The idea of trying to distinguish between EU and non EU immigrants is typical of the dishonesty of the immigration policies of Lib/Lab/Con. With the exception of the UK (which is itself far from secure), the security of the borders of most of the other EU member states against illegal immigration varies from virtually non existant, to a losing struggle against unequal odds.

But, thanks, once again to the perverse EU regulations, once illegal immigrants have entered the EU, they become extremely difficult to deport. Small wonder then that our continental neighbours are only too keen to "pass the parcel" and actively encourage them to continue migrating until they eventually reach the U.K. However, by virtue of the fact that these immigrants, whether legal or illegal, have reached Britain via another EU country, our rights of deportation, or even of segregation into desirables or undesirables, are severely limited and outwith the control of our own puppet government.

I assume that this proposal is to impose a compulsory period of leave, making it an offence to work during this time? If so, I would imagine that this might well fall foul of the ECHR or the HRA, in that it would deny a person the right to choose whether to work or not.

At the moment the Tories and the Lib-Dems are so busy jockeying for position that I rather doubt that there will be early defections from either side, however disgruntled some of the genuine Conservative MPs may be. But, within the course of this parliament there is a strong chance that the coalition itself may split, with the emergence of a new Conservative Liberal (or vice-versa) Party. composed of the left wing of the Conservatives and the right wing of the Lib-Dems, hoping to monopolise the centre ground and marginalise both the left and the right.

At that point the Lib-Dem left may align themselves with Labour, whilst the old Tory right will make a strong play for UKIP and we will do the same to them!

Rather than being damaged by UKIP suffering from the inevitable squeeze at the recent election, Toby Horton's chances should be improved by the fact that the voters will be able to express their disapproval of a result which nobody wanted.__There is little doubt that the Conservatives will become more left leaning and europhile in order to remain ingovernment at all costs, with the result that even the most moderate eurosceptics may turn away from them. Nor, since it will not affect the coalition, need previous Tory or Lib-Dem voters vote for either of those parties just in order to get rid of Brown. Equally, disillusioned eurosceptic Labour voters, who dislike both the Conservagtive and Lib-Dems, can now give their vote to Ukip as the only party which now truly represents their interests.

Understandably, this subject has raised considerable interest and not a little passion in the member's blog on UKIP's official website. I think that Lord P was absolutely right in allowing members a free choice in deciding whether or not to accept his advice upon the question of whether or not to oppose a proven eurosceptic in that small number of seats which were unwinnable by UKIP but where their intervention might result in the election of a strongly europhile opponent.

Had this been an election where the Tories looked likely to win an overwhelming majority, with most of their candidates on the eurosceptic side of the fence, I would have argued that we should fight every seat regardless of the consequences. However, with the likelihood of a hung parliament, with an increased number of europhile Lib-Dem MPs, every eurosceptic member, even if not yet a supporter of UKIP, increases our prospects of achieving a parliamentary vote upon the holding of an in/out referendum during the course of the next parliament.

Doubtless he has claimed these as "expenses" and is waiting for the cash before paying his bar bills!

Whilst, in general, I am against involving candidates wives in G.E. Campaigns, unless they themselves are standing as candidates in their own right, I strongly support your decision and policies in this case. Unfortunately, K&C, hitherto always a smugly safe Conservative seat, has been badly let down by its self serving extravagant Conservative council, in stark contrast to some other London Conservative led councils.

Whilst in theory the idea of patient's records being instantly available wherever they are urgently needed ( after a car crash, for example) initially sounds sensible, the unreliability of the internal IT systems in the NHS raises problems, both of information security and even, possibly, patient safety which, at present, outweigh the advantages.__The proposed opt out scheme should be changed to an opt in one immediately, as should any NHS initiatives involving patient choice. Centralising patient records involves making these available not just to clinical staff, but also admin staff, including secretaries and all people working in IT departments and, apart from confidentiality considerations, there have been cases of the wrong records being accessed in the cases oif people sharing the same name and similar medical conditions.

It is bad enough that this type of civil servant is paid well above the private rates for those of their experience or ability, but the fact that not only do they enjoy better perks and pensions, but are also virtually unsackable, however badly they perform, gives them a grossly inflated sense of their own importance, creating a cult of officious mini-dictators, intent upon expanding their own little empires which are often more powerful and influential than the elected councillors, whom they are supposed to serve.

The use of legislation to attempt to ban and criminalise prejudices,(which are part of the human condition) merely demeans respect for the law. Certainly, there are good reasons for banning active discrimination in matters such as employment and possibly in one or two other circumstances, but to attempt to legislate against prejudices and discrimination per se will merely serve to undermine those exceptions where social pressures alone may not be enough.____In this specific case of the rights of homeowners to decide who they wish to admit or exclude from their own homes it is no business of the law to dictate to them how they should make such choices, whether as social guests or paying guests. In the latter case it is a simple matter of contract, with both sides free to stipulate and agree or reject their conditions.