bratman

Water water everywhere but nought a drop to drink.

34 posts in this topic

On tonight's news an anonymous GMFRS firefighter was complaining that during a four and a half hour stint fighting the Saddleworth Moor fire in excruciating heat he received no refreshment whatsoever all he had was the small bottle of water that he took with him. When interviewed the Chief Fire Officer delivered a masterclass in double speak worthy of any senior politician. He praised his men, he praised the Army, he praised the crews from the 14 other fire services that sent mutual aid but kept on ducking the question, WHY ARE YOU NOT MEETING THE WELFARE NEEDS OF THE FIREFIGHTERS. Sadly that task has fallen to the general public and various charities. Individuals are risking their own lives to take food and water to the firefighters. GMFRS have now taken to twitter, facebook and other media to ask for help, what a sorry mess.

It is true that like most wholetime brigades they have had their staff and vehicles cut by at least 50% in recent years. If they were at anywhere near their original level it is most likely that they could have tackled the fire swiftly with minimal assistance from adjacent brigades. The bean counters are winning.

John B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible the welfare of the firefighter is sucking hind teat to the welfare recipient, the life of whom he saves on a daily basis? Let's follow the money and see how it's spent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wish I still had my catering van, could have made lots of money!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A strange reality when we hear on the news of bottled water being given out to residents who's water supply has failed for some reason or another, yet (if true) the guys and girls fighting the Saddleworth Moor fire have to provide their own.

Talking of said fire and i'm certainly no expert on these matters, I can't help wondering if leaving it to it's own devices to burn out might be a better long term strategy than sending people up there to waft it about with beating sticks while putting said operatives in danger.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Blott said:

A strange reality when we hear on the news of bottled water being given out to residents who's water supply has failed for some reason or another, yet (if true) the guys and girls fighting the Saddleworth Moor fire have to provide their own.

Talking of said fire and i'm certainly no expert on these matters, I can't help wondering if leaving it to it's own devices to burn out might be a better long term strategy than sending people up there to waft it about with beating sticks while putting said operatives in danger.   

I agree. They should have, by now, brought in earth movers and cut a line across the front of the fire. It is, after all, only moorland. Other counties faced with the same situation, simply let it burn out.

On the original subject, one tired thirsty firefighter complained to some news-hungry person and this is the result. I wonder if the Grenfell Tower firefighters were provided with cool drinks or were they too busy doing the job they are paid for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you have suggested Jimmy Chou firebreaks are now being cut but sadly the resources to do so are arriving a little late in the day. As for letting it burn itself out the underlying vegetation is peat and that is a bugger to extinguish it can smoulder away for months and then suddenly flare up. With regard to the firefighter he told his tale anonymously. The fire services in the north west rely heavily on 4 vehicles owned and crewed by the Salvation Army. The SA receives some public funding and the vehicles are maintained by the fire services and housed in fire stations (plenty of spare bays after the cuts) It is unrealistic to expect the SA to find sufficient volunteers to crew them 24 - 7 as these 2 incidents require. In less austere times GMFRS had 2 welfare units of their own. The point I was making was that the Chief Fire Officer side stepped and prevaricated rather than admit he did not have the resources to meet the firefighters welfare needs. This was reinforced by the fact he then made an appeal for the public to plug the gap with food and water. As for Grenfell Tower, yes LFB have had cuts but not as swingeing as other parts of the country. LFB have a number of welfare units and being in a city there was a large population on hand who were only too willing to cater for the firefighters. Your snide comment about being too busy doing the job they are paid for is unworthy and beneath contempt even for you. Wearing BA in a such a blaze temperatures can reach 800 degrees, fifteen minutes is your maximum and then you need thirty minutes to cool down and recuperate.

As an aside the museum piece green goddesses of the AFS would be the ideal vehicles for moorland fires. Their primary purpose was not as a fire appliance but as a water relay to pump water over long distances on rough terrain. Almost 40% of them were 4 X 4. Hundreds of them were sold with less than a thousand miles on the clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I'm not going to argue with you, JB, but perhaps the fire chief WAS doing the job that he was/is paid for, and as appliances are so thin on the ground, he must have been tearing his hair out trying to juggle the resources at his disposal. He did think about the crews eventually but his prime concern would be to (try) and contain the fire.

Please don't compare me with some of the morons who inhabit these forums as my opinions are based on what I see and hear first hand. My own intuition also plays a strong part in these opinions, something which a lifetime of living has given me.

Edited by Jimmy chou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, rowlf said:

Is it possible the welfare of the firefighter is sucking hind teat to the welfare recipient, the life of whom he saves on a daily basis? Let's follow the money and see how it's spent.

You're possibly right rowlf, in a round about way.  The largest item of UK Government expenditure is in welfare and in the UK we spend more than the entire budget of the EU in this area.  The controls on its spending are difficult to manage and the accounts of the Department of Work & Pensions has not had its accounts signed off by the auditors for a long time.  There is a basic rule of thumb of two thirds in UK Government welfare spending.  Two thirds of the budget is spent on pensioners.  Of the remaining third, two thirds is spent on supporting working families on low incomes pay for housing and childcare costs (note working rowlf).  Of the remaining ninth, two thirds is spent on the needs of people living with disabilities.  Of the remaining 27th, two thirds is spent on people with unable to work because of caring responsibilities.  The remaining 1% is spent on the unemployed.

So about 70 times as much is spent on pensioners like your friend Jimmy Puff Pastry than on the unemployed.  

Of course the second greatest expenditure of the Government is the NHS and again most of the expenditure is on pensioners. Throw in their rights to free tv licences, winter fuel allowances, bus passes, medical prescriptions, dental treatment, etc. and you can see where the money is going.

It is your friend and bro' who is sucking the resource away from the fireman.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

You're possibly right rowlf, in a round about way.  The largest item of UK Government expenditure is in welfare and in the UK we spend more than the entire budget of the EU in this area.  The controls on its spending are difficult to manage and the accounts of the Department of Work & Pensions has not had its accounts signed off by the auditors for a long time.  There is a basic rule of thumb of two thirds in UK Government welfare spending.  Two thirds of the budget is spent on pensioners.  Of the remaining third, two thirds is spent on supporting working families on low incomes pay for housing and childcare costs (note working rowlf).  Of the remaining ninth, two thirds is spent on the needs of people living with disabilities.  Of the remaining 27th, two thirds is spent on people with unable to work because of caring responsibilities.  The remaining 1% is spent on the unemployed.

So about 70 times as much is spent on pensioners like your friend Jimmy Puff Pastry than on the unemployed.  

Of course the second greatest expenditure of the Government is the NHS and again most of the expenditure is on pensioners. Throw in their rights to free tv licences, winter fuel allowances, bus passes, medical prescriptions, dental treatment, etc. and you can see where the money is going.

It is your friend and bro' who is sucking the resource away from the fireman.

 

Damn, I'm moving to the UK. BTW, does it rain there? I really hate the rain... But I hear immigration is fairly lax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Damn, I'm moving to the UK. BTW, does it rain there? I really hate the rain... But I hear immigration is fairly lax.

No thanks we have enough grumpy old men of our own without you adding to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Damn, I'm moving to the UK. BTW, does it rain there? I really hate the rain... But I hear immigration is fairly lax.

It does rain here rather a lot rowlf, but I'm afraid that as you aren't an EU citizen you don't have the right to come here and will have to apply.  The likelihood is that you would only get the right to remain here without recourse to public funds, so you'd have to pay your own way.  You'd also be subject to our tax rules, so would have to fund your bro's welfare dependent lifestyle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

You're possibly right rowlf, in a round about way.  The largest item of UK Government expenditure is in welfare and in the UK we spend more than the entire budget of the EU in this area.  The controls on its spending are difficult to manage and the accounts of the Department of Work & Pensions has not had its accounts signed off by the auditors for a long time.  There is a basic rule of thumb of two thirds in UK Government welfare spending.  Two thirds of the budget is spent on pensioners.  Of the remaining third, two thirds is spent on supporting working families on low incomes pay for housing and childcare costs (note working rowlf).  Of the remaining ninth, two thirds is spent on the needs of people living with disabilities.  Of the remaining 27th, two thirds is spent on people with unable to work because of caring responsibilities.  The remaining 1% is spent on the unemployed.

So about 70 times as much is spent on pensioners like your friend Jimmy Puff Pastry than on the unemployed.  

Of course the second greatest expenditure of the Government is the NHS and again most of the expenditure is on pensioners. Throw in their rights to free tv licences, winter fuel allowances, bus passes, medical prescriptions, dental treatment, etc. and you can see where the money is going.

It is your friend and bro' who is sucking the resource away from the fireman.

 

Would you care to post reliable links to back up the above break down of expenditure?

Assuming you don’t meet an untimely end you do realise YOU will be a pensioner one day as will most people, assuming most have paid taxes in their life the pension as it stands is pay back when their working days are over, not some benefit for the work shy or hypochondriac. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Alteredbhoy said:

It does rain here rather a lot rowlf, but I'm afraid that as you aren't an EU citizen you don't have the right to come here and will have to apply.  The likelihood is that you would only get the right to remain here without recourse to public funds, so you'd have to pay your own way.  You'd also be subject to our tax rules, so would have to fund your bro's welfare dependent lifestyle.

Hmm.... I realize that this will come as a shock, but I feel I may have to renege on my proposed relocation...….. due to financial constraints….. and the 'powers that be'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

It does rain here rather a lot rowlf, but I'm afraid that as you aren't an EU citizen you don't have the right to come here and will have to apply.  The likelihood is that you would only get the right to remain here without recourse to public funds, so you'd have to pay your own way.  You'd also be subject to our tax rules, so would have to fund your bro's welfare dependent lifestyle.

Another hmm..... but if I had nothing, not even a pot to pee in, I would be welcome with open arms and paid to stay? Reverse discrimination, I say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Blott said:

Would you care to post reliable links to back up the above break down of expenditure?

Assuming you don’t meet an untimely end you do realise YOU will be a pensioner one day as will most people, assuming most have paid taxes in their life the pension as it stands is pay back when their working days are over, not some benefit for the work shy or hypochondriac. 

Try here Blott - my figures were only approximate, but once the Housing Benefit and Social Care costs (which are predominantly paid to pensioners) are spread across you can see that Pensions account for about two thirds of the expenditure and Jobseekers Allowance only 1%.  https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16

Your assessment of pensions as not being a benefit is just plain incorrect.  We have benefits available if you are working and on a low income, if you are unable to work through illness or disability, if you are unable to work because you lose your job and can't find another and if you are old enough to be given support without the need for work.  You don't have to have worked hard, or even at all anymore, to obtain your state retirement pension following the changes made by Iain Duncan Smith.  The pension is now a flat rate, irrespective of the contributions you have or haven't made, in a similar manner to Child Benefit.

Isn't it odd that you consider people who are unable to work through illness are hypochondriacs, people who lose their jobs are work shy, but when they reach a certain birthday and receive welfare payments in the form of the State Retirement Pension they become deserving?

The State Retirement Pension is now paid to so many people that the people working and paying taxes cannot pay enough to make the state retirement pension an amount that can be lived off.  As a consequence, people working have to put additional amounts aside to pay for their own retirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, rowlf said:

Another hmm..... but if I had nothing, not even a pot to pee in, I would be welcome with open arms and paid to stay? Reverse discrimination, I say!

At the moment if you came to us from outside the EU without a pot to pee in you would be denied entry unless you could show a reasonable of persecution in your homeland.  You wouldn't be welcomed with open arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

At the moment if you came to us from outside the EU without a pot to pee in you would be denied entry unless you could show a reasonable of persecution in your homeland.  You wouldn't be welcomed with open arms.

Perhaps his ‘virtual bro’ :58674da5aabbd_EmojiOrte-36::58674c057baa4_EmojiSmiley-69: :58674d5a21ae6_EmojiObjects-216: would sponsor him :58674be6ca98e_EmojiSmiley-15: :58674be766e2b_EmojiSmiley-16: :58674bddb5b72_EmojiSmiley-01:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, stockingsadmirer68 said:

Perhaps his ‘virtual bro’ :58674da5aabbd_EmojiOrte-36::58674c057baa4_EmojiSmiley-69: :58674d5a21ae6_EmojiObjects-216: would sponsor him :58674be6ca98e_EmojiSmiley-15: :58674be766e2b_EmojiSmiley-16: :58674bddb5b72_EmojiSmiley-01:

That would be ironic.  One of the forum's greatest critics of immigration taking in a penniless health tourist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

That would be ironic.  One of the forum's greatest critics of immigration taking in a penniless health tourist.

:58674c1aabbb8_EmojiSmiley-106: 

LIKE!! 

:58674bdeceb55_EmojiSmiley-03::58674bde4b3fb_EmojiSmiley-02::58674bddb5b72_EmojiSmiley-01:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Try here Blott - my figures were only approximate, but once the Housing Benefit and Social Care costs (which are predominantly paid to pensioners) are spread across you can see that Pensions account for about two thirds of the expenditure and Jobseekers Allowance only 1%.  https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/howisthewelfarebudgetspent/2016-03-16

Your assessment of pensions as not being a benefit is just plain incorrect.  We have benefits available if you are working and on a low income, if you are unable to work through illness or disability, if you are unable to work because you lose your job and can't find another and if you are old enough to be given support without the need for work.  You don't have to have worked hard, or even at all anymore, to obtain your state retirement pension following the changes made by Iain Duncan Smith.  The pension is now a flat rate, irrespective of the contributions you have or haven't made, in a similar manner to Child Benefit.

Isn't it odd that you consider people who are unable to work through illness are hypochondriacs, people who lose their jobs are work shy, but when they reach a certain birthday and receive welfare payments in the form of the State Retirement Pension they become deserving?

The State Retirement Pension is now paid to so many people that the people working and paying taxes cannot pay enough to make the state retirement pension an amount that can be lived off.  As a consequence, people working have to put additional amounts aside to pay for their own retirements.

Although i'm sure the legislation you quote brought in by IDS is correct (and presumably done to buy cheap votes) I and millions of others have always understood National Insurance contributions as payments towards the 'old age pension' as it was always known. On many occasions people were told they had not accrued enough 'years contribution' to receive the full state pension, presumably this fiddling has done away with that if those who have never worked can claim full pension....the word Outstanding, springs to mind.

In an ideal liberal left wing world just about everybody would be in receipt of 'benefits' making them grateful pleps to the ruling elite. I can see how that would appear just dandy to the views of some on here who are only happy when their life is micro-managed by Big Gov. 

Ins't it odd that you consider anyone who 'claims' they can't work though illness to be telling the God's honest truth and not playing the system. Equally those who lose their job and 'can't' find another not to be work shy lay-abouts. Your stats above tell of the unemployed only claiming 1% of benefit money, so by that reckoning there are plenty of jobs out there or the % figure would be much higher would it not...the two things don't seem to add up do they!!

You mention the state pension being paid to so many the workers taxes can not keep up, this comes as no surprise to anyone as the population of the UK has grown incredibly in recent years. Perhaps the NHS spending millions and millions keeping people alive longer has an effect on the equation, perhaps encouraging people not to drink and smoke means they live longer and cost more in their old age while losing the Gov income from taxation into the bargain. All these things have a knock on effect in the grand scheme.

An interesting observation from your stats though, Jobseekers Allowance only 1%. Should I be confident you feel this is a good thing, such low unemployment after x amount of years under Tory rule and Brexit having arrived in the same period? The remainers seemed to suggest whole sale unemployment would be the result of an Out vote did they not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alteredbhoy said:

That would be ironic.  One of the forum's greatest critics of immigration taking in a penniless health tourist.

I would be delighted if only to thumb my nose at you and your ilk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

It does rain here rather a lot rowlf, but I'm afraid that as you aren't an EU citizen you don't have the right to come here and will have to apply.  The likelihood is that you would only get the right to remain here without recourse to public funds, so you'd have to pay your own way.  You'd also be subject to our tax rules, so would have to fund your bro's welfare dependent lifestyle.

Assuming Rowlf applied and was allowed entry 'but had to pay his own way', without recourse to public funds he would be here legally and could work and 'be subject to our tax rules'.

But lets assume Rowlf got his self here through illegal means and lived in the UK as an illegal immigrant (as many do). Am I right in saying he could not claim public funds and he could not legally work?

If i've got it right above I wonder if you could tell me how those who live in the UK as illegal immigrant survive? Surely with no State benefit and no means of earning money an illegal immigrant would be destitute in a matter of days? Yet reports suggest otherwise, how can this be?

And before you sound off about there being a tiny amount of illegal immigrants in the UK, the following quote is from the BBC link I shall provide.

It is not entirely clear how many illegal immigrants there are in the UK, although estimates range from 300,000 to over a million.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43960088

So there may be 300,000 or over a million people living in the UK without recourse to public funds or paid work, they must be getting money from somewhere, but where? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Blott said:

Although i'm sure the legislation you quote brought in by IDS is correct (and presumably done to buy cheap votes) I and millions of others have always understood National Insurance contributions as payments towards the 'old age pension' as it was always known. On many occasions people were told they had not accrued enough 'years contribution' to receive the full state pension, presumably this fiddling has done away with that if those who have never worked can claim full pension....the word Outstanding, springs to mind.

There is still some form of contribution requirement, I think (but don't quote me to the Pension Service on this Blott - you'll have to take your own financial advice) that you are required to have made contributions in 30 years to claim the new pension.  But a person who has been on benefit has their record marked as having contributed via NI even when they haven't.  The net result is that the only people who will not get the flat rate pension will be those who have neither worked, nor claimed benefits.  I think there must also be a residency requirement.

Unfortunately despite the name, National Insurance has ceased to be proper insurance scheme where what you put in determines what you get at the end.  It does to some degree.  It gives workers a 28 week right to unemployment benefit regardless of their income, and also similar sickness and disability benefits, based upon contributions, but these are not widely publicised or claimed.  Most insurance schemes are seen as an investment, but the NI scheme isn't.  There isn't a pension fund that accrues the more you put into it.  Your contributions pay the current pensioners.  It's just a giant Ponzi scheme and as we live longer  it leaves us with very few alternatives.  Either we accept the State Retirement Pension will only ever be pocket money and reduce its value, or we increase the costs to the workers, or we make people work longer, or we have to gain more workers.  We've done a bit of the first three, but they don't offer us much reward and are painful for the politicians as they are unpopular.  The alternative of increasing the workforce can only be achieved in two ways.  Either increasing the birth rate, but that's a very long term solution and won't have any effect for nearly twenty years, or encourage workers from overseas to come her.

The pensioners who voted for Brexit to reduce immigration were actually voting to reduce the number of people paying for their pensions.

50 minutes ago, Blott said:

In an ideal liberal left wing world just about everybody would be in receipt of 'benefits' making them grateful pleps to the ruling elite. I can see how that would appear just dandy to the views of some on here who are only happy when their life is micro-managed by Big Gov. 

Rubbish.  In an ideal liberal world (of my making) there would be much greater equality and a much lower need for benefits.  In my world liberal and Big Government are contradictory.  Liberalism is about freedom, not regulation. Think about where the word liberal derives.  It has the same derivation as liberty.

52 minutes ago, Blott said:

Ins't it odd that you consider anyone who 'claims' they can't work though illness to be telling the God's honest truth and not playing the system. Equally those who lose their job and 'can't' find another not to be work shy lay-abouts. Your stats above tell of the unemployed only claiming 1% of benefit money, so by that reckoning there are plenty of jobs out there or the % figure would be much higher would it not...the two things don't seem to add up do they!!

I can't make sense of this paragraph Blott.  I've been a benefit fraud investigator in a past career and know that not all benefit claimants are genuine.  I've never said that all benefit claimant were genuine.  It was you who described benefits as "for the work shy and the hypochondriac".  Jobseekers Allowance accounts for 1% of welfare expenditure because firstly it is a pitifully small payment and secondly because not many people claim it, because there are lots more people in employment than in unemployment.  The DWP figure suggests that 3% of the workforce is unemployed and most are only short term.

 

58 minutes ago, Blott said:

An interesting observation from your stats though, Jobseekers Allowance only 1%. Should I be confident you feel this is a good thing, such low unemployment after x amount of years under Tory rule and Brexit having arrived in the same period? The remainers seemed to suggest whole sale unemployment would be the result of an Out vote did they not? 

We do have low unemployment and that is a good thing.  But take a look at the amount of welfare payments made to people in work but not earning sufficient to feed their families, put a roof over their heads or engage in child care. Their wages are topped up by tax credits.  This is effectively a subsidy for the employer.  They can keep the wages artificially low because the Government will top them up to a living standard through tax credits.  It's the supermarkets who employ vast numbers of part time workers on low hours at low wages that are forcing up the working age benefit bill.

There will be major unemployment as a result of Brexit (if it happens).  Our economy has slowed substantially, investment is down on the back of the uncertainty.  If we leave with no deal, then the wheels will come of our car manufacturing industry (poor pun I know) and there will be much higher levels of unemployment than now.  Of course, this will put us back to a similar position that we found ourselves ten years ago with the financial crash.  The Government's tax receipts go down as people lose their jobs, but Government expenditure goes up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

That would be ironic.  One of the forum's greatest critics of immigration taking in a penniless health tourist.

So disingenuous. I've never stated legal immigration is a bad thing. The US has benefited tremendously from legal immigration. But the immigrants were vetted and documented. But when there is no control over immigration, and you let everybody flow over the border that wants to, you're only down grading your country and making it more susceptible to crime and terrorism. And it boggles my mind that leaders elected to the highest levels of gov will allow this to happen. We live in a stupid world at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Blott said:

Assuming Rowlf applied and was allowed entry 'but had to pay his own way', without recourse to public funds he would be here legally and could work and 'be subject to our tax rules'.

But lets assume Rowlf got his self here through illegal means and lived in the UK as an illegal immigrant (as many do). Am I right in saying he could not claim public funds and he could not legally work?

If i've got it right above I wonder if you could tell me how those who live in the UK as illegal immigrant survive? Surely with no State benefit and no means of earning money an illegal immigrant would be destitute in a matter of days? Yet reports suggest otherwise, how can this be?

And before you sound off about there being a tiny amount of illegal immigrants in the UK, the following quote is from the BBC link I shall provide.

It is not entirely clear how many illegal immigrants there are in the UK, although estimates range from 300,000 to over a million.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43960088

So there may be 300,000 or over a million people living in the UK without recourse to public funds or paid work, they must be getting money from somewhere, but where? 

Well to be honest, I don't think they'd give him the right to work either, unless rowlf has a skill that we require in the UK.

Illegal immigrants by definition are not allowed to be here.  They are unable to claim benefits.  They are unable to apply for social housing.  Landlords should not offer them tenancies and employers should not offer them work.  Unfortunately some landlords and employers turn a blind eye.  Often the landlord and the employer will be the same person.  

As a note of caution.  You have to be a bit careful with the figure of illegal immigrants.  We clearly don't know how many there are.  But the figure you have quoted does not mean that 1 million people have come here illegally.  Most illegal immigrants in the UK are people who have come here legally on a visa (that may or may not allow them to work) but fail to leave when the visa expires. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, rowlf said:

So disingenuous. I've never stated legal immigration is a bad thing. The US has benefited tremendously from legal immigration. But the immigrants were vetted and documented. But when there is no control over immigration, and you let everybody flow over the border that wants to, you're only down grading your country and making it more susceptible to crime and terrorism. And it boggles my mind that leaders elected to the highest levels of gov will allow this to happen. We live in a stupid world at this time.

We don't allow anyone who wants to come to the UK simply to rock up and be let in.  We have immigration controls.  It's disingenuous to suggest we don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

Illegal immigrants by definition are not allowed to be here.  They are unable to claim benefits.  They are unable to apply for social housing.  Landlords should not offer them tenancies and employers should not offer them work.  Unfortunately some landlords and employers turn a blind eye.  Often the landlord and the employer will be the same person.  

So in essence illegal immigrants are living here by illegal means, therefore breaking the law, therefore they are criminals. Regarding landlords and employers who give them illegal work and shelter, if television documentary programs are to be believed a significant portion of these are immigrants their selves (legal or otherwise) which makes them criminals too.

6 hours ago, Alteredbhoy said:

As a note of caution.  You have to be a bit careful with the figure of illegal immigrants.  We clearly don't know how many there are.  But the figure you have quoted does not mean that 1 million people have come here illegally.  Most illegal immigrants in the UK are people who have come here legally on a visa (that may or may not allow them to work) but fail to leave when the visa expires. 

Not my quoted figure the BBC's, I wouldn't dream of making figures up. Either way you cut it people working here without leave to do so are by definition criminals, do you agree the authorities should act against these law breakers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blott said:

Assuming Rowlf applied and was allowed entry 'but had to pay his own way', without recourse to public funds he would be here legally and could work and 'be subject to our tax rules'.

But lets assume Rowlf got his self here through illegal means and lived in the UK as an illegal immigrant (as many do). Am I right in saying he could not claim public funds and he could not legally work?

If i've got it right above I wonder if you could tell me how those who live in the UK as illegal immigrant survive? Surely with no State benefit and no means of earning money an illegal immigrant would be destitute in a matter of days? Yet reports suggest otherwise, how can this be?

And before you sound off about there being a tiny amount of illegal immigrants in the UK, the following quote is from the BBC link I shall provide.

It is not entirely clear how many illegal immigrants there are in the UK, although estimates range from 300,000 to over a million.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43960088

So there may be 300,000 or over a million people living in the UK without recourse to public funds or paid work, they must be getting money from somewhere, but where? 

After having read the reply to your question, Blott, it is obvious the member is blowing in the wind and has offered you the "I don't know but I'll throw my usual amount of BS at you in the hope that you won't realise my predicament".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Blott said:

So in essence illegal immigrants are living here by illegal means, therefore breaking the law, therefore they are criminals. Regarding landlords and employers who give them illegal work and shelter, if television documentary programs are to be believed a significant portion of these are immigrants their selves (legal or otherwise) which makes them criminals too.

Not my quoted figure the BBC's, I wouldn't dream of making figures up. Either way you cut it people working here without leave to do so are by definition criminals, do you agree the authorities should act against these law breakers? 

The essence of your post Blott, seems to suggest that I'm somehow sympathetic to illegal immigration.  I'm in favour of immigration, as it enriches a nation and is a matter of economic fact.  Workers in areas of high unemployment are encouraged to "get on their bike" and find work.  It's ludicrous that the scope of their job hunting should be limited by national borders, which are often just arbitrary (I accept our borders are in the main geographical).  However a nation has to have the ability to refuse entry to certain migrants and so has to have rules detailing who can come in and who can't.  And if people come in via the backdoor, avoiding the rules, then they can fully expect if found to be deported.

I'm not a criminal or immigration lawyer, so I don't know if not having legal status makes you a criminal.  Not that it matters a jot, as we've seen with the Windrush migrants, the authorities are quick to deport people irrespective of their right to be here.

I understand that landlords and employers who do not comply with the immigration legislation are breaking the law, so I suppose could be described as criminals.  There are penalties for breaching the law and I understand that the offences are strict liability, so the act of employing an illegal immigrant is an offence regardless of knowledge or intent.  I think from memory a Labour Cabinet member was prosecuted for this in the closing days of the last Labour Government.  It's probably harsh to describe someone who employs someone entirely legitimately whose immigration status changes so that they are no longer legal, can be classified as a criminal.  But if that's the way you want to describe, then so be it.  I just hope that this never happens to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

The essence of your post Blott, seems to suggest that I'm somehow sympathetic to illegal immigration.  I'm in favour of immigration, as it enriches a nation and is a matter of economic fact.  Workers in areas of high unemployment are encouraged to "get on their bike" and find work.  It's ludicrous that the scope of their job hunting should be limited by national borders, which are often just arbitrary (I accept our borders are in the main geographical).  However a nation has to have the ability to refuse entry to certain migrants and so has to have rules detailing who can come in and who can't.  And if people come in via the backdoor, avoiding the rules, then they can fully expect if found to be deported.

I'm not a criminal or immigration lawyer, so I don't know if not having legal status makes you a criminal.  Not that it matters a jot, as we've seen with the Windrush migrants, the authorities are quick to deport people irrespective of their right to be here.

I understand that landlords and employers who do not comply with the immigration legislation are breaking the law, so I suppose could be described as criminals.  There are penalties for breaching the law and I understand that the offences are strict liability, so the act of employing an illegal immigrant is an offence regardless of knowledge or intent.  I think from memory a Labour Cabinet member was prosecuted for this in the closing days of the last Labour Government.  It's probably harsh to describe someone who employs someone entirely legitimately whose immigration status changes so that they are no longer legal, can be classified as a criminal.  But if that's the way you want to describe, then so be it.  I just hope that this never happens to you.

I'll never understand the capability you have of taking so much space, and not saying one damned thing of relevance. Where's the 'essence'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, rowlf said:

I'll never understand the capability you have of taking so much space, and not saying one damned thing of relevance. Where's the 'essence'?

I was answering Blott's pecific questions to the best of my ability.  From the man who talks in clichés, your accusation is quite funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Alteredbhoy said:

I was answering Blott's pecific questions to the best of my ability.  From the man who talks in clichés, your accusation is quite funny.

Well thank you, I was trying to be funny. And, without a doubt, I believe you answered blot's specific questions to the 'best of your ability'.:58674be5c2392_EmojiSmiley-13:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rowlf said:

Well thank you, I was trying to be funny. And, without a doubt, I believe you answered blot's specific questions to the 'best of your ability'.:58674be5c2392_EmojiSmiley-13:

In other words.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now