Victims and oppressors

A lot of sites have been posting on the issue of immigration recently, some with the attempt of having a proper discussion, others to merely point out the shameful way that the subject is reported in the press. Left Outside has tried to condense just what arguments newspapers consistently rely on to incite hatred of immigrants and he concludes that the arguments are very old and still very untrue. Nonetheless, they still induce anger in those that read and believe the basic myths about immigration – that immigrants take our jobs/money/culture/freedoms/women/homes/land/identity. The enemies of reason tries to rationalise why newspapers would desire to do this – what part of the brain are they trying to feed, what market are these myths being sold to – and he concludes that they are designed to: ‘prompt outrage… [and] make you demand justice against a lack of fairness’. in other words, they give readers a chance to rise up (in whatever way) against something that is fundamentally unfair and that they get some kind of catharsis from doing so.

I would develop this a little further and say that newspapers are very aware of their position as a communication tool for the incredibly rich and powerful and that their primary function is to ensure that the rich stay rich and the rest of us remain profitable for them. If we really wanted to get outraged over something perhaps we could choose bigger issues like – for example – the fact that almost half the world – over 3 billion people – live in poverty with over 80% of humanity living on less than $10 a day. Or the fact that ‘the poorest 40 percent of the world’s population accounts for 5 percent of global income… [whilst] the richest 20 percent accounts for three-quarters of world income’. Nearly a billion people entered the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their name; water problems (including lack of clean drinking water and basic sanitation) affect over half of humanity; every second child lives in poverty (1 billion), 121 million are out of education; in 2005 the richest 25% were responsible for over 76% of private consumption, whilst the world’s poorest 20% consumed just 1.5%.

We live in a world that has been inherited by a few – the world’s billionaires, just 497 people (approximately 0.000008% of the world’s population) — were worth $3.5 trillion (over 7% of world GDP) – who have mastery over the media messages we consume. Of course when you take a step back and look around you you may realise that the world is a beautiful place, but conversely the human society that has evolved is pretty fucking shitty. Sometimes we can indulge in personal complaints – why am I working 5 days a week, doing a job I hate, for a wage that just barely enables me to live in a house and feed myself? etc – but we’re always told to be grateful, because there is always someone worse off. This, of course, is true. I might complain that I am not rich, but in many ways I am: I have a loving family, a fiancee, I own a house, a car, the PC I am typing this on, a mobile phone, a games console, a TV; I have running water, gas, electricity and so on. However, why are we forced into accepting our position in life by looking at those less fortunate, why do we not look the other way and question why the system has collected the world’s wealth into the hands of the few? Rather than feel grateful for the fact we’re not starving to death or dying through disease, shouldn’t be looking up the chain and questioning just why there is this economic underclass of billions and just what the fuck are a few people doing with a staggering percentage of the world’s wealth?

Newspapers are a fundamental part of this system of wealth, they are owned by the wealthy who cosy up to the even wealthier – no-one should doubt the power of the Murdoch media empire to shape debate in order to maintain the riches of the elite – so they must quench our first for some kind of battle against unfairness. Therefore each country’s press gives us the ultimate bogeyman: the immigrant. It is never the billionaire on top of the pile that is stealing our money, making us redundant or stealing our women (though, inevitably they do control our employment and profit from our endeavour), it is – we are told to believe – the homeless, disenfranchised and dis-empowered immigrant who is fact doing all of these things. Instead of taking up arms against a small number of obscenely rich people we instead raise our newspapers in anger against a sea of immigrants, and by opposing them we deflect our power from justifiable opposition to the real injustice that is all around us – we waste our anger on a red herring.

The trouble with the system is that we only seem to have two choices: play along and hope for an increasing slice of the wealth as we get older, or fuck the system and live a life in abject poverty or if not at least disdained by most of society (the recent press attacks on Travellers and Gypsies being the perfect example of how outsiders to the game are treated). The higher we climb the ladder of monetary reward the more power and chance we have of making any real change to the overall system, but precisely because of increased power / wealth we are more reluctant to do so. Politicians are perfect examples of human ideals being corrupted by society’s rewards: politicians may start with a dream, a change they may want to affect, but when they actually get into power they realise that to follow their dreams would risk sacrificing the power they have achieved, because they cannot make any changes without power, they drop the changes and follow policies that will get them re-elected (even though their logic is self-defeating because they know they’ll never use this power to affect real change). Thus we have the political circle that we have today, one party promises change and reform, is elected, realises changes may be unpopular in the short term, drops them to follow short term policies to ensure re-election, eventually the country becomes disillusioned with the lack of change and votes in another party that does exactly the same (the process has been repeating for hundreds of years and nothing looks set to change).

Two World Wars were fought by troops confident that social change would follow such momentous events, yet the soldiers who gave so much for their country were always to be disappointed. Change can only ever happen if the general population is mobilised towards a cause thought just by the overwhelming majority. Because the press is largely responsible for shaping public opinion or awareness about any issue, such issues are never likely to be the overwhelming unfairness of an society in which so much is owned and controlled by so few. Instead we are fed bogeymen, of which the immigrant seems to be the most persistent and popular. Of course, the truth about immigration and immigrants is out there, the counter-arguments are laid forth on many websites and even within the mainstream media, but the only result is that the informed and educated are forced to mobilise to fight myths put forward by the press, rather than mobilising against bigger issues. We fight each other and are weak, rather than joining together to battle the real problems.

We therefore live in a society where it seems the best we can fight for is a correction of the myths that surround target groups; whilst the perpetrators of the real crimes against humanity are never threatened because we are too busy squabbling over the lies that they feed us to engage in the bigger questions surrounding their power and responsibilities. Perhaps the biggest irony is that the displacement of people in recent years has largely been caused by the super-rich elite whose corporations have demanded free markets throughout the world – which includes access to the cheapest and most valuable asset of all: people. We accept our cheap clothes made in a sweatshop in some foreign country by a Western corporation, whilst simultaneously demanding ‘British jobs for British workers’. Do we not realise that it is the corporations that decide who is employed and where, not some mythical homogeneous group of immigrants who are themselves victims of corporate power and greed?

It always surprises me that people feel threatened by those with nothing, when logic dictates it is the rich and powerful that can inflict harm upon us should they so wish. Likewise, we attack the most vulnerable, dis-empowered and disenfranchised with a logical realisation that they are the least able to change any of this. For example, The Daily Mail constantly attacks the poorest people in society and the benefits that they receive (gaining much support and vitriol from ‘hard-working, tax-paying’ readers) whilst simulatenoulsy being owned by Lord Rothermere who pays no taxes on the income from the Daily Mail (which the readers presumably don’t know about). It makes no sense, yet somehow the mainstream media have made this incongruity a stable fact of life. In the words of Malcolm X:

If you’re not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.

‘Vast tracts’ of land needed for immigrants

The trouble with believing that the UK is being swamped by immigrants is that even when numbers are put in front of you demonstrating that this is hardly the case, you still cry close the borders and complain. Take today’s immigrant scare story for example: Britain faces fresh influx of immigrants as EU looks to ‘share out’ number of refugees. Immediately you can see from the page title and url that the story started out not being that scary (it started out as: ‘EU to set down guidelines on numbers of immigrants each European country should take’) then an editor picked up on this fact and turned it into another ‘immigrant influx’ story to get the readers going.

Perhaps the reason it wasn’t immediately given a scary headline was because the numbers don’t exactly fit in with the Daily Mail obsession that the UK is full to the brim with dark-skinned immigrants:

If the EU were to accept 20 per cent that would equate to 40,000 refugees a year. Britain’s share, based on population, would be about 5,300.

Around 5300 people, not really a massive amount over the course of a year, is it? However, I guess when we assume that all of them will be given swish houses and will never contribute anything to the country that has rescued them from who-know-what, any number is too many:

Who will take the burden from us? We already have more immigrants than we can handle.Why should we take immigrants from Africa etc anyway? They are not from the E U. If we continue to be the dumping ground of the world then we should stop giving handouts so freely to all who come here for our benefit system. Maybe we could offload a large number who are not true assylum seekers and the genuine ones should be made to work for their British cash.- sandra Page, chesterfield england, 2/9/2009 13:21

Click to rate Rating 342

I am really saddened by the majority of the comments posted under this article, and further saddened by the ratings that they have. Immigrants have been completely dehumanised by the tabloid press to the extent that they really are seen as being a vast ocean of nameless people on a jolly outing to reap mythical benefits from the ‘second-class indigenous citizens of the UK’ (paraphrased from another comment under the article). No one ever stops to question why it is that someone would flee the country of their birth to travel hundreds of miles to a strange, dark, wet and hostile country to be housed in slums, live on a pittance and to be constantly attacked by the media. No one ever stops to actually consider that these people are human beings, who may share the same simple hopes and desires as the rest of us. They might want to find love, start a family and have a career. They might already have a family and are seeking safety for them, something that may not exist in the country they are leaving.

The Daily Mail and other tabloids have consistently dehumanised immigrants, stealing the ability for their readers to show compassion or basic human decency towards others. Instead of empathy, understanding and acceptance immigrants are treated as invaders – evil, money-grabbing freeloaders who have made an active choice to come here. Immigrants or refugees in spite of everything are portrayed as being completely in control of their destiny, whilst the poor middle-class tabloid readers are constantly being told that they are at the mercy of a government and EU that is out to destroy them.

Everything is warped, truth becomes fiction, myth becomes reality; people become unable to see the reality beyond the sordid print of their newspapers. People never look up from their newspapers and try to imagine just what it must be like to leave your home, your country, everything you know because of factors beyond your control. Perhaps if they did, the world might be a better place.

The ‘vast tracts’ in the article title is reference to another comment under this article.

This article is also covered by Tabloid Watch who adds:

Britain has been one of only ten EU countries to take part in the scheme which has amounted to 2,500 over five years – so only 500 per year to the UK. In fact, the EU scheme has been designed to make resettlement easier and more efficient and should increase the countries taking refugees, thus sharing the burden.

Amanda Platell: Racist and Clueless

OK, let’s invoke Godwin’s Law straight away here and just state that Amanda Platell is sounding particularly like a Nazi today: ‘Why this baby boom will make us all go bust‘. It’s the sort of article that makes you immediately think of Nazi rhetoric about the master race and the fear of the undeserving breeding and populating an area – diluting or destroying the true, white race. This may sound a little bit exaggerated, but when Amanda Platell makes statements like this:

Sadly, though, it is not the indigenous middle-class, hard-working, tax-paying population that’s exploding.

According to statistics, our latest baby boom is partly down to high birth rates among immigrants, and partly due to rising numbers of younger mothers.

All the classic Daily Mail myths condensed into two short sentences: somehow white people are ‘indigenous’ to the UK, even though we have genetics from most of Europe as a result of constant ebb and flow of populations – our existence here is arbitrary; all of the middle-classes are employed, hard-working and pay taxes; on the other hand young mothers and immigrants never pay taxes and are a drain on the benefit system. The whole premise of the article is based on another Daily Mail fallacy: that there has been some kind of immigrant birth rate ‘boom’, when – as Tabloid Watch and 5CC point out – the actual boom is a rise from 23.2% to 24.1%. That is less than 1%.

However, as 5CC points out, the only reason a boom is being made of such an insignificant figure is that latest immigration figures just do not support the Daily Mail myth that the country is being swamped by dirty foreigners. However, Amanda Platell is not put off repeating it today: ‘Soaring immigration – and a migrant baby boom – has sent Britain’s population rocketing over the 61 million mark.’ This is the trouble when you read the majority of Mail columnists, how can they ever hope to be even vaguely right about anything when their source material is the Daily Mail?

Amanda Platell – like Littlejohn and others – takes a badly skewed world view then warp it that much further using their ‘creative’ licence as columnists, so a ‘boom’ of less than 1% becomes an ‘explosion’. You end up with a vacuous airhead like Amanda Platell spouting absolute shite and sounding very much like a Nazi at the same time.

But this isn’t the only problem with Daily Mail writers, the main problem is that they never, ever show us the sources for their information. I mean, sure, most of the time you can see which article from the Daily Mail they are ripping off and you might have a chance at engaging with the source figures, but today Amanda Platell puts out some interesting figure without giving us any indication where they come from:

The cost of unemployment in the UK is now £346 billion – with £100 billion of that paid in housing benefits alone.

But what do you mean Amanda? Do you mean that each year we spend £346 billion on benefits? It certainly sounds that way, doesn’t it. Then you track down the source and find out that Amanda has removed a bit of important context to make the figure sound scarier:

More than £340bn has been paid in state benefits to the jobless since Labour came to power in 1997, the Tories will disclose today.

Oh, I see, so it is not a yearly figure at all, but a figure since 1997. This means that on average we have spent £28.3 billion on benefits each year in total, with around £8.3 billion of that on housing benefits – you know, that little thing of giving someone a roof over their head. Sadly, Amanda still has sunk lower into her accusations against immigrants:

My other worry is this: how many immigrant mums have contributed anything to this country before landing us with another child to educate in our already struggling schools?

Once more, the myth that all immigrants arrive to be showered in cash is wheeled out once more by Amanda. You know what, Amanda, if you are worried about this, why don’t you do a little bit of research and put your mind at rest that immigrants are NOT entitled to any benefits in the UK unless they have worked for a certain period etc. As for immigrants from outside the EU, they have to jump through so many hoops it is hardly worth moving to the UK to work unless you have a determined employer handling the paperwork and footing some of the bills.

The trouble with you, Amanda, is that you are absolutely clueless about any issues outside of your tiny, empty head. You really should just stick to insulting other women, even though that is a pretty pointless exercise, at least you don’t sound like a worried Nazi.


As Tabloid Watch, many people on Twitter and indeed people in the comments under her Daily Mail article have pointed out, Britain is 52nd the world population density figures, not second as Amanda claims. A quick Google search would have told her this, but clearly she is too lazy and too busy inciting racial hatred towards immigrants. This may well come as a surprise because Amanda Platell is an immigrant, born in Perth Australia. Which does raise the question, if she is writing lie-riddled drivel like this then what exactly is she contributing to the UK?


This is now covered by 5CC as well. Carmen Gets Around also has a post on immigration that is worth reading as well.

Another wade through the Daily Mail mire

I haven’t been able to focus much today – there just seems to be so much terrible journalism and awful commenting that I just can’t bring myself to wade through any particular article. I’ll just try and point out a few things.

Firstly (via Mailwatch) comes a ‘elf ‘n’ safety’ bashing story… that as usual attempts to thoroughly mislead the reader – and succeeds: ‘Health and safety row over man who died in 18in of water as 999 teams were told it was too risky to rescue him‘. The article tries to give the impression that a man drowned in 18 inches of water whilst paramedics, police and fireman watched scratching their chins doing a health and safety assessment. Of course, this is completely untrue and Stephen Wright (the writer) is talking out of his arse. The facts are as follows:

1 – The victim (Karl Malton) was hit by a car as he walked down an unlit country road at 11pm, May 13th 2008.

2 – The driver pulled up and dialled 999 but was told to stay in his car and not try to find the victim.

3 – ‘Paramedic Sonya Lawrence arrived within 14 minutes but began to search on the nearside of the car, although it was damaged on the offside.

4 – Another 19 minutes later a second ambulance crew arrived and found Mr Malton, who had been thrown unconscious into the dyke by the collision. He was lying face down in the water and appeared to be dead. Paramedic Fergus White climbed over a barrier before deciding it was too dangerous to go down the bank.’

5 – After a further 28 minutes a team of firemen arrived and set up ladders and ropes on the bankside but were ordered to stop by senior officer Edward Holliday. Mr Holliday said: ‘I made the assessment that it would be inadvisable to enter the dyke until a properly trained and prepared crew arrived.’

6 – A post-mortem examination revealed that he had drowned but could not determine how long he had been in the water before dying. The inquest was told he would have been dead within ten minutes of entering the water.

All of this information appeared in the article and makes it clear that the headline is a complete lie. Again, I wonder how the Daily Mail gets away with doing this, do their readers not have the ability to process information contained within the article to realise that the headline is lying to them? What is clear is that it was dark and by the time the victim was found – face first in the water – he was almost certainly dead and by the time the fire service arrived he was definately dead, so why would they risk a half-assed attempt to retrieve the body when they could wait for a team better equipped?

The headline should read: ‘999 services wait for proper equipment and expertise before retrieving dead body’. Still, the Daily Mail readers are certain that ‘elf ‘n’ safety killed Karl Malton:

Too dangerous. Where the hell is the courage! The disregard for personal safety that fills any HUMAN BEING ..ARE THese people just programmed androids!

SHAME SHAME ON THEM ALL!- Dave, uk, 31/7/2009 17:20
Click to rate Rating 1974

Yes, your eyes are not deceiving you, that comment is 1974 in the green – and is just one of many along the same lines, all of them voted up. The old trick of saying everything in the headline, knowing not many Mail readers are capable of reading the small print seems to have worked again.

Secondly, the Daily Mail commentators – who let’s not forget are constantly telling us how afraid they are at the moral decline of this ‘once great nation’ into a violent hell-hole – are again supporting an act of violence, just because they do not agree with that person: ‘Vandal voters’ take revenge on Hazel Blears’ car, but she insists attack was ‘just kids’. Just a couple of comments that sum things up:

I heard this incident on the lunchtime news – AND I AM STILL SMILING!!! Silly little woman – get lost. She really does not get it – let’s hope the people of Salford take their blinkers off at the next election and kick her out.- j wright, Reading Berkshire, 10/8/2009 14:08

Click to rate Rating 298

Naturally this comment is in the green, whilst the next is in the red:

I have again read through a lot of these of comments and am horrified at the number of people who support tyre slashing, window smashing etc.

I am wholly in agreement with those that want new labour out and the expense system well and truly sorted.

BUT, I cannot support in any way this type of criminality.

Where does this nastiness come from?- Vaj, Savoie, France, 10/8/2009 14:06

Click to rate Rating 234

And finally, a story about beggars end with the comments showing just how racist some Mail readers are: ‘Professional’ beggars earning up to £200 a night to supplement their day job. Of course, our streets had never witnessed the terrible evil of beggars until all those filthy foreigners piled in (the story also fits the idea that immigrants are somehow raking money in by doing nothing – I wonder if Littlejohn will pick this story up…):

Its nice to see Gordons immigration policy working so well……- David, london, 10/8/2009 18:53

Click to rate Rating 44

Don’t tell me no-one knew this was going on, it’s just another scam many of them are foreigners doing what they do in there own country.
My answer is:- GIVE THEM NOTHING, they are better of than you are.- Jack Graham, Bingley UK, 10/8/2009 18:26

Click to rate Rating 31

On holiday in Spain 40 odd years ago there were beggars on the streets, we had none, now we have beggars from every corner of the globe. Our answer to these foreign beggars selling the Big Issue is always the same “YOU ARE THE BIG ISSUE” (facing our country today)!!!
ps: You have a ………. nice day too ‘cos you ain’t conning us. Goodbye
– Jon & Susie, Liverpool, The Land Of Beggars Belief, 10/8/2009 18:13
Click to rate Rating 31

would be interesting to know how many of these beggars are foreigners and not home growen ones ,, looking at your pic , who have arrive in the land of freebies under Nu Liebour.
clive, exeter devon, 10/8/2009 17:43
Click to rate Rating 47

This article steered well clear of revealing a little more about the origins of these people.
– William Owen, Cardiff, 10/8/2009 14:16
Click to rate Rating 230

The last comment is particularly enlightening, because the article does not include a single mention of whether the beggars are foreign. It does not even hint that the beggars could be foreign. But, that is the sad thing, the readers are so brainwashed into believing that all foreigners / immigrants are here for a free ride that they automatically link the article to this wider Daily Mail myth. The Daily Mail has sold this myth so well they don’t have to create all the links anymore, they can just rely on their moderated comments system on making the links for them. I also smiled when I thought that what the last comment is trying to say is: ‘I see they haven’t pointed out that all these bloody beggars are foreigners, so as not to upset the PC brigade’ – as if the Daily Mail was above stirring up hatred towards foreigners.

Sad how Daily Mail readers are so quick to believe that foreign beggars take home ‘£73,000’ a year. The only immigrant I know that takes home a huge salary and contributes nothing to the world is Richard Littlejohn.

Deport me, I’m not even integrating

Richard Littlejohn often declares that he isn’t against immigration, but against immigrants who ‘refuse to learn English or integrate into our society‘. Now the word ‘integration’ has always bothered me when it is used in terms of integrating into a society, how is a person supposed to do this? Are they supposed to integrate with lower-class society, underclass, middle, middle-upper or high-class society? Are they not considered integrated if they don’t attend local groups – such as line dancing on a Wednesday evening?

Integration is such a woolly, indefinable idea that of course it is an easy stick to beat immigrants with, and it is easy for racists like Richard Littlejohn to proclaim that they don’t really mind foreigners, as long as they behave utterly British as soon as they cross the border. Given that Richard Littlejohn lives in a gated mansion in Florida I wonder whether he is properly integrated into American society. I was born and raised in England and have now lived in Wales for the last 6 years, am I properly integrated in this society?

Sure, I have bought a house, I have a job and a fiancee, but have I exchanged more than 50 words with any neighbours in the year I have lived in my house – no, have I learnt the local language – no, do I attend line-dancing classes or other local activities – no. So am I integrated? I commute back and forth to work and only spend time with my fiancee and close friends during the week, I keep myself to myself pretty much as I only have limited leisure time. I imagine I am not alone in living this kind of lifestyle and I wonder if I happened to be an immigrant in the UK whether this behaviour would be seen as a failure to integrate, and whether I’d be despised for this failure.

I recently stumbled across a new blog – Left Outside – and noticed that they had a post on the UK Citizenship Test, so in order to test whether I deserved to live in the UK I took the test. Here is my result:

You have failed the practice citizenship test.
Questions answered correctly: 13 out of 24 (54%)

In order to pass the test you must score 75%. I would like anyone with a spare five minutes (it is a multiple choice test and should not take any longer) to take the test and see whether they are judged to be worthy of residence in the UK – I think you’ll find the questions scarily obscure. Quite what being able to answer such questions achieves I am not sure, as I’m pretty sure most people born UK citizens would struggle to get the required 75%.

If you do complete the test, post your results below, I am genuinely interested if I’m alone in failing this test. No cheating, don’t Google the answers!

Click here to take the test.

Ladies and Gentleman: I give you the Daily Mail

As you are no doubt already aware I harbour strong feelings of disgust that the Daily Mail is read by around 2 million people. I find it hard to comprehend how that many people want to be fed a diet of hate, lies and just plain piss-poor information. Some would argue that there are worse tabloids out there – The Sun, The Daily Express etc – but today the Daily Mail has sunk beneath them all with its disgraceful reporting of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) report on social housing.

I first saw this report on BBC Breakfast and heard more about it on Radio 5 Live on my way to work. The overwhelming emphasis of the report is that the impression that a lot of people have that somehow immigrants jump to the top of the social housing queue because of special treatment is entirely false. It is a myth. I immediately thought, how are the Daily Mail going to spin this one?

On the BBC website they go with the headline:

BBC headline

The opening paragraph and general coverage of the story:

There is no evidence that new arrivals in the UK are able to jump council housing queues, an Equality and Human Rights Commission report says.Once they settle and are entitled to help, it adds, the same proportion live in social housing as UK-born residents…

“It is largely a problem of perception,” he [Housing minister John Healey] told Today.

“The report shows there is a belief, a wrong belief, that there is a bias in the system.”

Reuters go with: ‘No evidence migrants jumping housing queue‘. Opening with:

Migrants to Britain are not receiving preferential treatment over the allocation of social housing as many people believe, a report released on Tuesday said. Last month, Prime Minister Gordon Brown promised to overhaul the system to “give more priority to local people,” addressing public fears that migrants were getting unfair treatment. But the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) said research showed such concern was misplaced. go with: Migrants ‘Not Getting Housing Priority‘. Opening with:

The vast majority of people who live in social housing in Britain were born in the UK according to a research study published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission today.

ITN: Immigrant housing priority ‘a myth’; Guardian: Claims that immigrants prioritised for social housing ‘a myth’; The Independent: Study ‘ends myth’ of housing for immigrants; The Daily Telegraph: Immigrants do not get housing priority, study shows. Even the Daily Express headline is refreshingly accurate (even if they still shout it):  IMMIGRANTS ‘DON’T TOP HOUSING LIST’.

So, how does the Daily Mail tackle this story? Well, this is their headline:

Daily Mail is scum

Yes, that is right, they use the report to beat immigrants and still insist that they are taking too large a share of social housing. They open with:

Nearly 400,000 homes have gone to tenants who were born abroad, the Government’s equality watchdog has said.One in ten state-subsidised homes is occupied by an immigrant family, according to the first estimate of the impact of immigration on social housing.

More than half of the immigrants who live in council or housing association houses and flats are in London, the report from the Equality and Human Rights Commission found.

It added that four out of ten people born abroad who live in the capital are living in subsidised housing – a figure that suggests a million people in immigrant families have found homes in social housing in London.

And also feel the need to quote Civitas (think BNP in smarter suits):

But Robert Whelan, housing expert at the Civitas think tank, said: ‘In some areas most units of social housing are going to immigrants, which provides fertile soil for the BNP.’This report does not reflect the concerns of working class people and it is extremely unhelpful at a time when the BNP is hoovering up votes.

‘It does not recognise the claims of longstanding local residents whose families have contributed to communities for generations.’

I do not think any analysis is neccesary here, with this unbelievably skewed article The Daily Mail make it clear that they want to protect the myths that feed their own racist agenda. What do you expect from a newspaper that recently said: ‘The “British homes for British workers” plan, if it succeeds, will force councils to end the unfairness which sees immigrants with large families vault to the top of the council house list’. This has now been proven to be a myth, but you will not read that on the Daily Mail website, you’ll just read more lies piled up on the rest.