Keith,

In spite of everything, I still overestimated you.

Your telegraph article about "record" immigration contains no support for its own claim, or yours. The "record" or "unprecedented" nature of immigration remains an unsupported throwaway comment.

The article is in any event 2 years old and whatever rate of immigration existed at the time, existed at the height of the economic bubble. We all know that since then a lot of migrant east european citizens have returned home and the article itself specifices that it is that group which was responsible for any notable increase.

Look HERE for some recent home office figures and you will see that the total number of work permit entrants was down 12% on 2008 figures, let alone 2007 figures or earlier, when things were booming.

And, knowing the lies that are spouted about asylum, note that 72% of asylum claims were refused in Q2 2009. Hardly a tidal wave there.

The Telegraph article about "English" population density is as mendacious and spurious as you are. As I have already said, you need to compare eggs with eggs. If you want to compare "England" (a region of a country) then compare it with comparable regions of comparable countries. To compare a region with a whole country is to lie, to distort or just to be plain stupid. You choose.

And you still miss the point. The way to deal with an influx of working taxpayers that need public services is, duh!, to provide more public services! It really is that simple.