persists with his carrot-and-stick approach designed to placate his back-bench backwoodsmen.
What world is he living in if he believes that a veiled threat to deport people because of inadequate linguistic skills is a reasonable position?
Does he really imagine that breaking up a family on this flimsy pretext — a penalty imposed exclusively on Muslims is the way to encourage national unity and cohesion?
It’s a nonsense and he knows it, but he feels the need to portray himself as tough to appeal to Islamophobic elements in the media and in his own party.
Until he accepts that this approach contradicts his proclaimed goal of a society at ease with itself, he and his party will be part of the problem not the solution.
As if this was not bad enough now we have seen what Nicky Morgan Education Minister has given Sir Michael Wilshaw the support to say that Schools should be able to decide whether or not to ban Muslim girls from wearing veils, as they cause communication problems in the classroom, the education secretary and the head of Ofsted have said.
Sir Michael Wilshaw, chief of the education watchdog, said he wanted to see women treated fairly, and society “mustn’t go backwards”.
During an appearance on BBC2’s Newsnight, Wilshaw was asked if he would back the banning of veils in school.
“Yes I would,” he answered. “The Prime Minister’s view that we have got to make sure that our liberal values, our liberal West values are protected, people need to listen to that.
“The Muslim community needs to listen to it as well. We have come a long way in our society to ensure that we have equality for women and that they are treated fairly. We mustn’t go backwards.”
He added the veil also posed communication problems between teachers and students.
“My inspectors say on occasions they go into classrooms where they see there are problems about communications.”
Education secretary Nicky Morgan backed Wilshaw’s view, saying individual schools should have the freedom to decide they don’t want people to wear the “full-face veil”.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Morgan commented on David Cameron backing institutions that “needed to see someone’s face”.
“The Prime Minister was absolutely right to say, and we have a very clear view in this country, we are not going to tell people what they can and they can’t wear, that would cut across the values we are talking about that we want everybody to follow.
“But there are times, there are institutions and organisations where it is right – schools will be one of them – where the school leaders want to have a clear uniform policy they want everybody to observe and they may decide that point, that they don’t want people to wear the full-face veil.
“It very much is up to the schools, schools will have a uniform policy.”
Speaking on the same radio station on Monday, Cameron said: “I think in our country people should be free to wear what they like and, within limits, live how they like and all the rest of it.
“What does matter, if for instance a school has a particular uniform policy, sensitively put in place and all the rest of it, and people want to flout that uniform policy, often for reasons that aren’t really connected with religion, I think you should always come down on the side of the school.”
He added: “Going for the French approach of banning an item of clothing, I do not think that’s the way we do things in this country and I do not think that would help.”
Then there is the rumour that is going around that the rules obliging refugees to register in the first European country they enter look set to be abolished under a radical revision of the European Union’s asylum system. The move could be problematic for David Cameron ahead of Britain’s EU referendum.
The EU’s system, part of the so-called Dublin regulation, has been widely ignored during the migrant crisis in which more than a million refugees have streamed into Europe.
However officials say the rules were never properly applied anyway, as most refugees landed on deserted beaches in Greece and Italy, and made their way over land to other countries such as Germany and Sweden.
The move for reform, reported in today’s Financial Times, comes after Greece, in particular, came under criticism for failing to set up basic facilities for refugees.
However, it will mean that the richer countries of final destination, like Germany, will have to establish major registration and fingerprinting infrastructure to cope with the hundreds of thousands of expected refugees.
It could also mean that Britain may find it more difficult to send refugees back to neighbouring EU states. One of the main arguments of the British campaign to remain in the EU is that the Dublin regulations allow the UK to deport asylum-seekers if Britain is not the first European country that they arrived in.
If those regulations were to be changed the UK might be forced to accept refugees who have managed to enter the country from across the Channel, regardless of where they first arrived in Europe. This could further encourage migrants to head for Britain.
The Out campaign was quick to make capital over the planned change.
“This change would appear to provide an incentive for asylum-seekers to get across the Channel,” said a spokesman for Vote Leave.
“This is further evidence that as part of the EU the UK does not have control over migration or asylum policy.”
Much will depend on the detail about how the new rules will work. With no land border with any other country in the passport-free Schengen zone, Britain is not expected to see a strong surge in migration.
The Dublin system was already undermined last September when German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, lifted her country’s right to return Syrian refugees to the first country of entry. Ms Merkel has already called for the EU to revise the Dublin rules to cope with the refugee challenges.
The Dublin rules date back to a 1990 convention in the Irish capital, and came into force for the first 12 signatories in 1997. However, officials have long criticised them, suggesting they could not be applied in countries like Greece and Italy with long, unprotected coastlines. “It looks like Dublin will have to be sacrificed if we want to save the Schengen system,” an EU official said.
The EU Home Affairs Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos told MEPs last week that a revision of the Dublin system would be unveiled in March. “Dublin should not just be a mechanism to allocate responsibility, but also a solidarity instrument among member states. It must be revised deeply; it was adopted in a totally different landscape,” he said.
Six Europeans countries have already reimposed border controls and suspended their Schengen membership in an effort to contain the large influx of refugees.
In his state of the union address to the European Parliament last September, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker promised a reform of the Dublin system. “It is time we prepare a more fundamental change in the way we deal with asylum applications – and notably the Dublin system that requires that asylum applications be dealt with by the first country of entry,” he said.
The European Council President Donald Tusk said that the EU had “no more than two months to get things under control” or face “grave consequences”.
For this reason this is why David Cameron is not a very happy bunny and he is taking a hard-line on Muslim Women who can’t speak English.
well folks it’s like myself going to a Shoaling temple seeking some lessons from a monk to show me how to do shoaling Kung Fu without thinking through the process just to get one over my enemies. It’s no wonder why the shoaling grand master will laugh out a loud and the monk says “No Speaky English, speak Chinese, Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi, and the list goes on.
The point I’m making is which generation of Muslim women his David Cameron is addressing secondly Muslim women comes in all races and creed. This why many Bame, and Chinese communities will take issue with the establishment as most of them are happy to eat our native food, marry our women, and men as a form of tokenism.