Ashcroft and Cameron

In true tabloid fashion, the disclaimer acknowledging the story might be bollocks ...

[that no corroboration of the story has been received by the authors of the book & article and that their request for sight of the photo has been ignored and that the whole thing could just as easily be a case of mistaken identity or even an elaborate hoax and that even the prop said to be in the picture was not an uncommon find at parties attended by students at that university at that time]

... doesn't come until after the authors have told *only of their hearing of* the story themselves.

[Hearsay evidence - noun - (law) evidence based on what has been reported to a witness by others rather than what he has himself observed or experienced (not generally admissible as evidence)]

I'm left wondering whether I am intended to believe the photographer had their own darkroom, seeing as a roll of film with the implied image on it wouldn't be one you would readily entrust to the local chemist for processing or stick in a bag and bundle off to Bonusprint. Certainly not if you were rich, whichever side of the camera you had been.

I think whoever it was blocked Lord Ashcroft's appointment to Government made a good call.

Even if the allegation were to be completely true and blah, blah, blah, I am reassured that the eight million pounds donated by the author to the Conservative Party didn't buy him the level of influence he wanted it to. He appears far too spiteful.

BBC Migrant (FB 26th June 2015)

I can't be bothered to rephrase my Calais lorry-jumpers piece from tonight as standalone so I'll begin with the post that prompted my response. It was a Public post so I am not breaching any confidences and I shan't attribute it to avoid its author embarrassment:

They wrote:

" Last night on the BBC news, they interviewed a Sudanese migrant in Calais. He's trying to make his way to the UK. He's taught himself impeccable english, and he's made his way across Africa and Europe to try and make his dream come true.
Some people think we should move heaven and earth to stop him. I disagree.
A man with that much motivation, drive, and talent should be welcome here. He's shown more resourcefulness and resilience than I think most of us could in his situation, and with all that going for him he's going to be an asset to the country.
So what do we do? We spend millions of £ to stop him.
Smart move."

I replied:

English is one of the two official languages in Sudan so it is no great surprise he is fluent.

If he had entered the EU legally he would already have a visa that entitled him to come here. I guess he doesn't so he has illegally entered and crossed a large number of countries, those of which are in the EU having the same human rights legislation as we do.

The UK, as is recently widely reported, is on average the most expensive place in Europe in which to rent accommodation and as he presumably has no funds he is presumably intending to be supported by the UK as he has no job ready and waiting for him.

The key to what makes the UK an attractive destination for illegal migrants over other European countries is that if one does qualify for asylum here and finds even a low paid job one's earnings are topped up by Tax Credits, which are an unquestionable burden on those taxpayers in the UK who do not qualify for them.

And, of course, if he intends to cross on a lorry he is also putting the livelihood of the driver of that lorry at risk. I believe the fine is some £2000 or so per person discovered on, in, under or otherwise aboard a vehicle but not on the ticket or with the correct documentation.

Had he real drive and motivation to become an upstanding and contributing member of our society he would have done all he could to qualify for legal entry. He might also, were he not criminally selfish, have thought to stay closer to home to help sort out the problems within his own country.

So, in summary, he is someone who has no respect for the law in the countries he has already crossed without the appropriate permissions and has no respect for UK law as it is his intention to enter the UK illegally. That he has not expired yet would imply he has either illegally worked along the way or has stolen enough to sustain himself. He also chose to run away, much further than is necessary to achieve safety for himself, rather than address problems for the greater good of his fellow Sudanese.

I fail to see how all that renders him a potential asset to our country? He may have been a refugee from Sudan a while ago but right now he's nowhere near Sudan, has no need to flee anymore and he is just another illegal resident in France, which, as it happens, is not a dangerous war zone. I am there at the moment and would have noticed.