Illegal migrants aren't part of "our society".

They are foreign criminals who want to take our jobs, our housing and taxpayers cash. I want to belong to a society where my country, my culture, my countryside, my living and working environment and my taxes are protected from such sponging parasites.

Our laws should be amended to disgorge them with the minimum of cost and delay, and to punish severely those involved in people smuggling and those who knew or should have known (including employers, landlords, public officials and relatives) about their illegal status.

"Baffling?"

It doesn't exactly take Sherlock Holmes to solve a case where the offender leaves their autograph at the scene of the crime. And it doesn't take long to work out the political motivation of somebody who systematically deletes comments critical of Cameron, Remain and the Tory left in general.

The clue is in the phrase "This comment has been deleted by the moderator" and the fact that any attempt to reinstate the post or add new comments to a thread will instantly be flagged by the same phrase.

... continued from 1)

On the subject of "offending snowflakes", why does the ConHome moderator (spotty intern pink Tory with a power complex?) persist in deleting or blocking at least 50% of my posts?

And here's another example:

"Another attempt to sprinkle glitter on the proverbial t*rd of Cameron's "modernisation" project, which was neither "necessary" (- creating divisions in the Party, causing imploding membership and kick-starting a successful competitor for its core vote -) nor did it, as Hargraves claims, mark any kind of sea change in British politics.

"Cameron made little impact until in-fighting between the Blair and Brown factions allowed him to steal a fragile, slender and intermittent poll lead over Labour, an advantage that evaporated after the dust had settled and Brown was confirmed as Labour Leader. It wasn't until the financial crisis began to break at the end of 2007 that the Tories began to build a more secure lead (remember, the one that Cameron threw away in the TV debates); but, again, this apparent success was attributable to Labour's mismanagement of the economy rather than anything positive accomplished by Cameron. And in 2015, despite the clownish Ed Miliband being leader of the Opposition, it was only fear of a Labour coalition with the SNP that finally swung voters behind Cameron.

"A conservative who doesn't know what he wants to conserve or why isn't a conservative.

"A political party without an overarching vision, founded on a coherent and enduring system of values (i.e. one that can't be reduced to a meaningless and ever-shifting mess of platitudes, "retail policy offers", slogans or media "sound-bites"), is just a vehicle for the greed and ambition of a self-serving clique - a clique ever eager to please wealthy individual and corporate donors and to dance to the tune of the media headlines (for just as long as they remain headlines). This has pretty much been the history of the Conservative Party, interrupted briefly and imperfectly by the Thatcher years, at least since Macmillan.

"A conservative is somebody who believes that the Conservative Party should be more than just a machine for dispensing patronage and extracting donations from lobbyists in return for favourable policies, designed to further the agendas, advance the careers and protect the jobs and perks of a few individual politicians, SPADs and bureaucrats. Conservatism is a social movement, with its roots in British culture and civil society, and cannot be appropriated by an arrogant and self-serving clique, which is why politicians like Cameron and SPADS like Hargraves are so irritated when they are reminded of this (to them) distasteful fact."

If ConHome "no platforms" conservative views, what claim does it have to be a forum for debate for Conservatives (unless Conservatives have to be pink Tories by diploma of CCHQ)? And what right does ConHome have to criticise "snowflakes"?

On the subject of "offending snowflakes", why does the ConHome moderator (spotty intern pink Tory with a power complex?) persist in deleting or blocking at least 50% of my posts?

Here's one example:

"Transgender discrimination is right.

"Many so-called "transgender" men have a record of hostility, aggression and physical violence towards women, as well as a host of other unpleasant psychological issues.

"I see no reason for any special legislation, or need to fund vast legions of LGBT "consultants" (militant activists), bureaucrats, lawyers and other parasites, simply to indulge the whims and fantasies of such individuals. Businesses should be free to exclude them from their premises and bar them from women's toilet facilities and employers should be free not to hire them. The NHS should not support costly gender reassignment treatments and any public-funded assistance should be limited to basic counselling.

"And, provided this does not extend to physical violence, threats or repeated harassment, members of the public should enjoy the right to treat these people with ridicule or contempt - after all, why should the freedom of the overwhelming majority be constrained by the bizarre self-indulgent choices of a tiny minority?"

If ConHome "no platforms" conservative views, what claim does it have to be a forum for debate for Conservatives (unless Conservatives have to be pink Tories by diploma of CCHQ)? And what right does ConHome have to criticise "snowflakes"?

continued to 2)...

"Reversed"? No. It's just been toned down a notch so that it doesn't irritate grass-roots supporters quite so much; it's still going quietly on in the background. Once Brexit's sorted and May and her cronies got rid of, there'll be an opportunity to trash the poisonous rump of Cameron's modernisation project and purge its supporters in Government, in Parliament and in CCHQ.

I think you're the one "digging a hole" here. If I'm "racially biased", then it's because I'm drawing the very obvious conclusion from the facts (which presumably you've checked and can't deny).

If you are about as likely to be attacked by somebody of Afro-Caribbean origin as anybody else when that group comprises only about 13 or 14% of the Greater London population (or Afro-Caribbean people comprising only 3% of the national population but 55% of convictions for knife crime), then it is obvious that there is a major problem with that ethnic group. Either you've got no idea how to interpret statistics or you're just using obfuscation to avoid an obvious conclusion that you find inconvenient for the "anti-racist" dogma you so uncritically regurgitate. If being unwilling to deny, suppress or gloss over such inconvenient truths means that I'm a "racist", then I put my hand up without hesitation.

As for the "implicit distinction" between White British and White European, of course it exists. If a distinction is valid between Afro-Caribbean and White European, then why not between White British and White Europeans? You're probably less likely to be attacked by a Swiss national but more likely to be attacked by an Albanian.

There is no such thing as equality between races and cultures, any more than there is equality between individuals. There is only equality before the law, which, as the anti-racist lobby have long since realised, leaves certain ethnic groups stubbornly at the bottom of the pile, which is of course why they campaign for those groups (we all know which ones they are) to be given privileged legal status. This push for privileged status gets stronger every time the facts fail to bear out anti-racist dogma, and the logical conclusion of this drive for equality of outcome at any price, built on nothing more substantial than dogma and wishful thinking, would be to release a random quota of BME convicted criminals and round up and imprison a corresponding quota of innocent White British people. That's the only way that the anti-racists's pipe dream of equality of outcome will be achieved.

If 50% of attackers where the ethnicity of the attacker was known were BME, then it is axiomatic that the other 50% weren't. This is hardly a devastating insight and in no way vitiates my argument.

But I have an apology to make: I misread the graphs (which are to be found on the BBC website in an article dated 17 November 2017 entitled 'Everything you know about acid attacks is wrong'). The figure for BME suspects should actually have been 58.75%, not 50%. Moreover, since there is no attempt to analyse the figure White European figure to isolate White British from White European migrants (presumably the attacker doesn't always have the courtesy to provide this information), the figure for BME includes only black, Asian, Arab, "dark European" and oriental.

"Surely that implies that the other 50% of such attacks were NOT done by BME?"

So what's your point? The statistics demonstrate that such attacks are carried out disproportionately by Afro-Caribbean males - 47.5% of attackers where the ethnicity is known as opposed to 13.4% of the Greater London population in the 2011 census.

Moreover, since the statistics represent cumulative figures over 15 years, they disguise (probably deliberately) the true gravity of the problem which would be clear if the most recent annual statistics were supplied, as these would naturally reflect the large increase in the Afro-Caribbean population over the 15 year period (it grew by 39% between the 2001 and 2011 census) and the percentage of Afro-Caribbean attackers would therefore be significantly higher.

The Conservatives criticise Sadiq Khan but they are in disarray on law and order.

On the one hand they've feebly signed up to David Lammy's scheme to give black criminals softer sentences, but now it seems that they're prepared to ramp up the rhetoric about "tougher sentences", even though the capital's crime wave is largely the work of BME criminals. How much of this posturing will survive the current media furore, I wonder?

The same goes for talking tough about stop and search (remember how May feebly climbed down on this issue in 2014?). Lammy is opposed to the increased use of stop and search, so will these proposals also be quietly dropped once the media headlines subside?

The Government needs a consistent medium and long-term strategy for dealing with violent crime. This should include massively increased use of stop and search based on ethnic and age group profiling. And it shouldn't embrace softer sentences for the very groups responsible for the spike in violent crime.

Recent statistics produced by the Metropolitan Police over the past 15 years show that BME criminals are disproportionately responsible for acid attacks: almost 50% of such attacks (where the ethnicity of the perpetrators could be identified) were BME. And let's not forget that this data is for 15 years during which rapid demographic change has seen the BME population in London explode, so the figures for the past year or so will almost certainly show a much higher proportion of BME perpetrators.

This kind of headless chicken approach - cutting back on stop and search in 201 and then talking tough again in 2018 - announcing softer sentences for black criminals and then talking about tougher sentences for crimes that are disproportionately committed by BME criminals - pretty much characterises Government policy on crime. One step forward, two steps back - just like the silly little jig that May performed at the Party Conference. Any wheeze will do as long as it gets them through the latest round of media headlines.

The Conservative Party takes voters for fools and until it repudiates its past policies shouldn't be taken seriously.

UK universities are heavily indebted, borrowing huge amounts to fund expansion, student accommodation, etc. As soon as the banks and insurance companies that guarantee or underwrite their bond issues get wind of the new obligations, they will enforce changes to admissions policies, otherwise future credit will become massively more expensive or even dry up altogether as the universities' credit ratings tank.