Documentos secretos indican que el grupo guerrillero de Rousseff planeaba asesinar a oficiales del Ejército
La presidenta brasileña acaba de apoyar el fin del "secreto eterno" de los documentos reservados
JUAN ARIAS | Río de Janeiro 15/04/2011
Puede resultar una simple coincidencia, pero es un hecho que después de que la presidenta y exguerrillera Dilma Rousseff haya defendido el fin del "secreto eterno" de los documentos considerados reservados, el Ministerio de la Aeronáutica de Brasil acaba de revelar un documento mantenido en secreto durante 30 años en el que se afirma que la organización guerrillera VAR Palmares, que contó en sus filas con la actual presidenta, había decidido "ajusticiar a oficiales del Ejército".
Brasil pretende acabar con el "secreto eterno" de los documentos reservados
El documento secreto, de cinco páginas, que dormía en el Archivo Nacional, explica que la decisión de asesinar a oficiales del Ejército podría ser una forma de que el grupo saliera del aislamiento en el que se hallaba acorralado.
En la primera página del documento, el grupo guerrillero en el que militaba Rousseff con 22 años se declara impotente para enfrentar al enemigo en las ciudades. Sobre el asesinato de los oficiales observa: "Debe ser hecho escogiendo cuidadosamente a los elementos más reaccionarios del Ejército".
En aquel periodo entre 1969 y 1970, la dictadura se había radicalizado y defendía el exterminio total de los adversarios. En diciembre de 1968 el régimen había instituido el temido AI-5 que suprimía la mayoría de los derechos civiles y coincidió con una política de Estado para acabar con los grupos de izquierdas. La propia Rousseff fue encarcelada casi durante dos años y cruelmente torturada durante varios días.
El grupo guerrillero Val Palmares surgió en 1969 con la fusión del grupo Colina (Comando de Liberación Nacional) del capitán Carlos Lamarca. Rousseff fue detenida en enero de 1970.
El documento fue encontrado por los militares en un escondrijo de la organización y fue enviado con carácter confidencial al entonces Ministerio de la Aeronáutica que lo ha mantenido secreto hasta el martes pasado cuando lo hizo oficial, aunque ya el diario O estado de Sâo Paulo había hablado de su existencia el año pasado.
Dilma, que acaba de volver de un viaje oficial a China del que trae resultados positivos para la economía de Brasil, ha resaltado varias veces que la visión de la vida que tiene hoy se parece poco a la que tenía en su juventud guerrillera, cuando luchaba en defensa de la libertad y de la democracia con los medios y la mentalidad del momento histórico.
VAMOS VER NO QUE VAI DAR A TÁCTICA DO SALAME...
PERTENCE CERTAMENTE AO submundo da blogosfera DE ACORDO COM CIENTÍFICAS CLASSIFICAÇÕES DUNS GAJOS QUE VIVEM DOS MEUS IMPOSTOS E ANDAM A AFUNDAR PORTUGAL
Saturday, April 16, 2011
A SONAE VAI APANHAR UMA BANHADA...
Sonae fecha acordo com Isabel dos Santos para levar Continente para Angola
SÓ UMA RUA EM LISBOA?AO PANTEÃO NACIONAL JÁ...
"Carlos Castro pagava a rapazes mais novos para ter sexo"
por Sílvia Caneco, Publicado em 15 de Abril de 2011 | Actualizado há 1 dias
Carlos Ferreira, que nos anos 70 criou o travesti Guida Scarllaty, conta ao i o lado obscuro de Carlos Castro, com casos de subornos, traições e vinganças
Castro fez muitas jogadas perigosas, desde usar o nome do amigo para fazer negociatas até fugir nos corredores do Centro Comercial das Amoreiras de um engate que correu mal, conta Carlos Ferreira ao i
Carlos Ferreira criou o primeiro clube com travestis profissionais - o Scarllaty Clube - nos anos 70 e foi o primeiro a dar emprego a Carlos Castro em Portugal. Hoje é um homem amargurado pelas traições do cronista. Na loja da família, em Lisboa, recebe o i sem roupas da Guida, porque nunca sai à rua de cara pintada. Enquanto não há clientes descreve Castro como um homem "sem talento para o espectáculo de travesti", que "fazia tudo para levar a água ao seu moinho" e que "pagava a rapazes para ter sexo". Nas amizades, como nos amores e nos engates, Castro, para Carlos Ferreira, era como "uma aranha": "construía a teia para depois apanhar a vítima".
Foi a primeira pessoa a dar emprego a Carlos Castro em Portugal. Como era ele na altura?
Estávamos em 1975. O Carlos tinha chegado havia uns meses a Portugal, vivia entre Coimbra e a Figueira da Foz e vinha a Lisboa aos fins-de-semana. Eu já tinha aberto o Scarllaty Clube: o primeiro café-concerto onde se apresentou espectáculos de travestis profissionais. O Carlos apareceu-me lá numa noite como cliente: era uma pessoa simples e afável. Como muitos que regressavam das ex-colónias, estava a chegar ao país sozinho e sem nada.
E como é que lhe pede emprego?
Um dia chega-me com a ideia de concorrer à Visita da Cornélia. Incentivei-o - "vai lá que sempre ganhas umas massas" -, emprestei-lhe o guarda-roupa. É a partir daí que ficamos mais íntimos.
O que o levou a abrir o Scarllaty Clube?
Começou por ser um acidente de percurso do 25 de Abril. Estudava Belas-Artes e deixei-me de teatrices, até para fazer a vontade à minha mãe. Decidi: "Prefiro ser um bom espectador do que um canastrão no palco." Começo a trabalhar em decoração de interiores com o J. Pimenta [empresário da construção civil] e dá-se o 25 de Abril. O Pimenta e os engenheiros vão para o Brasil, eu fico com uma comissão de trabalhadores atrás. Um dia arrumei tudo numa caixa e fui embora. Andei um ano e tal desempregado, tinha algum dinheiro e é aí que penso abrir o Scarllaty.
Como é que as pessoas olhavam para o clube?
O timing ajudou-nos. As mentalidades abriram-se, as pessoas saíram à rua. Éramos a grande novidade. E a crítica, que era óptima, ajudou a construir a casa: durante dez anos houve sempre filas à porta.
Hoje já não se olha para o espectáculo de travesti dessa maneira...
Porque os travestis começaram a vir para a rua vestidos de mulher. Não se via o que se vê hoje no Conde de Redondo, em Lisboa. Esses rapazinhos com vontade de ser mulher, mas sem nenhum talento para representar, rebentaram com o estatuto do travesti como um espectáculo digno.
Quem entrava nesses espectáculos não era logo conotado com o mundo gay?
Só os grandes actores na época é que tinham currículo para se apresentarem vestidos de mulher. Um gajo desconhecido que se apresentasse assim em palco levava logo um chapão. Cheguei a convidar o Herman para terminar um número comigo e ele recusou, achando que era perigoso. Eu tinha noção dos riscos que ia correr. Nas entrevistas, perguntavam-me sempre se era ou não homossexual. E dizia: estou aqui como actor de travesti, a minha vida privada é a minha vida privada. Sempre fui como sou hoje: visto um par de calças antes de sair do camarim e saio de cara lavada.
Carlos Castro já tinha experiência nestes shows?
O que ele contava é que tinha escrito umas poesias. Reconheço que ele adorava aqueles espectáculos, mas não posso dizer que tivesse talento para os fazer. Deixei-o participar em números pequenos, que não prejudicavam o show. Passado três anos, quando chega a altura de fazer o Good-bye Chicago, é que a porca torce o rabo.
Despediu-o?
Ele precisava de fazer um trabalho de marcação, dançado. Estava a duas semanas de estrear e como ele não chegava lá há um dia em que tenho de o encostar à parede. Como ele ficou muito triste, tentei arranjar uma solução e convido-o então para ser o relações públicas do clube. Um dia apresentei-o à Maria Elvira Bento, da "Nova Gente". É aí que ele começa a mandar umas bocas, com o pseudónimo Daniela.
E deixou de vez o espectáculo?
Ainda fez tentativas noutras casas, mas foram fiascos atrás de fiscos.
Quando é que o despede do Scarllaty?
O Carlos nunca soube separar a condição de homossexual da vida profissional. Foi o que aconteceu na relação com o fotógrafo e, provavelmente, o que aconteceu com o Renato. Quando ele já só estava a trabalhar como relações públicas do Scarlatty, há um dia em que chego mais cedo e o encontro com um rapazinho que tinha conhecido na rua. No meu clube havia rigor e profissionalismo, não havia namoricos e engates.
Nunca mais voltaram a falar?
A nossa relação teve altos e baixos, até ele me ter feito umas partidas horríveis.
Que partidas?
De 1998 a 2006 vivi no Algarve e fui director da "Magazine do Algarve". E aí o Carlos voltou a aproximar-se. Ele não era um homem inteligente - porque se o fosse tinha tido uma outra vida -, mas era esperto. Precisava de ter visibilidade no Algarve, tinha algumas portas fechadas em Lisboa e viu ali um furo. Ele só se chegava às pessoas quando tinha interesse nelas. Durante algum tempo escreveu para lá uma página, mas começou a ser enjeitado e tive de lhe dizer que tinha de suspender a colaboração. É claro que ele ficou ofendidíssimo. Durante esse tempo, pediu--me para o apresentar a uns presidentes de câmara pois queria fazer uns espectáculos de moda. Até que um dia descubro que usou o meu nome para negociar um espectáculo. Tudo nas minhas costas. Sei que subornou chefes de divisão - oferecendo parte das receitas - para lhe conseguirem espectáculos numa altura em que não havia verbas para isso.
Depois disso ele fez uma homenagem à Guida Scarlatty num espectáculo...
Quando tinha interesse, ele fazia tudo para levar a água ao seu moinho. Hoje estava aos beijos consigo, amanhã era capaz de lhe espetar a faca nas costas.
Sempre foi assim?
No início não, mas nos últimos anos ele estava convencido de que era a grande star do jornalismo. De cronista ele não tinha nada, de mexeriqueiro sim. Cronista é um jornalista que sabe escrever bem, era uma Vera Lagoa, que mexia os cordelinhos da sociedade. Ele não mexia.
Ele já não tinha influência, ao contrário do que o Renato acreditava?
Creio que nunca teve. A Ana Salazar ou o Augustus convidavam-no para determinados eventos porque era mais uma página que saía nas revistas. Temos de ser lógicos: posso até não gostar do trabalho que faz, mas se me publicitar...
Essa influência só existia na cabeça dele?
Ele era muito pouco realista. Criou um mundo naquela cabeça. E nesta fase final da vida era muito atormentado. Talvez pela solidão, talvez por nunca ter conseguido alguém que o tivesse amado verdadeiramente, tornou-se uma pessoa com sentimentos muito mesquinhos. Fez mal a muita gente. E era um mal que nem sequer podia terminar em tribunal: eram aquelas intrigazinhas. Repare que ele no mundo gay nem foi muito chorado: a maior parte das pessoas não gostava dele pelo seu comportamento moral, pela cagança com que se assumia. A mim nunca me conseguiu afectar, apesar de ter voltado a fazer sacanices.
Que sacanices eram essas?
Em 2006 fui viver para o Brasil e, quando voltei, ele escreveu uma crónica a dizer que a monstra tinha vindo corrida, que tinha feito vigarices, que estava na miséria e teve de aceitar o contrato do Mister Gay para sobreviver. Quando uma pessoa cospe na sopa de quem lhe deu a mão é muito triste. Pode ir ao lar onde está a minha mãe e ela conta-lhe quantas vezes lhe pagou almoços e jantares sem eu saber, numa altura em que ele gastava o dinheiro todo com a rapaziada.
Carlos Castro pagava a prostitutos?
Ainda recentemente pagava a rapazes para ter sexo. Enfiava um barrete de lã, punha uns óculos e ia para o engate. Ele não era o único: é muito usual entre os homossexuais mais velhos. Um gay de 60 anos sem uma relação estável, quem é que vai com ele se não for por um interesse qualquer? Esta é a realidade, não vale a pena escondê-la. No caso dele ainda era pior porque nem sequer gostava de pessoas da idade dele. E, ainda por cima, ele era definidamente passivo e não gostava de gays, nem de bissexuais. Tinha de ser um hetero, de preferência que nunca tivesse tido relações com outro homem, isso para ele era a coroa de glória. Quem é que aos 60 tem um rapaz de 20? Não é por acaso que existem saunas gay e anúncios nos jornais: há clientela a recorrer a prostitutos. Da mesma forma que um hetero de 50 ou 60 anos recorre a prostitutas.
Seria capaz de iludir um rapaz de 21 anos?
Não tenho dúvida de que ele lhe terá feito muitas promessas com a intenção de lhe dar a volta.
Mas o Renato dava troco, tinha atitudes carinhosas para com ele...
A ansiedade do Carlos em ter alguém ao pé dele deixava-o cego. Cego sobretudo pela necessidade de se assumir perante toda a gente com aquele boneco ao lado. Ele mandava qualquer coisa para a frente para segurar as pessoas. Na relação com o fotógrafo não foi diferente: o Luís começou a andar com o Carlos pelo proveito que podia tirar. Ele nem era fotógrafo, era marujo, e era dali que vinha o ordenado. Um dia, o Carlos Castro chegou a casa e encontrou a casa vazia. O Luís namorava com uma rapariga e já não devia aguentar mais aquilo.
Do que conhecia do Carlos, era possível ele estar numa relação sem sexo?
Não acredito, pelo menos a partir de certa altura. Se calhar foi em Nova Iorque que o confronto se deu porque o Renato já estava mais envolvido. O Carlos era como uma aranha: construía a teia e depois punha a mão e a vítima caía. Sabia atacar nos momentos precisos. Conheci muitos casos, também com amigos, em que se ele só confronta as pessoas à última hora.
Mas ele não forçaria uma relação sexual.
Não tinha autoridade nem corpo para isso. Ele inebriava, aliciava, até as pessoas cederem por dinheiro ou conveniência.
Ele não era de relações fixas?
Nunca conseguiu ter uma relação porque tinha um comportamento muito obsessivo. Era muito aventureiro e atrevido. Uma coisa era o TT Club, uma casa de strip-tease em Campo de Ourique, onde cheguei a ir com ele. Aí paga-se e ninguém tem nada a ver com isso. Mas ele arriscava muito cá fora. Uma vez andou atrás de um segurança na torre das Amoreiras e aquilo não correu bem. Um dia o segurança quis dar-lhe uma tareia. Começou a fugir dele no centro comercial e eu atrás. Contaram-me que nesta última fase estaria mais comedido, mas houve alturas em que o vi arriscar demasiado: levava pessoas para casa dele que nem que me pagassem eu levaria.
Como era ele em relação aos amigos? Também tentava assediá-los?
Não. Ele não gostava de gays nem de rapazes versáteis que em termos sexuais tanto pudessem ser o activo como o passivo.
AGORA IMAGINEM O CARLOS CASTRO A GOVERNAR PORTUGAL...
O QUE FARIA UM PANELEIRO NO GOVERNO DE PORTUGAL?
O QUE FAZ UM PANELEIRO A DEPUTADO?
RESULTADO:TODO O MUNDO ACABA POR SER ENRRABADO...
por Sílvia Caneco, Publicado em 15 de Abril de 2011 | Actualizado há 1 dias
Carlos Ferreira, que nos anos 70 criou o travesti Guida Scarllaty, conta ao i o lado obscuro de Carlos Castro, com casos de subornos, traições e vinganças
Castro fez muitas jogadas perigosas, desde usar o nome do amigo para fazer negociatas até fugir nos corredores do Centro Comercial das Amoreiras de um engate que correu mal, conta Carlos Ferreira ao i
Carlos Ferreira criou o primeiro clube com travestis profissionais - o Scarllaty Clube - nos anos 70 e foi o primeiro a dar emprego a Carlos Castro em Portugal. Hoje é um homem amargurado pelas traições do cronista. Na loja da família, em Lisboa, recebe o i sem roupas da Guida, porque nunca sai à rua de cara pintada. Enquanto não há clientes descreve Castro como um homem "sem talento para o espectáculo de travesti", que "fazia tudo para levar a água ao seu moinho" e que "pagava a rapazes para ter sexo". Nas amizades, como nos amores e nos engates, Castro, para Carlos Ferreira, era como "uma aranha": "construía a teia para depois apanhar a vítima".
Foi a primeira pessoa a dar emprego a Carlos Castro em Portugal. Como era ele na altura?
Estávamos em 1975. O Carlos tinha chegado havia uns meses a Portugal, vivia entre Coimbra e a Figueira da Foz e vinha a Lisboa aos fins-de-semana. Eu já tinha aberto o Scarllaty Clube: o primeiro café-concerto onde se apresentou espectáculos de travestis profissionais. O Carlos apareceu-me lá numa noite como cliente: era uma pessoa simples e afável. Como muitos que regressavam das ex-colónias, estava a chegar ao país sozinho e sem nada.
E como é que lhe pede emprego?
Um dia chega-me com a ideia de concorrer à Visita da Cornélia. Incentivei-o - "vai lá que sempre ganhas umas massas" -, emprestei-lhe o guarda-roupa. É a partir daí que ficamos mais íntimos.
O que o levou a abrir o Scarllaty Clube?
Começou por ser um acidente de percurso do 25 de Abril. Estudava Belas-Artes e deixei-me de teatrices, até para fazer a vontade à minha mãe. Decidi: "Prefiro ser um bom espectador do que um canastrão no palco." Começo a trabalhar em decoração de interiores com o J. Pimenta [empresário da construção civil] e dá-se o 25 de Abril. O Pimenta e os engenheiros vão para o Brasil, eu fico com uma comissão de trabalhadores atrás. Um dia arrumei tudo numa caixa e fui embora. Andei um ano e tal desempregado, tinha algum dinheiro e é aí que penso abrir o Scarllaty.
Como é que as pessoas olhavam para o clube?
O timing ajudou-nos. As mentalidades abriram-se, as pessoas saíram à rua. Éramos a grande novidade. E a crítica, que era óptima, ajudou a construir a casa: durante dez anos houve sempre filas à porta.
Hoje já não se olha para o espectáculo de travesti dessa maneira...
Porque os travestis começaram a vir para a rua vestidos de mulher. Não se via o que se vê hoje no Conde de Redondo, em Lisboa. Esses rapazinhos com vontade de ser mulher, mas sem nenhum talento para representar, rebentaram com o estatuto do travesti como um espectáculo digno.
Quem entrava nesses espectáculos não era logo conotado com o mundo gay?
Só os grandes actores na época é que tinham currículo para se apresentarem vestidos de mulher. Um gajo desconhecido que se apresentasse assim em palco levava logo um chapão. Cheguei a convidar o Herman para terminar um número comigo e ele recusou, achando que era perigoso. Eu tinha noção dos riscos que ia correr. Nas entrevistas, perguntavam-me sempre se era ou não homossexual. E dizia: estou aqui como actor de travesti, a minha vida privada é a minha vida privada. Sempre fui como sou hoje: visto um par de calças antes de sair do camarim e saio de cara lavada.
Carlos Castro já tinha experiência nestes shows?
O que ele contava é que tinha escrito umas poesias. Reconheço que ele adorava aqueles espectáculos, mas não posso dizer que tivesse talento para os fazer. Deixei-o participar em números pequenos, que não prejudicavam o show. Passado três anos, quando chega a altura de fazer o Good-bye Chicago, é que a porca torce o rabo.
Despediu-o?
Ele precisava de fazer um trabalho de marcação, dançado. Estava a duas semanas de estrear e como ele não chegava lá há um dia em que tenho de o encostar à parede. Como ele ficou muito triste, tentei arranjar uma solução e convido-o então para ser o relações públicas do clube. Um dia apresentei-o à Maria Elvira Bento, da "Nova Gente". É aí que ele começa a mandar umas bocas, com o pseudónimo Daniela.
E deixou de vez o espectáculo?
Ainda fez tentativas noutras casas, mas foram fiascos atrás de fiscos.
Quando é que o despede do Scarllaty?
O Carlos nunca soube separar a condição de homossexual da vida profissional. Foi o que aconteceu na relação com o fotógrafo e, provavelmente, o que aconteceu com o Renato. Quando ele já só estava a trabalhar como relações públicas do Scarlatty, há um dia em que chego mais cedo e o encontro com um rapazinho que tinha conhecido na rua. No meu clube havia rigor e profissionalismo, não havia namoricos e engates.
Nunca mais voltaram a falar?
A nossa relação teve altos e baixos, até ele me ter feito umas partidas horríveis.
Que partidas?
De 1998 a 2006 vivi no Algarve e fui director da "Magazine do Algarve". E aí o Carlos voltou a aproximar-se. Ele não era um homem inteligente - porque se o fosse tinha tido uma outra vida -, mas era esperto. Precisava de ter visibilidade no Algarve, tinha algumas portas fechadas em Lisboa e viu ali um furo. Ele só se chegava às pessoas quando tinha interesse nelas. Durante algum tempo escreveu para lá uma página, mas começou a ser enjeitado e tive de lhe dizer que tinha de suspender a colaboração. É claro que ele ficou ofendidíssimo. Durante esse tempo, pediu--me para o apresentar a uns presidentes de câmara pois queria fazer uns espectáculos de moda. Até que um dia descubro que usou o meu nome para negociar um espectáculo. Tudo nas minhas costas. Sei que subornou chefes de divisão - oferecendo parte das receitas - para lhe conseguirem espectáculos numa altura em que não havia verbas para isso.
Depois disso ele fez uma homenagem à Guida Scarlatty num espectáculo...
Quando tinha interesse, ele fazia tudo para levar a água ao seu moinho. Hoje estava aos beijos consigo, amanhã era capaz de lhe espetar a faca nas costas.
Sempre foi assim?
No início não, mas nos últimos anos ele estava convencido de que era a grande star do jornalismo. De cronista ele não tinha nada, de mexeriqueiro sim. Cronista é um jornalista que sabe escrever bem, era uma Vera Lagoa, que mexia os cordelinhos da sociedade. Ele não mexia.
Ele já não tinha influência, ao contrário do que o Renato acreditava?
Creio que nunca teve. A Ana Salazar ou o Augustus convidavam-no para determinados eventos porque era mais uma página que saía nas revistas. Temos de ser lógicos: posso até não gostar do trabalho que faz, mas se me publicitar...
Essa influência só existia na cabeça dele?
Ele era muito pouco realista. Criou um mundo naquela cabeça. E nesta fase final da vida era muito atormentado. Talvez pela solidão, talvez por nunca ter conseguido alguém que o tivesse amado verdadeiramente, tornou-se uma pessoa com sentimentos muito mesquinhos. Fez mal a muita gente. E era um mal que nem sequer podia terminar em tribunal: eram aquelas intrigazinhas. Repare que ele no mundo gay nem foi muito chorado: a maior parte das pessoas não gostava dele pelo seu comportamento moral, pela cagança com que se assumia. A mim nunca me conseguiu afectar, apesar de ter voltado a fazer sacanices.
Que sacanices eram essas?
Em 2006 fui viver para o Brasil e, quando voltei, ele escreveu uma crónica a dizer que a monstra tinha vindo corrida, que tinha feito vigarices, que estava na miséria e teve de aceitar o contrato do Mister Gay para sobreviver. Quando uma pessoa cospe na sopa de quem lhe deu a mão é muito triste. Pode ir ao lar onde está a minha mãe e ela conta-lhe quantas vezes lhe pagou almoços e jantares sem eu saber, numa altura em que ele gastava o dinheiro todo com a rapaziada.
Carlos Castro pagava a prostitutos?
Ainda recentemente pagava a rapazes para ter sexo. Enfiava um barrete de lã, punha uns óculos e ia para o engate. Ele não era o único: é muito usual entre os homossexuais mais velhos. Um gay de 60 anos sem uma relação estável, quem é que vai com ele se não for por um interesse qualquer? Esta é a realidade, não vale a pena escondê-la. No caso dele ainda era pior porque nem sequer gostava de pessoas da idade dele. E, ainda por cima, ele era definidamente passivo e não gostava de gays, nem de bissexuais. Tinha de ser um hetero, de preferência que nunca tivesse tido relações com outro homem, isso para ele era a coroa de glória. Quem é que aos 60 tem um rapaz de 20? Não é por acaso que existem saunas gay e anúncios nos jornais: há clientela a recorrer a prostitutos. Da mesma forma que um hetero de 50 ou 60 anos recorre a prostitutas.
Seria capaz de iludir um rapaz de 21 anos?
Não tenho dúvida de que ele lhe terá feito muitas promessas com a intenção de lhe dar a volta.
Mas o Renato dava troco, tinha atitudes carinhosas para com ele...
A ansiedade do Carlos em ter alguém ao pé dele deixava-o cego. Cego sobretudo pela necessidade de se assumir perante toda a gente com aquele boneco ao lado. Ele mandava qualquer coisa para a frente para segurar as pessoas. Na relação com o fotógrafo não foi diferente: o Luís começou a andar com o Carlos pelo proveito que podia tirar. Ele nem era fotógrafo, era marujo, e era dali que vinha o ordenado. Um dia, o Carlos Castro chegou a casa e encontrou a casa vazia. O Luís namorava com uma rapariga e já não devia aguentar mais aquilo.
Do que conhecia do Carlos, era possível ele estar numa relação sem sexo?
Não acredito, pelo menos a partir de certa altura. Se calhar foi em Nova Iorque que o confronto se deu porque o Renato já estava mais envolvido. O Carlos era como uma aranha: construía a teia e depois punha a mão e a vítima caía. Sabia atacar nos momentos precisos. Conheci muitos casos, também com amigos, em que se ele só confronta as pessoas à última hora.
Mas ele não forçaria uma relação sexual.
Não tinha autoridade nem corpo para isso. Ele inebriava, aliciava, até as pessoas cederem por dinheiro ou conveniência.
Ele não era de relações fixas?
Nunca conseguiu ter uma relação porque tinha um comportamento muito obsessivo. Era muito aventureiro e atrevido. Uma coisa era o TT Club, uma casa de strip-tease em Campo de Ourique, onde cheguei a ir com ele. Aí paga-se e ninguém tem nada a ver com isso. Mas ele arriscava muito cá fora. Uma vez andou atrás de um segurança na torre das Amoreiras e aquilo não correu bem. Um dia o segurança quis dar-lhe uma tareia. Começou a fugir dele no centro comercial e eu atrás. Contaram-me que nesta última fase estaria mais comedido, mas houve alturas em que o vi arriscar demasiado: levava pessoas para casa dele que nem que me pagassem eu levaria.
Como era ele em relação aos amigos? Também tentava assediá-los?
Não. Ele não gostava de gays nem de rapazes versáteis que em termos sexuais tanto pudessem ser o activo como o passivo.
AGORA IMAGINEM O CARLOS CASTRO A GOVERNAR PORTUGAL...
O QUE FARIA UM PANELEIRO NO GOVERNO DE PORTUGAL?
O QUE FAZ UM PANELEIRO A DEPUTADO?
RESULTADO:TODO O MUNDO ACABA POR SER ENRRABADO...
Friday, April 15, 2011
OS MILAGRES DE SANTA LUZIA DE VIANA DO CASTELO
VIANA DO CASTELO SUPLANTOU O ENTRONCAMENTO NO RANKING DOS "FENÓMENOS".TEVE UM CANDIDATO A PRESIDENTE BARIL, TINHA UM DEPUTADO DO PSD, O JORGINHO , QUE SE "CASOU" COM UM OUTRO HOMEM E AGORA VAI TER UM JACOBINO QUE COMEÇOU NO CDS, ESTÁ NO PSD MAS QUE SE DÁ BEM EM PENSAMENTO E OBRA COM OS BLOQUISTAS...É DO FCP E QUE É CONSIDERADO PEÇONHENTO PELOS BENFIQUISTAS...
E TEM UM ESTALEIRO QUE FAZ BARCOS QUE NÃO NAVEGAM...
VÊM COMO AINDA NÃO BATEMOS NO FUNDO?A ESCADARIA PELOS VISTOS AINDA NÃO ACABOU...
E TEM UM ESTALEIRO QUE FAZ BARCOS QUE NÃO NAVEGAM...
VÊM COMO AINDA NÃO BATEMOS NO FUNDO?A ESCADARIA PELOS VISTOS AINDA NÃO ACABOU...
NITIDAMENTE DA EXTREMA DIREITA...
David Cameron on immigration: full text of the speech
Prime minister's address to Conservative party members on the government's immigration policy
The Guardian, Thursday 14 April 2011
David Cameron blames Labour for allowing immigration to become 'too high' Link to this video
A year ago, we were in the middle of a general election campaign. And there was one message I heard loud and clear on the doorstep: we want things to be different. People said they wanted a government that didn't just do what was good for the headline or good for their party but good for the long term and good for our country. That's what we're engaged in.
Clearly, cutting public spending isn't popular, but it's right to bring sense to our public finances. People said they wanted a government that actually trusted them to use their own common sense. That's the kind of government we want to be – giving neighbourhoods and individuals a whole range of new powers … scrapping so much of the bureaucracy that drove us mad.
People said they were sick of seeing those who did the right thing get punished and the wrong thing rewarded. Again, that's what we're acting on. In welfare we're ending the system that took money from hard-working taxpayers and gave it to people who refused to work. These are the differences we are trying to make – listening to people, doing the hard and necessary work of changing our country for the better.
Immigration debate
But there was something else we heard on the doorstep – and it was this: "We are concerned about the levels of immigration in our country … but we are fed up of hearing politicians talk tough but do nothing." Here, again, we are determined to be different.
Now, immigration is a hugely emotive subject … and it's a debate too often in the past shaped by assertions rather than substantive arguments. We've all heard them. The assertion that mass immigration is an unalloyed good and that controlling it is economic madness … the view that Britain is a soft touch and immigrants are out to take whatever they can get. I believe the role of politicians is to cut through the extremes of this debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably.
The last government, in contrast, actually helped to inflame the debate. On the one hand, there were Labour ministers who closed down discussion, giving the impression that concerns about immigration were somehow racist. On the other, there were ministers hell-bent on burnishing their hard-line credentials by talking tough … but doing nothing to bring the numbers down.
This approach had damaging consequences in terms of controlling immigration … but also in terms of public debate. It created the space for extremist parties to flourish, as they could tell people that mainstream politicians weren't listening to their concerns or doing anything about them. I remember when immigration wasn't a central political issue in our country – and I want that to be the case again. I want us to starve extremist parties of the oxygen of public anxiety they thrive on and extinguish them once and for all.
Above all, I want to get the policy right: good immigration, not mass immigration. That's why I believe it's time for a new approach – one which opens up debate, not closes it down; where politicians don't just talk, but actually act.
Benefits of immigration
Let's start with being open. The British people are fair-minded – and I want them to feel they can be honest about what they think about this subject. Here's what I think. Our country has benefitted immeasurably from immigration. Go into any hospital and you'll find people from Uganda, India and Pakistan who are caring for our sick and vulnerable. Go into schools and universities and you'll find teachers from all over the world, inspiring our young people. Go to almost any high street in the country and you'll find entrepreneurs from overseas who are not just adding to the local economy but playing a part in local life. Charities, financial services, fashion, food, music – all these sectors are what they are because of immigration. So yes, immigrants make a huge contribution to Britain. We recognise that – and we welcome it.
Pressures of immigration
But I'm also clear about something else: for too long, immigration has been too high. Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. That's the largest influx of people Britain has ever had … and it has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country. Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare – though those have been serious … but social pressures too. Because real communities aren't just collections of public service users living in the same space.
Real communities are bound by common experiences … forged by friendship and conversation … knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time.
That's why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods … perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there … on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate … that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.
This has been the experience for many people in our country – and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.
Our aim
So, taking all this into account, I believe controlling immigration and bringing it down is of vital importance to the future of our country. That's why during the election campaign, Conservatives made a clear commitment to the British people … that we would aim to reduce net migration to the levels we saw in the 1980s and 1990s.
Now we are in government, we are on track to meet that aim. We are controlling legal immigration – having introduced a cap on non-EU economic migrants. We are clamping down on illegal immigration. And we are getting to grips with the asylum system too. The UK Border Agency is now close to clearing the back-log of almost half a million asylum cases. Our action is working.
But some myths have crept in – about what we're doing and the impact our policies will have. There are those who say that whatever measures we put in place, we can't control immigration significantly. And there are those who accept we can control immigration, but argue that the way we propose to do it will damage our economy and universities. Today I want to take those myths head-on.
Immigration from Europe
Let me begin by addressing those who say we can't control immigration. They have three planks to their argument. First, they say legal immigration is impossible to control because we're a member of the European Union. Second, they argue that illegal immigration can't be controlled either because it's impossible to properly police. And third, they say that immigration will always be high because immigrant workers do jobs that British people won't do.
Each part of that argument is wrong. Take this question of Europe. Yes, our borders are open to people from other member states in the European Union. But actually, this counts for a small proportion of overall net migration to the UK. In the year up to June 2010, net migration to our country from EU nationals was just 27,000.
That's not to say migration from Europe has been insignificant. Since 2004, when many large eastern European countries joined the EU, more than one million people from those countries have come to live and work in the UK – a huge number. We said back then that transitional controls should have been put in place to restrict the numbers coming over. And now we're in government, if and when new countries join the European Union, transitional controls will be put in place.
But this remains the fact: when it comes to immigration to our country, it's the numbers from outside the EU that really matter. In the year up to June 2010, net migration from nationals of countries outside the EU to the UK totalled 198,000. This is the figure we can more easily control and should control.
Last week, our new immigration cap for people coming here to work from outside the EU came into force. It means for the next twelve months, we will not allow employers to recruit more than 20,700 skilled workers from outside Europe. And we've already shown a cap can work. Last July, we placed interim limits on the number of visas we would give for skilled workers - and this kept the numbers down to under 20,000.
Of course employment is just one of the routes of entry and settlement into this country. Every year tens of thousands of people marry into Britain or join their families here. Now many of these are genuine, loving relationships. But we also know there are abuses of the system.
For a start there are forced marriages taking place in our country, and overseas as a means of gaining entry to the UK. This is the practice where some young British girls are bullied and threatened into marrying someone they don't want to. I've got no time for those who say this is a culturally relative issue – it is wrong, full stop, and we've got to stamp it out.
Then there are just the straightforward sham marriages. Last summer, we ordered the UK Border Agency to clamp down on these and they've had significant success, making 155 arrests. And there was also the shocking case of a vicar who was jailed for staging over 300 sham marriages.
But as well as abuse of the system, there are other problems with the family route. We know, for instance, that some marriages take place when the spouse is very young, and has little or no grasp of English. Again we cannot allow cultural sensitivity to stop us from acting. That's why last November we introduced a requirement for all those applying for a marriage visa to demonstrate a minimum standard of English … and we will defend the age limit of 21 for spouses coming to the UK.
So however sensitive or difficult a subject it may be, we are tightening up the family route. But by far the biggest route for non-EU entrants into this country has been the student visa route. Immigration by students has almost trebled in the past decade. Last year, some 303,000 visas were issued overseas for study in the UK.
But this isn't the end of the story. Because a lot of those students bring people with them to this country … husbands, wives, children. Indeed, last year, 32,000 visas were issued to the dependents of students. Again, many of these applications are for legitimate students doing legitimate courses with legitimate dependents coming over with them. But we know that some of these student applications are bogus, and in turn their dependents are bogus.
Consider this: a sample of 231 visa applications for the dependents of students found that only twenty-five percent of them were genuine dependents. The others? Some were clearly gaming the system and had no genuine or loving relationship with the student. Others we just couldn't be sure about.
The whole system was out of control – and we're now getting to grips with it. We're targeting bogus colleges that offer sham courses. We're making sure that anyone studying a degree-level course has a proper grasp of the English language. We're saying that only postgraduate students can bring dependents.
And we're making sure that if people come over here to study, they should be studying not working … and that when they've finished their studies, they go home unless they are offered a graduate-level skilled job, with a minimum salary.
Taken together, we estimate that these proposals will cut the number of student visas issued by around 80,000 a year. So across all the main routes of entry to Britain – work, family, education – we are taking action, simultaneously. And the key word here is 'simultaneously'.
As the Home Secretary has said, controlling immigration by clamping down on one route alone is "like squeezing a balloon … Push down work visas and the number of student visas will shoot up. Clamp down on student visas and family visas will spring up."
For years, people have been playing the system, exploiting the easiest routes of entry to the UK. Now, because of what we're doing, this country finally has consistent controls right across the immigration system.
Permanent settlement
But as I said in a speech in opposition, what matters most is not who comes into the country but who stays. Of course there are fair and legitimate reasons for people who arrive here temporarily to stay here permanently. But the figures clearly suggest that many gain temporary entry into the UK with no plans to leave. More than a fifth of students who entered Britain in 2004 were still here five years later – and many were supposed to be coming to study short courses.
But the most significant route to permanent settlement is the economic migration route. Last year, 84,000 people who initially came on a work visa got the right to settle here. I want Britain to continue to attract the best workers. But it cannot be right that people coming to fill short-term skills gaps can stay long-term.
As the Cross-Party Balanced Migration Group has argued, it is essential we break that link between temporary visas and permanent settlement.
They are right – that's what this Government is determined to do … and we will consult on how best to proceed on this in the coming months.
Illegal immigration
So this is the progress we are making on cutting legal immigration and clamping down on the abuse of legitimate entry routes. And we are cracking down on illegal immigration too. This is a question of fairness – yes, to the British people … but also to those who have been shipped over here against their will, kept as slaves and forced to work horrendous hours.
So as part of our National Crime Agency, we are establishing a proper border policing command which will crack down on people smuggling. And because of better technology and closer working with the French, we have managed to cut the number of people identified trying to cross the Channel illegally by two thirds last year.
At the same time as stopping illegal immigrants coming to Britain, we are doing something about those who are already here. Two nationwide campaigns targeting illegal migrants have resulted in 1400 arrests, 330 prosecutions and 260 removals. And in the six months to the end of February, we collected some £3.6m in fines from employers of illegal workers.
What's more, we're closing the loophole that has allowed people who have worked here illegally to get unemployment benefits. Estimates suggest that as many as 155,000 illegal workers might be able to do this … with some eligible to claim over £5,000 in employment seekers allowance – each year.
That's wrong - and we're stopping it. We're making sure that only people who have the right to work here can claim benefits. And we also recently announced that anyone who owes money to the NHS will be refused entry to the UK until they have paid back their debts.
So across border control, health policy, benefits policy … we are taking decisive action to close the gaps that for too long have allowed people to come here illegally and to stay here illegally.
Who will do these jobs?
So we can control both legal and illegal immigration. What is required is political will and the drive to make sure this agenda runs right across government.
But the third argument put forward by those who say we can't control immigration is that immigration is not just a problem of supply but of demand. Put simply, immigration will always be high because British people won't do the jobs migrant workers do.
I can see why this argument is made. Since 1997, the number of people in work in our economy has gone up by some 2.5 million. And of this increase, around 75% was accounted for by foreign-born workers … many of whom were employed to clean offices, serve in restaurants or work on building sites. At the same time we have had persistently, eye-wateringly high numbers of British born people stuck on welfare.
But let's be clear about what our conclusions should be from this. This is not a case of 'immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs'. The fact is – except perhaps in the very short-term – there are not a fixed number of jobs in our economy. If one hundred migrant workers come into the country, they don't simply displace job opportunities for a hundred British citizens. Of course they take up vacancies that are available, but they also come and create wealth and new jobs.
The real issue is this: migrants are filling gaps in the labour market left wide open by a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work. That's where the blame lies – at the door of our woeful welfare system, and the last government who comprehensively failed to reform it.
So immigration and welfare reform are two sides of the same coin. Put simply, we will never control immigration properly unless we tackle welfare dependency. That's another powerful reason why this government is undertaking the biggest shake-up of the welfare system for generations … making sure that work will always pay … and ending the option of living a life on the dole when a life in work is possible.
Economy
Take all these actions together, and I believe we are proving that we can control immigration.
But there's another group of people I want to take on. The ones who accept we can control immigration, but have doubts about what our reforms will mean. The first thing they say is: these policies will deny British business of the talent they need to succeed. That's plain wrong. Nothing – nothing – is more important to this government than growing our economy, creating jobs and prosperity across our country.
That's why far from simply salami-slicing numbers coming here with no thought to the impact that will have on business, we have thought incredibly carefully about how we can select and attract the world's brightest to our shores.
This was something the last government comprehensively failed to do. Yes, they introduced a points-based system for immigration, where people were admitted to our country according to the levels of skills they had … but only after being repeatedly called to do so by the Conservative party.
Yet once they put this in place, they failed to properly control it and effectively manage it. For example, tier one visas were supposed to be reserved for only the highest skilled migrants. But the evidence shows almost a third of people who came over on one of these visas were not employed in highly skilled jobs. Some were found stacking shelves in supermarkets or driving taxis – and that's if they were employed at all.
Tier two visas were supposed to be reserved for skilled jobs such as engineers. But again, these visas were abused and misused. In one case, an applicant applied as an "elite chef" for a fried chicken shop. The main qualifying criterion was the rate of pay. So in this case, his sister, who owned the shop decided to pay him exactly the amount that allowed him to qualify. There was nothing the authorities could do and he was allowed in.
So it has fallen to this government to sort out the system – and we are completely changing the way it works so it is truly geared to the needs of our economy. We are reforming tier one, to make sure that it is genuinely a route only for the best. As part of that package of reform, we are introducing a new route for people of exceptional talent – like scientists, academics and artists. And we are introducing a new entrepreneur visa, to roll out the red carpet for anyone who has a great business idea and serious investment.
We are also reforming tier two visas. Business leaders have told us that as a country, we should prioritise skilled tier two, workers with a job offer rather than highly-skilled tier one workers without a job offer. So that's what we're doing.
For the coming year, even as we have reduced the number of economic migrants overall by seven thousand, we have actually increased the number of tier two visas available. And we have also raised the skills level so it is only open to graduate-level occupations - and excludes other jobs like careworkers and cooks. What's more, we have exempted what are called 'intra-company transfers' from the limit while raising standards at the same time … so firms can still move their employees around the world, but not to fill permanent jobs that could be done by UK workers.
So I completely reject the idea that our new immigration rules will damage our economy.
Universities
The second thing some say is that our policies on student visas will damage our universities. Again, let me make clear: this government will do nothing to harm Britain's status as a magnet for the world's best students. That's why with us, if you're good at your subject, can speak English and have been offered a place on a course at a trusted institution – you will be able to get a visa to study here.
Put another way, Britain's universities are free to market themselves globally saying: "You can come and study here at some of the finest institutions anywhere in the world – and you can stay and work in a graduate job after you leave."
That makes our country a hugely attractive destination for genuine students who genuinely want to study abroad. What we don't want is for this to be a hugely attractive destination for people who only want a passage to Britain. So we are cracking down on the abuses of the system.
In recent years there has also grown up a thriving industry of bogus colleges, providing bogus qualifications as cover for bogus visas. Of the 744 private colleges on the UK Border Agency sponsor register in January, only 131 had attained highly trusted sponsor status.
Yet, as of mid-January this year, the 613 private colleges who are not "highly trusted" have been able to sponsor 280,000 students between them. The potential for abuse is clearly enormous.
Indeed, we have been looking into the practice of some so-called colleges. In one case, students were sent off to so-called work placements in locations up to 280 miles away from the college where they were supposed to be studying on a regular basis.
In another, students were found working in 20 different locations and undertaking no study time whatsoever. In yet another case, there were 2 lecturers for 940 students.
Want to know how ridiculous things have got? An Indian organisation which helps people get student visas has put up a massive billboard in that country. It's got a picture of London bus and the words "get a free ride to the UK" emblazoned across it.
Clearly, we cannot – and should not – put up with any of this. That's why we're getting to grips with the abuse and that's why I reject the idea that our policy will damage our universities.
It really is simple: if you're a genuine academic institution – you have nothing to worry about. But if you're not, you do – and I make no apology for that.
Conclusion
What I have set out today is a sober, comprehensive and effective plan to cut immigration, and cut it substantially. Sober because we come to this debate clear-headed about not only the benefits of immigration … but also its impact on our public services, communities and society. Comprehensive because we are leaving no stone unturned, taking action across all routes of entry to our country. And effective – because we are doing all this in a way that strengthens our economy and enhances the status of our universities.
This time last year, we said we would listen to people's concerns and get immigration under control. Today I can confidently say that we are getting there.
If we take the steps set out today, and deal with all the different avenues of migration, legal and illegal, then levels of immigration can return to where they were in the 1980s and 90s, a time when immigration was not a front rank political issue. And I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade.
Yes, Britain will always be open to the best and brightest from around the world and those fleeing persecution. But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts. That's a promise we made to the British people. And it's a promise we are keeping.
-----------------------
David Cameron veut limiter l'arrivée d'étrangers
-----------------
Immigration speech was a dog-whistle for the right
David Cameron's tough pronouncements on immigration mask policies that harm the poorest and most vulnerable
MAS ESTÃO FEITOS.É QUE EM PORTUGAL AS ESCOLAS NÃO SÃO SEF E COMO A COISA AQUI JÁ NÃO DÁ A RAPAZIADA FAZ UMA CURTA PARAGEM DE DESCANSO PARA A EUROPA DOS BONS SUBSÍDIOS...
PS
ESPERO QUE ESSES "ALUNOS" DESAPARECIDOS ASSIM DE REPENTE NÃO CONTEM PARA O "ABANDONO ESCOLAR"...
Prime minister's address to Conservative party members on the government's immigration policy
The Guardian, Thursday 14 April 2011
David Cameron blames Labour for allowing immigration to become 'too high' Link to this video
A year ago, we were in the middle of a general election campaign. And there was one message I heard loud and clear on the doorstep: we want things to be different. People said they wanted a government that didn't just do what was good for the headline or good for their party but good for the long term and good for our country. That's what we're engaged in.
Clearly, cutting public spending isn't popular, but it's right to bring sense to our public finances. People said they wanted a government that actually trusted them to use their own common sense. That's the kind of government we want to be – giving neighbourhoods and individuals a whole range of new powers … scrapping so much of the bureaucracy that drove us mad.
People said they were sick of seeing those who did the right thing get punished and the wrong thing rewarded. Again, that's what we're acting on. In welfare we're ending the system that took money from hard-working taxpayers and gave it to people who refused to work. These are the differences we are trying to make – listening to people, doing the hard and necessary work of changing our country for the better.
Immigration debate
But there was something else we heard on the doorstep – and it was this: "We are concerned about the levels of immigration in our country … but we are fed up of hearing politicians talk tough but do nothing." Here, again, we are determined to be different.
Now, immigration is a hugely emotive subject … and it's a debate too often in the past shaped by assertions rather than substantive arguments. We've all heard them. The assertion that mass immigration is an unalloyed good and that controlling it is economic madness … the view that Britain is a soft touch and immigrants are out to take whatever they can get. I believe the role of politicians is to cut through the extremes of this debate and approach the subject sensibly and reasonably.
The last government, in contrast, actually helped to inflame the debate. On the one hand, there were Labour ministers who closed down discussion, giving the impression that concerns about immigration were somehow racist. On the other, there were ministers hell-bent on burnishing their hard-line credentials by talking tough … but doing nothing to bring the numbers down.
This approach had damaging consequences in terms of controlling immigration … but also in terms of public debate. It created the space for extremist parties to flourish, as they could tell people that mainstream politicians weren't listening to their concerns or doing anything about them. I remember when immigration wasn't a central political issue in our country – and I want that to be the case again. I want us to starve extremist parties of the oxygen of public anxiety they thrive on and extinguish them once and for all.
Above all, I want to get the policy right: good immigration, not mass immigration. That's why I believe it's time for a new approach – one which opens up debate, not closes it down; where politicians don't just talk, but actually act.
Benefits of immigration
Let's start with being open. The British people are fair-minded – and I want them to feel they can be honest about what they think about this subject. Here's what I think. Our country has benefitted immeasurably from immigration. Go into any hospital and you'll find people from Uganda, India and Pakistan who are caring for our sick and vulnerable. Go into schools and universities and you'll find teachers from all over the world, inspiring our young people. Go to almost any high street in the country and you'll find entrepreneurs from overseas who are not just adding to the local economy but playing a part in local life. Charities, financial services, fashion, food, music – all these sectors are what they are because of immigration. So yes, immigrants make a huge contribution to Britain. We recognise that – and we welcome it.
Pressures of immigration
But I'm also clear about something else: for too long, immigration has been too high. Between 1997 and 2009, 2.2 million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. That's the largest influx of people Britain has ever had … and it has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country. Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare – though those have been serious … but social pressures too. Because real communities aren't just collections of public service users living in the same space.
Real communities are bound by common experiences … forged by friendship and conversation … knitted together by all the rituals of the neighbourhood, from the school run to the chat down the pub. And these bonds can take time. So real integration takes time.
That's why, when there have been significant numbers of new people arriving in neighbourhoods … perhaps not able to speak the same language as those living there … on occasions not really wanting or even willing to integrate … that has created a kind of discomfort and disjointedness in some neighbourhoods.
This has been the experience for many people in our country – and I believe it is untruthful and unfair not to speak about it and address it.
Our aim
So, taking all this into account, I believe controlling immigration and bringing it down is of vital importance to the future of our country. That's why during the election campaign, Conservatives made a clear commitment to the British people … that we would aim to reduce net migration to the levels we saw in the 1980s and 1990s.
Now we are in government, we are on track to meet that aim. We are controlling legal immigration – having introduced a cap on non-EU economic migrants. We are clamping down on illegal immigration. And we are getting to grips with the asylum system too. The UK Border Agency is now close to clearing the back-log of almost half a million asylum cases. Our action is working.
But some myths have crept in – about what we're doing and the impact our policies will have. There are those who say that whatever measures we put in place, we can't control immigration significantly. And there are those who accept we can control immigration, but argue that the way we propose to do it will damage our economy and universities. Today I want to take those myths head-on.
Immigration from Europe
Let me begin by addressing those who say we can't control immigration. They have three planks to their argument. First, they say legal immigration is impossible to control because we're a member of the European Union. Second, they argue that illegal immigration can't be controlled either because it's impossible to properly police. And third, they say that immigration will always be high because immigrant workers do jobs that British people won't do.
Each part of that argument is wrong. Take this question of Europe. Yes, our borders are open to people from other member states in the European Union. But actually, this counts for a small proportion of overall net migration to the UK. In the year up to June 2010, net migration to our country from EU nationals was just 27,000.
That's not to say migration from Europe has been insignificant. Since 2004, when many large eastern European countries joined the EU, more than one million people from those countries have come to live and work in the UK – a huge number. We said back then that transitional controls should have been put in place to restrict the numbers coming over. And now we're in government, if and when new countries join the European Union, transitional controls will be put in place.
But this remains the fact: when it comes to immigration to our country, it's the numbers from outside the EU that really matter. In the year up to June 2010, net migration from nationals of countries outside the EU to the UK totalled 198,000. This is the figure we can more easily control and should control.
Last week, our new immigration cap for people coming here to work from outside the EU came into force. It means for the next twelve months, we will not allow employers to recruit more than 20,700 skilled workers from outside Europe. And we've already shown a cap can work. Last July, we placed interim limits on the number of visas we would give for skilled workers - and this kept the numbers down to under 20,000.
Of course employment is just one of the routes of entry and settlement into this country. Every year tens of thousands of people marry into Britain or join their families here. Now many of these are genuine, loving relationships. But we also know there are abuses of the system.
For a start there are forced marriages taking place in our country, and overseas as a means of gaining entry to the UK. This is the practice where some young British girls are bullied and threatened into marrying someone they don't want to. I've got no time for those who say this is a culturally relative issue – it is wrong, full stop, and we've got to stamp it out.
Then there are just the straightforward sham marriages. Last summer, we ordered the UK Border Agency to clamp down on these and they've had significant success, making 155 arrests. And there was also the shocking case of a vicar who was jailed for staging over 300 sham marriages.
But as well as abuse of the system, there are other problems with the family route. We know, for instance, that some marriages take place when the spouse is very young, and has little or no grasp of English. Again we cannot allow cultural sensitivity to stop us from acting. That's why last November we introduced a requirement for all those applying for a marriage visa to demonstrate a minimum standard of English … and we will defend the age limit of 21 for spouses coming to the UK.
So however sensitive or difficult a subject it may be, we are tightening up the family route. But by far the biggest route for non-EU entrants into this country has been the student visa route. Immigration by students has almost trebled in the past decade. Last year, some 303,000 visas were issued overseas for study in the UK.
But this isn't the end of the story. Because a lot of those students bring people with them to this country … husbands, wives, children. Indeed, last year, 32,000 visas were issued to the dependents of students. Again, many of these applications are for legitimate students doing legitimate courses with legitimate dependents coming over with them. But we know that some of these student applications are bogus, and in turn their dependents are bogus.
Consider this: a sample of 231 visa applications for the dependents of students found that only twenty-five percent of them were genuine dependents. The others? Some were clearly gaming the system and had no genuine or loving relationship with the student. Others we just couldn't be sure about.
The whole system was out of control – and we're now getting to grips with it. We're targeting bogus colleges that offer sham courses. We're making sure that anyone studying a degree-level course has a proper grasp of the English language. We're saying that only postgraduate students can bring dependents.
And we're making sure that if people come over here to study, they should be studying not working … and that when they've finished their studies, they go home unless they are offered a graduate-level skilled job, with a minimum salary.
Taken together, we estimate that these proposals will cut the number of student visas issued by around 80,000 a year. So across all the main routes of entry to Britain – work, family, education – we are taking action, simultaneously. And the key word here is 'simultaneously'.
As the Home Secretary has said, controlling immigration by clamping down on one route alone is "like squeezing a balloon … Push down work visas and the number of student visas will shoot up. Clamp down on student visas and family visas will spring up."
For years, people have been playing the system, exploiting the easiest routes of entry to the UK. Now, because of what we're doing, this country finally has consistent controls right across the immigration system.
Permanent settlement
But as I said in a speech in opposition, what matters most is not who comes into the country but who stays. Of course there are fair and legitimate reasons for people who arrive here temporarily to stay here permanently. But the figures clearly suggest that many gain temporary entry into the UK with no plans to leave. More than a fifth of students who entered Britain in 2004 were still here five years later – and many were supposed to be coming to study short courses.
But the most significant route to permanent settlement is the economic migration route. Last year, 84,000 people who initially came on a work visa got the right to settle here. I want Britain to continue to attract the best workers. But it cannot be right that people coming to fill short-term skills gaps can stay long-term.
As the Cross-Party Balanced Migration Group has argued, it is essential we break that link between temporary visas and permanent settlement.
They are right – that's what this Government is determined to do … and we will consult on how best to proceed on this in the coming months.
Illegal immigration
So this is the progress we are making on cutting legal immigration and clamping down on the abuse of legitimate entry routes. And we are cracking down on illegal immigration too. This is a question of fairness – yes, to the British people … but also to those who have been shipped over here against their will, kept as slaves and forced to work horrendous hours.
So as part of our National Crime Agency, we are establishing a proper border policing command which will crack down on people smuggling. And because of better technology and closer working with the French, we have managed to cut the number of people identified trying to cross the Channel illegally by two thirds last year.
At the same time as stopping illegal immigrants coming to Britain, we are doing something about those who are already here. Two nationwide campaigns targeting illegal migrants have resulted in 1400 arrests, 330 prosecutions and 260 removals. And in the six months to the end of February, we collected some £3.6m in fines from employers of illegal workers.
What's more, we're closing the loophole that has allowed people who have worked here illegally to get unemployment benefits. Estimates suggest that as many as 155,000 illegal workers might be able to do this … with some eligible to claim over £5,000 in employment seekers allowance – each year.
That's wrong - and we're stopping it. We're making sure that only people who have the right to work here can claim benefits. And we also recently announced that anyone who owes money to the NHS will be refused entry to the UK until they have paid back their debts.
So across border control, health policy, benefits policy … we are taking decisive action to close the gaps that for too long have allowed people to come here illegally and to stay here illegally.
Who will do these jobs?
So we can control both legal and illegal immigration. What is required is political will and the drive to make sure this agenda runs right across government.
But the third argument put forward by those who say we can't control immigration is that immigration is not just a problem of supply but of demand. Put simply, immigration will always be high because British people won't do the jobs migrant workers do.
I can see why this argument is made. Since 1997, the number of people in work in our economy has gone up by some 2.5 million. And of this increase, around 75% was accounted for by foreign-born workers … many of whom were employed to clean offices, serve in restaurants or work on building sites. At the same time we have had persistently, eye-wateringly high numbers of British born people stuck on welfare.
But let's be clear about what our conclusions should be from this. This is not a case of 'immigrants coming over here and taking our jobs'. The fact is – except perhaps in the very short-term – there are not a fixed number of jobs in our economy. If one hundred migrant workers come into the country, they don't simply displace job opportunities for a hundred British citizens. Of course they take up vacancies that are available, but they also come and create wealth and new jobs.
The real issue is this: migrants are filling gaps in the labour market left wide open by a welfare system that for years has paid British people not to work. That's where the blame lies – at the door of our woeful welfare system, and the last government who comprehensively failed to reform it.
So immigration and welfare reform are two sides of the same coin. Put simply, we will never control immigration properly unless we tackle welfare dependency. That's another powerful reason why this government is undertaking the biggest shake-up of the welfare system for generations … making sure that work will always pay … and ending the option of living a life on the dole when a life in work is possible.
Economy
Take all these actions together, and I believe we are proving that we can control immigration.
But there's another group of people I want to take on. The ones who accept we can control immigration, but have doubts about what our reforms will mean. The first thing they say is: these policies will deny British business of the talent they need to succeed. That's plain wrong. Nothing – nothing – is more important to this government than growing our economy, creating jobs and prosperity across our country.
That's why far from simply salami-slicing numbers coming here with no thought to the impact that will have on business, we have thought incredibly carefully about how we can select and attract the world's brightest to our shores.
This was something the last government comprehensively failed to do. Yes, they introduced a points-based system for immigration, where people were admitted to our country according to the levels of skills they had … but only after being repeatedly called to do so by the Conservative party.
Yet once they put this in place, they failed to properly control it and effectively manage it. For example, tier one visas were supposed to be reserved for only the highest skilled migrants. But the evidence shows almost a third of people who came over on one of these visas were not employed in highly skilled jobs. Some were found stacking shelves in supermarkets or driving taxis – and that's if they were employed at all.
Tier two visas were supposed to be reserved for skilled jobs such as engineers. But again, these visas were abused and misused. In one case, an applicant applied as an "elite chef" for a fried chicken shop. The main qualifying criterion was the rate of pay. So in this case, his sister, who owned the shop decided to pay him exactly the amount that allowed him to qualify. There was nothing the authorities could do and he was allowed in.
So it has fallen to this government to sort out the system – and we are completely changing the way it works so it is truly geared to the needs of our economy. We are reforming tier one, to make sure that it is genuinely a route only for the best. As part of that package of reform, we are introducing a new route for people of exceptional talent – like scientists, academics and artists. And we are introducing a new entrepreneur visa, to roll out the red carpet for anyone who has a great business idea and serious investment.
We are also reforming tier two visas. Business leaders have told us that as a country, we should prioritise skilled tier two, workers with a job offer rather than highly-skilled tier one workers without a job offer. So that's what we're doing.
For the coming year, even as we have reduced the number of economic migrants overall by seven thousand, we have actually increased the number of tier two visas available. And we have also raised the skills level so it is only open to graduate-level occupations - and excludes other jobs like careworkers and cooks. What's more, we have exempted what are called 'intra-company transfers' from the limit while raising standards at the same time … so firms can still move their employees around the world, but not to fill permanent jobs that could be done by UK workers.
So I completely reject the idea that our new immigration rules will damage our economy.
Universities
The second thing some say is that our policies on student visas will damage our universities. Again, let me make clear: this government will do nothing to harm Britain's status as a magnet for the world's best students. That's why with us, if you're good at your subject, can speak English and have been offered a place on a course at a trusted institution – you will be able to get a visa to study here.
Put another way, Britain's universities are free to market themselves globally saying: "You can come and study here at some of the finest institutions anywhere in the world – and you can stay and work in a graduate job after you leave."
That makes our country a hugely attractive destination for genuine students who genuinely want to study abroad. What we don't want is for this to be a hugely attractive destination for people who only want a passage to Britain. So we are cracking down on the abuses of the system.
In recent years there has also grown up a thriving industry of bogus colleges, providing bogus qualifications as cover for bogus visas. Of the 744 private colleges on the UK Border Agency sponsor register in January, only 131 had attained highly trusted sponsor status.
Yet, as of mid-January this year, the 613 private colleges who are not "highly trusted" have been able to sponsor 280,000 students between them. The potential for abuse is clearly enormous.
Indeed, we have been looking into the practice of some so-called colleges. In one case, students were sent off to so-called work placements in locations up to 280 miles away from the college where they were supposed to be studying on a regular basis.
In another, students were found working in 20 different locations and undertaking no study time whatsoever. In yet another case, there were 2 lecturers for 940 students.
Want to know how ridiculous things have got? An Indian organisation which helps people get student visas has put up a massive billboard in that country. It's got a picture of London bus and the words "get a free ride to the UK" emblazoned across it.
Clearly, we cannot – and should not – put up with any of this. That's why we're getting to grips with the abuse and that's why I reject the idea that our policy will damage our universities.
It really is simple: if you're a genuine academic institution – you have nothing to worry about. But if you're not, you do – and I make no apology for that.
Conclusion
What I have set out today is a sober, comprehensive and effective plan to cut immigration, and cut it substantially. Sober because we come to this debate clear-headed about not only the benefits of immigration … but also its impact on our public services, communities and society. Comprehensive because we are leaving no stone unturned, taking action across all routes of entry to our country. And effective – because we are doing all this in a way that strengthens our economy and enhances the status of our universities.
This time last year, we said we would listen to people's concerns and get immigration under control. Today I can confidently say that we are getting there.
If we take the steps set out today, and deal with all the different avenues of migration, legal and illegal, then levels of immigration can return to where they were in the 1980s and 90s, a time when immigration was not a front rank political issue. And I believe that will mean net migration to this country will be in the order of tens of thousands each year, not the hundreds of thousands every year that we have seen over the last decade.
Yes, Britain will always be open to the best and brightest from around the world and those fleeing persecution. But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs. No buts. That's a promise we made to the British people. And it's a promise we are keeping.
-----------------------
David Cameron veut limiter l'arrivée d'étrangers
-----------------
Immigration speech was a dog-whistle for the right
David Cameron's tough pronouncements on immigration mask policies that harm the poorest and most vulnerable
MAS ESTÃO FEITOS.É QUE EM PORTUGAL AS ESCOLAS NÃO SÃO SEF E COMO A COISA AQUI JÁ NÃO DÁ A RAPAZIADA FAZ UMA CURTA PARAGEM DE DESCANSO PARA A EUROPA DOS BONS SUBSÍDIOS...
PS
ESPERO QUE ESSES "ALUNOS" DESAPARECIDOS ASSIM DE REPENTE NÃO CONTEM PARA O "ABANDONO ESCOLAR"...
QUE VENHAM PARA O MELHOR ACOLHIMENTO DO MUNDO...QUE ESTARÃO QUASE EM CASA.ISTO É FALIDOS...
L'Europe se raidit face à l'afflux d'immigrants
Mots clés : Immigration, EUROPE, FRANCE, ITALIE
Par Jean-Jacques Mevel
« Paris utilisera tous les moyens de droit pour faire appliquer les textes », a affirmé Claude Guéant devant les ministres de l'Intérieur de l'UE réunis lundi à Luxembourg.
« Paris utilisera tous les moyens de droit pour faire appliquer les textes », a affirmé Claude Guéant devant les ministres de l'Intérieur de l'UE réunis lundi à Luxembourg. Crédits photo : GEORGES GOBET/AFP
L'Allemagne et les voisins de l'Italie, emboîtant le pas de la France, envisagent des contrôles renforcés aux frontières.
La vigilance s'accroît mais la désunion menace l'Europe sans frontières de Schengen. L'Allemagne et les voisins de l'Italie, emboîtant le pas de la France, laissent prévoir à leur tour des contrôles renforcés pour interdire leur territoire aux 20.000 Tunisiens que Rome veut doter d'un sésame européen.
L'immigration d'Afrique du Nord et, surtout, la controverse sur les permis de séjour distribués par l'Italie aux clandestins débarqués dans l'île de Lampedusa ont empoisonné le débat entre les vingt-sept ministres de l'Intérieur réunis lundi à Luxembourg. Le gouvernement de Silvio Berlusconi, loin d'obtenir l'élan de sympathie espéré de ses partenaires, s'est retrouvé isolé et menacé d'un cordon sanitaire s'il persiste à se délester du problème sur ses voisins.
«Nous avions demandé de la solidarité et l'Europe nous a répondu: débrouillez-vous tout seuls!, a lâché, ulcéré, le ministre italien Roberto Maroni devant la presse. Je me demande si cela a encore un sens de faire partie de l'Union européenne. Mieux vaut être seul qu'en mauvaise compagnie…»
Accord de façade
Signal du raidissement à l'intérieur de l'UE, Claude Guéant a martelé que Paris utilisera «tous les moyens de droit» pour faire appliquer les textes et renvoyer de l'autre côté de la frontière les migrants tunisiens en situation irrégulière. «Si les conditions ne sont pas remplies lors des vérifications de la police française, la France est en droit de faire réadmettre par l'Italie la personne qui ne les remplit pas, assure le ministre de l'Intérieur. C'est précisément ce que nous allons faire.»
Soixante-douze heures après avoir affiché un accord de façade à Milan, Claude Guéant et Roberto Maroni campent sur leurs divisions. Le ministre français a dénoncé lundi la délivrance de permis italiens qui «ne sont pas en stricte conformité avec l'Europe de Schengen». Il vient de décider la mobilisation d'une compagnie de CRS supplémentaire «pour des contrôles serrés et extrêmement vigilants» près de la frontière, dans les gares et les aéroports. Depuis un mois, précise-t-il, 2800 Tunisiens ont été interpellés en provenance d'Italie et 1700 renvoyés dans ce pays.
Risque d'explosion
À demi-mots, d'autres Européens ont fait savoir lundi à l'Italie qu'ils sont prêts à rétablir sans délai des contrôles frontaliers afin d'endiguer le flot, plutôt que de laisser le public s'enflammer contre l'immigration et faire exploser du même coup l'espace sans frontière de Schengen. «Introduire de nouveaux contrôles n'est peut-être pas dans l'intérêt de l'Europe, a averti le ministre allemand Hans-Peter Friedrich. Mais nous sommes prêts à le faire si nécessaire.»
L'Autriche, par la voix de la ministre Maria Fekter, s'inquiète, elle aussi, de l'effet en retour dans l'opinion. «Laisser entrer des gens qui ne peuvent se nourrir par leurs propres moyens, qui ne peuvent prouver qu'ils ont des ressources ne ferait que préparer le terrain à la criminalité et, en tant que responsable de la sécurité, je ne peux l'autoriser», dit-elle. La Suisse, extérieure à l'UE mais intégrée à l'espace Schengen, abonde dans le même sens. Elle vient de renvoyer en Italie plusieurs dizaines de migrants tunisiens.
Mots clés : Immigration, EUROPE, FRANCE, ITALIE
Par Jean-Jacques Mevel
« Paris utilisera tous les moyens de droit pour faire appliquer les textes », a affirmé Claude Guéant devant les ministres de l'Intérieur de l'UE réunis lundi à Luxembourg.
« Paris utilisera tous les moyens de droit pour faire appliquer les textes », a affirmé Claude Guéant devant les ministres de l'Intérieur de l'UE réunis lundi à Luxembourg. Crédits photo : GEORGES GOBET/AFP
L'Allemagne et les voisins de l'Italie, emboîtant le pas de la France, envisagent des contrôles renforcés aux frontières.
La vigilance s'accroît mais la désunion menace l'Europe sans frontières de Schengen. L'Allemagne et les voisins de l'Italie, emboîtant le pas de la France, laissent prévoir à leur tour des contrôles renforcés pour interdire leur territoire aux 20.000 Tunisiens que Rome veut doter d'un sésame européen.
L'immigration d'Afrique du Nord et, surtout, la controverse sur les permis de séjour distribués par l'Italie aux clandestins débarqués dans l'île de Lampedusa ont empoisonné le débat entre les vingt-sept ministres de l'Intérieur réunis lundi à Luxembourg. Le gouvernement de Silvio Berlusconi, loin d'obtenir l'élan de sympathie espéré de ses partenaires, s'est retrouvé isolé et menacé d'un cordon sanitaire s'il persiste à se délester du problème sur ses voisins.
«Nous avions demandé de la solidarité et l'Europe nous a répondu: débrouillez-vous tout seuls!, a lâché, ulcéré, le ministre italien Roberto Maroni devant la presse. Je me demande si cela a encore un sens de faire partie de l'Union européenne. Mieux vaut être seul qu'en mauvaise compagnie…»
Accord de façade
Signal du raidissement à l'intérieur de l'UE, Claude Guéant a martelé que Paris utilisera «tous les moyens de droit» pour faire appliquer les textes et renvoyer de l'autre côté de la frontière les migrants tunisiens en situation irrégulière. «Si les conditions ne sont pas remplies lors des vérifications de la police française, la France est en droit de faire réadmettre par l'Italie la personne qui ne les remplit pas, assure le ministre de l'Intérieur. C'est précisément ce que nous allons faire.»
Soixante-douze heures après avoir affiché un accord de façade à Milan, Claude Guéant et Roberto Maroni campent sur leurs divisions. Le ministre français a dénoncé lundi la délivrance de permis italiens qui «ne sont pas en stricte conformité avec l'Europe de Schengen». Il vient de décider la mobilisation d'une compagnie de CRS supplémentaire «pour des contrôles serrés et extrêmement vigilants» près de la frontière, dans les gares et les aéroports. Depuis un mois, précise-t-il, 2800 Tunisiens ont été interpellés en provenance d'Italie et 1700 renvoyés dans ce pays.
Risque d'explosion
À demi-mots, d'autres Européens ont fait savoir lundi à l'Italie qu'ils sont prêts à rétablir sans délai des contrôles frontaliers afin d'endiguer le flot, plutôt que de laisser le public s'enflammer contre l'immigration et faire exploser du même coup l'espace sans frontière de Schengen. «Introduire de nouveaux contrôles n'est peut-être pas dans l'intérêt de l'Europe, a averti le ministre allemand Hans-Peter Friedrich. Mais nous sommes prêts à le faire si nécessaire.»
L'Autriche, par la voix de la ministre Maria Fekter, s'inquiète, elle aussi, de l'effet en retour dans l'opinion. «Laisser entrer des gens qui ne peuvent se nourrir par leurs propres moyens, qui ne peuvent prouver qu'ils ont des ressources ne ferait que préparer le terrain à la criminalité et, en tant que responsable de la sécurité, je ne peux l'autoriser», dit-elle. La Suisse, extérieure à l'UE mais intégrée à l'espace Schengen, abonde dans le même sens. Elle vient de renvoyer en Italie plusieurs dizaines de migrants tunisiens.
ANTICORRUPCIÓN "AMIGA"...
Anticorrupción se opone a que la juez acceda a las 480 actas del Gobierno andaluz
J. M.-A. / I. P. - Sevilla - 15/04/2011
La Fiscalía Anticorrupción ha recurrido el auto de la juez que investiga los expedientes de regulación de empleo (ERE) fraudulentos en el que ordenó a la Junta andaluza la entrega de las 480 actas de los Consejos de Gobierno desde 2001 para su custodia. Estas actas, que contienen las decisiones de la última década del Gobierno andaluz, descansan desde hace una semana en un armario de seguridad de los juzgados a la espera de que la juez Mercedes Alaya dé un paso sobre el conflicto jurisdiccional planteado por la Junta.
OI OU METEM JÁ OS CORRUPTOS NA CADEIA OU VÃO FALIR DE SEGUIDA...PORQUE OS INTERNACIONALISTAS SALVADORES DO PLANETA PRIMEIRO SALVAM-SE A ELES PRÓPRIOS...
J. M.-A. / I. P. - Sevilla - 15/04/2011
La Fiscalía Anticorrupción ha recurrido el auto de la juez que investiga los expedientes de regulación de empleo (ERE) fraudulentos en el que ordenó a la Junta andaluza la entrega de las 480 actas de los Consejos de Gobierno desde 2001 para su custodia. Estas actas, que contienen las decisiones de la última década del Gobierno andaluz, descansan desde hace una semana en un armario de seguridad de los juzgados a la espera de que la juez Mercedes Alaya dé un paso sobre el conflicto jurisdiccional planteado por la Junta.
OI OU METEM JÁ OS CORRUPTOS NA CADEIA OU VÃO FALIR DE SEGUIDA...PORQUE OS INTERNACIONALISTAS SALVADORES DO PLANETA PRIMEIRO SALVAM-SE A ELES PRÓPRIOS...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)