Migrants to be offered FREE degrees at top university while Britons amass huge debts
REFUGEES and asylum seekers could get a free place
at one of Britain’s top universities alongside a new wave of British
students struggling to cope with the burden of huge student debts.
Bristol will offer the scholarships as part of a scheme to integrate refugeesRussell
Group member Bristol University has offered scholarships and softened
the application process for refugees and asylum seekers as part of a
scheme to integrate those escaping conflict into education.
Hugh Brady, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Bristol, said: "We
know there are factors that make it difficult for people from refugee
and asylum-seeking communities to apply to university.
previous studies may have been interrupted, they might not have evidence
of their previous qualifications or their qualifications are not
Applications for the scholarship were open to refugees or asylum seekers in Britain “Our scheme has been designed to accommodate these factors, so please don't let them stop you from applying.”
comes as many working class students are put off the idea of going to
university due to the huge debts incurred – with many leaving higher
education after taking on more £40,000 of debt.
For six out of 10,
cost is the main thing stopping them from going to university or
dropping out when they get there, according to new research from
Many working class students are put off the idea of going to university due to student debtEnglish
universities are currently some of the most expensive in Europe, often
charging £9,000 a year in tuition fees while others – including Scotland
– offer the service for free.
It comes as the number of European
Union students heading to British universities this summer has surged to
its highest level ever as students rush to the UK after Brexit.
Brussels students will make up 11 per cent of undergraduates this autumn – a record 26,800 in total.
Destroyed by arrogance: His relentless hounding of British troops
made him the darling of the human rights industry. Now his firm's being
shut down - and soldiers are planning to SUE him
Phil Shiner is to close the door on his discredited Birmingham legal firm
Public Interest Lawyers has spent millions of pounds pursuing troops
Serving and former soldiers considering taking their own legal action
Mr Shiner is to close his law firm, Public Interest Lawyers
presents himself as the victim of a great Establishment plot: the
plucky outsider and ‘committed socialist’ from humble beginnings
pummelled by Tory toffs and military top brass for having the audacity
to shine his virtuous light on the murkier workings of the British
as Phil Shiner now shuts the door on his discredited Birmingham legal
practice, he will, no doubt, repeat his claims of a ‘personal vendetta’
against him by the Government and its agents.
for many serving and retired members of the Armed Forces, the news that
Mr Shiner and his law firm, Public Interest Lawyers, are shutting up
shop is a cause for celebration.
spent years and many millions of pounds (courtesy of the taxpayer)
pursuing British troops for thousands of alleged crimes in Iraq and
elsewhere on the flimsiest of evidence, the one-time darling of the
human rights industry has found that the tables have turned.
he has clearly found the whole experience so disagreeable that he has
decided to quit, ahead of a series of inquiries into the conduct of his
is a story of arrogance and hubris, one that raises several awkward
questions for a legal establishment which, until recently, was only too
keen to lionise this so-called champion of the oppressed.
Mr Shiner’s detractors call him an ‘ambulance-chaser’, a term of abuse in judicial circles (file photo)
if Mr Shiner hopes that locking the office door will make the beastly
Establishment take its vendetta elsewhere, he is likely to be
company has caused huge anguish to members of the Armed Forces and I am
pleased it is closing down,’ says Colonel Bob Stewart, Tory MP for
if it’s just a tactic to avoid further action against them, it won’t
work. They should be chased and prosecuted – as they have chased others –
if they have done things that are illegal. And they have certainly done
things that are morally disputable.’
Shiner’s detractors call him an ‘ambulance-chaser’, a term of abuse in
judicial circles and one which he deeply resents. Yet, though Mr Shiner
and his colleagues have chased countless ambulances – not to mention
British Army jeeps, tanks and armoured personnel carriers – we are not
talking about your average run-of-the-mill, compensation-chasing, no
win-no fee legal pondlife.
is a man who has risen to the top of the Establishment he professes to
despise, complete with an entry in Who’s Who (it’s ‘Professor Philip
Shiner’, by the way).
Perhaps the final straw for his firm
was this month’s announcement from the Legal Aid Agency that PIL has
been banned from further public funding for its cases (file photo)
us picture the scene in November 2007. The senior echelons of the legal
world are gathered in their finery in the City of London for the Law
Society Awards. Armoury House, the Georgian home of the Honourable
Artillery Company, the oldest regiment in the British Army, has been
hired for the black tie dinner.
eyes are on the top trophy, the Solicitor of the Year Award for ‘the
greatest positive impact on the public perception or reputation of the
profession’. And the winner is … Phil Shiner.
Law Society’s citation commends his ‘tenacious and courageous
commitment to the rights of those for whom access to justice would
otherwise be denied’, in particular ‘bereaved Iraqi families whose
relatives had been killed in incidents in which British soldiers had
Mr Shiner piously explains that this was not so much work as a personal
crusade, inspired by his own Christian beliefs.
Mr Shiner and his firm, PIL, rose to
prominence after they won more than £2million in compensation for the
family of an Iraqi hotel receptionist (file photo)
decision to take the Ministry of Defence to task, he says, was ‘part of
an absolute fundamental commitment to challenging abuse of power in any
way that I can think of’.
goes on: ‘It’s not just the abuse of power that led us into war but the
massive abuses of power that had been taking place up to and beyond the
have been many similar baubles over the years. Garlanded with the 2004
‘Human Rights Lawyer of the Year’ award by the pressure group Liberty,
Mr Shiner would go on to be appointed professor in practice law by
has received honorary accolades from the universities of Warwick, Kent
and the London School of Economics and sits as a vice-president of the
Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers.
any definition of the metropolitan liberal elite, ‘Professor’ Shiner is
right up there at the top table. Which is why his fall is all the more
at what he calls a ‘tough’ Coventry comprehensive and Birmingham
University, the twice-married father of five has had an impressive
journey to the top of his trade.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has backed the closing of the firm
Yet his has been a reputation forged by the trashing of others, notably those of members of the Armed Forces.
There was clear evidence that some British troops had been guilty of serious misconduct during and after the invasion of Iraq.
Shiner and his firm, PIL, rose to prominence after they won more than
£2million in compensation for the family of an Iraqi hotel receptionist,
Baha Mousa, who died while in the custody of British soldiers in 2003. A
subsequent public inquiry into the affair in 2011 described it as an
‘appalling episode of serious gratuitous violence’. Spurred on by their
success, Mr Shiner and his colleagues pushed for an inquiry into further
alleged human rights abuses, following a bitter battle between British
forces and Iraqi insurgents in 2004.
the root of the claim was that innocent Iraqi farmers had been murdered
by British soldiers. But one year into the £31million case, known as
the al-Sweady inquiry, the Iraqi families dropped their claims.
December 2014, the judge leading the investigation found that the
witnesses represented by PIL and another firm, Leigh Day, had not just
been exaggerating but telling systematic lies.
the words of Sir Thayne Forbes, the allegations were ‘wholly without
foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies, reckless
speculation and ingrained hostility’. It transpired that Mr Shiner and
his firm had been paying an agent to round up potential victims and
witnesses and had already trousered £3million from the Ministry of
Defence for their part in the proceedings.
The MoD, in turn, reported Mr Shiner and his firm to the SRA, the solicitors’ watchdog, egged on by the prime minister himself.
More than 300 soldiers have now
received letters warning them that they may face interrogation over
instances of alleged ‘abuse’ (file photo)
an 18-month investigation, the SRA would refer the case to a
disciplinary tribunal because of ‘serious allegations of professional
misconduct’. Yet it now emerges that Mr Shiner is fighting to have that
upcoming tribunal held behind closed doors, apparently on grounds of ill
Interest Lawyers, it would seem, do not believe that the public
interest extends to themselves. The Daily Mail is contesting the
application. For whatever the state of Mr Shiner’s own medical
condition, there are hundreds of British service personnel whose own
health has been adversely affected by accusations based on the most
dubious evidence, if not downright lies.
than 300 have now received letters warning them that they may face
interrogation over instances of alleged ‘abuse’ in 1,500 cases, many of
them instigated by Mr Shiner and his firm.
Stewart says he knows of several ex-soldiers suffering extreme stress
as a result and is adamant that Mr Shiner should not be treated any
idea that he and his firm were using an agent to go out and find
complaints against our Armed Forces fills me with horror,’ he says. Last
year, Mr Shiner insisted that he was simply the target of a ‘vendetta’
by a Government ‘furious’ at the extent of the abuses which he had
Several serving and former soldiers are considering taking their own legal action against Mr Shiner (file photo)
the final straw for his firm was this month’s announcement from the
Legal Aid Agency that PIL has been banned from further public funding
for its cases.
On top of that, several serving and former soldiers are considering taking their own legal action against Mr Shiner.
serving officer has told the Daily Telegraph that he is planning to
leave the Army after members of the Iraq Historic Allegations Team
interviewed him for two days over a 13-year-old abuse allegation and
then turned up on the doorstep of a former girlfriend to ask her if he
had ever been abusive in their relationship.
veterans would like to sue Shiner. He has a lot to answer for. Lives
have been destroyed while he has gained personally from these
allegations,’ the officer added.
acting for other groups of servicemen have said that they are
considering legal action, depending on the result of the Solicitors
Mr Shiner has not responded to questions from the Daily Mail.
However, one issue is safely beyond doubt. He won’t need to dust off his dinner jacket for this year’s Law Society Awards.
NWN: Shiner ? Now there is a an old English name . No doubt he and his forebears emanate from Eastern Europe ? And a left winger to boot. The ex Forces community have been having many demonstrations against filth like this. A genuine piece of good news.
By Patrick J. Buchanan
“I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged,” Donald Trump told
voters in Ohio and Sean Hannity on Fox News. And that hit a nerve.
“Dangerous,” “toxic,” came the recoil from the media.
Trump is threatening to “delegitimize” the election results of 2016.
Well, if that is what Trump is trying to do, he has no small point.
For consider what 2016 promised and what it appears about to deliver.
This longest of election cycles has rightly been called the Year of
the Outsider. It was a year that saw a mighty surge of economic populism
and patriotism, a year when a 74-year-old Socialist senator set
primaries ablaze with mammoth crowds that dwarfed those of Hillary
It was the year that a non-politician, Donald Trump, swept Republican
primaries in an historic turnout, with his nearest rival an ostracized
maverick in his own Republican caucus, Senator Ted Cruz.
More than a dozen Republican rivals, described as the strongest GOP
field since 1980, were sent packing. This was the year Americans rose up
to pull down the establishment in a peaceful storming of the American
But if it ends with a Clintonite restoration and a ratification of
the same old Beltway policies, would that not suggest there is something
fraudulent about American democracy, something rotten in the state?
If 2016 taught us anything, it is that if the establishment’s
hegemony is imperiled, it will come together in ferocious solidarity —
for the preservation of their perks, privileges and power.
All the elements of that establishment — corporate, cultural,
political, media — are today issuing an ultimatum to Middle America:
Trump is unacceptable.
Instructions are going out to Republican leaders that either they
dump Trump, or they will cease to be seen as morally fit partners in
It testifies to the character of Republican elites that some are
seeking ways to carry out these instructions, though this would mean
invalidating and aborting the democratic process that produced Trump.
But what is a repudiated establishment doing issuing orders to anyone?
Why is it not Middle America issuing the demands, rather than the other way around?
Specifically, the Republican electorate should tell its discredited
and rejected ruling class: If we cannot get rid of you at the ballot
box, then tell us how, peacefully and democratically, we can be rid of
You want Trump out? How do we get you out?
The Czechs had their Prague Spring. The Tunisians and Egyptians their Arab Spring. When do we have our American Spring?
The Brits had their “Brexit,” and declared independence of an
arrogant superstate in Brussels. How do we liberate ourselves from a
Beltway superstate that is more powerful and resistant to democratic
Our CIA, NGOs and National Endowment for Democracy all beaver away
for “regime change” in faraway lands whose rulers displease us.
How do we effect “regime change” here at home?
Donald Trump’s success, despite the near-universal hostility of the
media, even much of the conservative media, was due in large part to the
public’s response to the issues he raised.
He called for sending illegal immigrants back home, for securing
America’s borders, for no amnesty. He called for an America First
foreign policy to keep us out of wars that have done little but bleed
and bankrupt us.
He called for an economic policy where the Americanism of the people
replaces the globalism of the transnational elites and their K Street
lobbyists and congressional water carriers.
He denounced NAFTA, and the trade deals and trade deficits with
China, and called for rejection of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
By campaign’s end, he had won the argument on trade, as Hillary
Clinton was agreeing on TPP and confessing to second thoughts on NAFTA.
But if TPP is revived at the insistence of the oligarchs of Wall
Street, the Business Roundtable, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — backed
by conscript editorial writers for newspapers that rely on ad dollars —
what do elections really mean anymore?
And if, as the polls show we might, we get Clinton — and TPP, and
amnesty, and endless migrations of Third World peoples who consume more
tax dollars than they generate, and who will soon swamp the Republicans’
coalition — what was 2016 all about?
Would this really be what a majority of Americans voted for in this most exciting of presidential races?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable,” said John F. Kennedy.
The 1960s and early 1970s were a time of social revolution in
America, and President Nixon, by ending the draft and ending the Vietnam
war, presided over what one columnist called the “cooling of America.”
But if Hillary Clinton takes power, and continues America on her
present course, which a majority of Americans rejected in the primaries,
there is going to a bad moon rising.
And the new protesters in the streets will not be overprivileged children from Ivy League campuses. http://buchanan.org/blog/yes-system-rigged-125529
Those in power see people at the bottom as aliens whose bizarre emotions they must try to manage.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel addresses the refugee crisis, Sept 7, 2015.
This is about distance, and detachment, and a kind of historic
decoupling between the top and the bottom in the West that did not, in
more moderate recent times, exist.
Recently I spoke with an acquaintance of Angela Merkel,
the German chancellor, and the conversation quickly turned, as
conversations about Ms. Merkel now always do, to her decisions on
immigration. Last summer when Europe was engulfed with increasing waves
of migrants and refugees from Muslim countries, Ms. Merkel, moving
unilaterally, announced that Germany would take in an astounding
800,000. Naturally this was taken as an invitation, and more than a
million came. The result has been widespread public furor over crime,
cultural dissimilation and fears of terrorism. From such a sturdy,
grounded character as Ms. Merkel the decision was
puzzling—uncharacteristically romantic about people, how they live their
lives, and history itself, which is more charnel house than settlement
Ms. Merkel’s acquaintance sighed and agreed. It’s one
thing to be overwhelmed by an unexpected force, quite another to invite
your invaders in! But, the acquaintance said, he believed the chancellor
was operating in pursuit of ideals. As the daughter of a Lutheran
minister, someone who grew up in East Germany, Ms. Merkel would have
natural sympathy for those who feel marginalized and displaced. Moreover
she is attempting to provide a kind of counter-statement, in the 21st
century, to Germany’s great sin of the 20th. The historical stain of
Nazism, the murder and abuse of the minority, will be followed by the
moral triumph of open arms toward the dispossessed. That’s what’s
driving it, said the acquaintance.
It was as good an explanation
as I’d heard. But there was a fundamental problem with the decision
that you can see rippling now throughout the West. Ms. Merkel had put
the entire burden of a huge cultural change not on herself and those
like her but on regular people who live closer to the edge, who do not
have the resources to meet the burden, who have no particular protection
or money or connections. Ms. Merkel, her cabinet and government, the
media and cultural apparatus that lauded her decision were not in the
least affected by it and likely never would be.
Nothing in their
lives will get worse. The challenge of integrating different cultures,
negotiating daily tensions, dealing with crime and extremism and
fearfulness on the street—that was put on those with comparatively
little, whom I’ve called the unprotected. They were left to struggle,
not gradually and over the years but suddenly and in an air of ongoing
crisis that shows no signs of ending—because nobody cares about them
enough to stop it.
The powerful show no particular sign of
worrying about any of this. When the working and middle class pushed
back in shocked indignation, the people on top called them “xenophobic,”
“narrow-minded,” “racist.” The detached, who made the decisions and
bore none of the costs, got to be called “humanist,” “compassionate,”
and “hero of human rights.”
And so the great separating incident
at Cologne last New Year’s, and the hundreds of sexual assaults by
mostly young migrant men who were brought up in societies where women
are veiled—who think they should be veiled—and who chose to see women in short skirts and high heels as asking for it.
Cologne of course was followed by other crimes.
The journalist Chris Caldwell
reports in the Weekly Standard on Ms. Merkel’s statement a few weeks
ago, in which she told Germans that history was asking them to “master
the flip side, the shadow side, of all the positive effects of
Caldwell: “This was the chancellor’s . . . way of
acknowledging that various newcomers to the national household had
begun to attack and kill her voters at an alarming rate.” Soon after her
remarks, more horrific crimes followed, including in Munich (nine
killed in a McDonald’s) Reutlingen (a knife attack) and Ansbach (a suicide bomber).
larger point is that this is something we are seeing all over, the top
detaching itself from the bottom, feeling little loyalty to it or
affiliation with it. It is a theme I see working its way throughout the
West’s power centers. At its heart it is not only a detachment from, but
a lack of interest in, the lives of your countrymen, of those who are
not at the table, and who understand that they’ve been abandoned by
their leaders’ selfishness and mad virtue-signalling.
Street, where they used to make statesmen, they now barely make
citizens. CEOs are consumed with short-term thinking, stock prices,
quarterly profits. They don’t really believe that they have to be
involved with “America” now; they see their job as thinking globally and
meeting shareholder expectations.
In Silicon Valley the idea of
“the national interest” is not much discussed. They adhere to higher,
more abstract, more global values. They’re not about America, they’re
about . . . well, I suppose they’d say the future.
the wealthy protect their own children from cultural decay, from the
sick images they create for all the screens, but they don’t mind if
poor, unparented children from broken-up families get those messages
and, in the way of things, act on them down the road.
I’ve seen of those in power throughout business and politics now, the
people of your country are not your countrymen, they’re aliens whose
bizarre emotions you must attempt occasionally to anticipate and manage.
In Manhattan, my little island off the continent, I see the
children of the global business elite marry each other and settle in
London or New York or Mumbai. They send their children to the same
schools and are alert to all class markers. And those elites, of Mumbai
and Manhattan, do not often identify with, or see a connection to or an
obligation toward, the rough, struggling people who live at the bottom
in their countries. In fact, they fear them, and often devise ways, when
home, of not having their wealth and worldly success fully noticed.
Affluence detaches, power adds distance to experience. I don’t have
it fully right in my mind but something big is happening here with this
division between the leaders and the led. It is very much a feature of
our age. But it is odd that our elites have abandoned or are abandoning
the idea that they belong to a country, that they have ties that bring
responsibilities, that they should feel loyalty to their people or, at
the very least, a grounded respect.
I close with a story that I haven’t seen in the mainstream press. This week the Daily Caller’s Peter Hasson
reported that recent Syrian refugees being resettled in Virginia, were
sent to the state’s poorest communities. Data from the State Department
showed that almost all Virginia’s refugees since October “have been
placed in towns with lower incomes and higher poverty rates, hours away
from the wealthy suburbs outside of Washington, D.C.” Of 121 refugees,
112 were placed in communities at least 100 miles from the nation’s
capital. The suburban counties of Fairfax, Loudoun and Arlington—among
the wealthiest in the nation, and home to high concentrations of those
who create, and populate, government and the media—have received only
Some of the detachment isn’t unconscious. Some of
it is sheer and clever self-protection. At least on some level they can
take care of their own.
'Let refugees into your homes' France pleads with citizens to help ease migrant crisis
THE French government has urged citizens to welcome
refugees into their homes because the country’s migrant centres are so
The French government is struggling to tackle the migrant crisisThere are currently 147 reception centres across France, but these are in massive demand as desperate refugees continue to flee the Middle East.
minister Emmanuelle Cosse has pledged to built a further 50 centres
before the end of next month in a desperate bid to ease the crisis.
But she has also called on French people to open up their homes to migrants in need. Several organisations have already promised to help. The group Singa has helped 300 migrants find a temporary home since it launched its 'Calm' scheme last June.
co-director Alice Barbe said: "We match people according to where they
live, their job, their hobbies, and the languages they speak.
"If things work out, the migrant will remain in the person's home for a minimum of two weeks, and for up to nine months."
Housing minister Emmanuelle Cosse unveiled the plan yesterday
Evicted Calais migrants sleep rough in Paris
Wed, August 3, 2016
Hundreds of migrants evicted from the Calais Jungle camp sleep rough in Paris.
Calais camp is dismantled as resident set fires and throw stones at Police
And speaking last year, fellow co-founder Guillaume Capelle said: "We can see that there are four million displaced people.
like Lebanon are taking in one million people. Here in France, we're
taking 24,000 refugees – evidently, that's fairly few in comparison.
"What interests us, however, is ensuring that the people who do arrive here have enough of an opportunity to start a new life."
Thousands of desperate refugees have fled the Syrian civil war
A migrant holds his child up to the fence after leaving flowers, on the Greek side of the border fence
Last week a peer has
called on the Government to show "more humanity and intelligence" to
child refugees in Calais' notorious 'Jungle' camp.
Dubs requested Theresa May's "urgent intervention" in reuniting children
living in the camp with their families in the UK.
He added: "They
have every legal and moral right to be with their families in the UK.
It is shameful they remain stuck in a field, surrounded by strangers." http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/699096/migrant-crisis-Calais-France-refugees-Emmanuelle-Cosse
NWN: This is what they have been pushing for ! The cat is out of the bag.