Guest Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 My point is that additional people require additional services. This seems quite a simple concept to me. You're saying it's not true, I've provided a link that backs up my point. If it's not true, why don't you provide a link that shows that an influx of immigrants with children who require school places doesn't actually lead to an increase in the number of children requiring school places? If you can do that I'll concede the point. But additional people can bring in more money to fund the additional services. Of course services may simply become more efficient not costing any more .
The Doctor Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 I think you are over exaggerating the second point exceptions. The fact of 21/22 yo only having 1 parent is a red herring. That is all the more reason for them to stay at home and share the costs. People disowned by their families is a social/community problem - people need to solve their petty disputes - and yes until people can afford to live away from home they need to accept restrictions to their freedoms and tow the line with "parents" rules a lot more. Parents can't support them is another red herring - the govt gives the person an allowance in this case probably both the parent and young adult. The cost of sharing one roof is less than running two rooves. The housing ladder is not a right and the sooner the younger generation understand that the better. This is only a relatively recent idea. If only more people stayed at home for longer and used the family resources at hand then the whole community would be in a better position. Old people would have companionship and young parents would have child minders. People would be more in touch and understanding of other generations. I truly believe that local crime would also go down. There will be some exceptions that you point out but most of them boil down to young people believing they have the RIGHT to their own home, own car, own tv, own smart phone, own play station and not realising that they need to work hard to get any of these. At the moment children realise that they have to live under parental rules until 16 - perhaps if the mentality shifted to 25 -30 a lot of your "exceptions" wouldn't arise. How exactly is it a red herring? The point is there are people who have lost parents before they've any hope of getting on the housing ladder, and by extension there are people without parental homes to live in until they can get on the ladder. That's a pretty disgusting attitude to take - you're supporting gay people being forced to live in unwelcoming homes and live lies just to keep a roof over their head. You're supporting grown adults, legally capable of owning their own home, having their own job, family and lives being denied the right to an opinion - you're indirectly suggesting that parents should be allowed to abuse their children and the children should just accept it. False. The Govt only gives child support allowances until the child in 18 - Unable to support a 21 year old child? you're on your own. Those who have living, supportive parents able to keep them at home for a while longer are quite privileged, even in this country - and while they should use that as a springboard, not everyone can, which is why social housing and rent help is necessary.
sphericalfox Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 My point is that additional people require additional services. This seems quite a simple concept to me. You're saying it's not true, I've provided a link that backs up my point. If it's not true, why don't you provide a link that shows that an influx of immigrants with children who require school places doesn't actually lead to an increase in the number of children requiring school places? If you can do that I'll concede the point. Additional immigrants who I have proven through my link to NOT CLOG up services nationally, and you link ONE story in Peterborough a fairly problematic area due to the sheer number of immigrants doing all the farm work that the British don't want to do. Yeah, you've definitely disproven my point entirely, I concede, you win. WTF are you on about, all you are proving is that both the Tory government and local government, which incidently happens to be Conservative, are ****wits who can't manage the necessary services that are needed for the needed immigrant population earning and paying taxes within their locality.
MooseBreath Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 Additional immigrants who I have proven through my link to NOT CLOG up services nationally, and you link ONE story in Peterborough a fairly problematic area due to the sheer number of immigrants doing all the farm work that the British don't want to do. Yeah, you've definitely disproven my point entirely, I concede, you win. WTF are you on about, all you are proving is that both the Tory government and local government, which incidently happens to be Conservative, are ****wits who can't manage the necessary services that are needed for the needed immigrant population earning and paying taxes within their locality. OK so just to be clear, you believe that when hundreds of thousands of immigrants turn up with their kids every year and all those kids need school places, in actual fact no additional school places are required?
Guest Bilo Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 Additional immigrants who I have proven through my link to NOT CLOG up services nationally, and you link ONE story in Peterborough a fairly problematic area due to the sheer number of immigrants doing all the farm work that the British don't want to do. Yeah, you've definitely disproven my point entirely, I concede, you win. WTF are you on about, all you are proving is that both the Tory government and local government, which incidently happens to be Conservative, are ****wits who can't manage the necessary services that are needed for the needed immigrant population earning and paying taxes within their locality. Possibly because the government do not provide sufficient funding to rural areas, the funding provided to Lincolnshire County Council is another example of a rural county suffering mismanagement and poor funding.
sphericalfox Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 OK so just to be clear, you believe that when hundreds of thousands of immigrants turn up with their kids every year and all those kids need school places, in actual fact no additional school places are required? What the **** are the Tories spending our and their taxes on? Herp derp Are you saying the report I posted is incorrect?
MooseBreath Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 What the **** are the Tories spending our and their taxes on? Herp derp Are you saying the report I posted is incorrect? They're spending it on a variety of things. As you know they're also spending borrowed money. How do you suggest we pay for the additional school places required? Borrow money, from abroad, to pay for education for kids, from abroad? Do you realise how absurd that is? It's like me taking a loan from you so I can pay your mortgage off for you. I haven't read your link. I'll go back and read it now.
Jimothy Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 I haven't read your link but I'm going to argue against the point you're making with it. What are you Moose, Ken is disguise?
sphericalfox Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 They're spending it on a variety of things. As you know they're also spending borrowed money. How do you suggest we pay for the additional school places required? Borrow money, from abroad, to pay for education for kids, from abroad? Do you realise how absurd that is? It's like me taking a loan from you so I can pay your mortgage off for you. I haven't read your link. I'll go back and read it now. If the Tories are incapable of nationally and on a local basis of managing something a ****ing basic as education provision for the immigrants in which they are encouraging to come and do the rural work that either the residential population are incapable of or simply won't do. I'd like to see the breakdown of the migrating population and the number of children they bring. You are making out there are 100,000 of children overflowing our education system, when in actuallty there are pockets and areas where it's obvious as ****, because the local council encourage it, migrants are coming, the provision in that particular service needs to be increased. It's basic logic, and a serious failure on the Tories for ****ing it up in these instances. As for the rest of the services, see the linked report.
MooseBreath Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 I haven't read your link but I'm going to argue against the point you're making with it. What are you Moose, Ken is disguise? We were arguing different points. I didn't read his link because I suspected he was proving a point re. relative consumption of services, which I don't deny. Having skimmed the links, I was right. Nothing in those reports suggests that additional immigration doesn't cause an additional increase in use of public services. The 2nd one is talking about immigrant university students, which is a totally different scenario given they pay for their own education.
MooseBreath Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 If the Tories are incapable of nationally and on a local basis of managing something a ****ing basic as education provision for the immigrants in which they are encouraging to come and do the rural work that either the residential population are incapable of or simply won't do. I'd like to see the breakdown of the migrating population and the number of children they bring. You are making out there are 100,000 of children overflowing our education system, when in actuallty there are pockets and areas where it's obvious as ****, because the local council encourage it, migrants are coming, the provision in that particular service needs to be increased. It's basic logic, and a serious failure on the Tories for ****ing it up in these instances. As for the rest of the services, see the linked report. When have the tories encouraged immigration? They set targets to reduce it dramatically.
Rincewind Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 How can Moose be me? We rarely agree with each other although he has mellowed on some things.
Jimothy Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 How can Moose be me? We rarely agree with each other although he has mellowed on some things. I meant not reading links!
sphericalfox Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 When have the tories encouraged immigration? They set targets to reduce it dramatically. Must be doing a shitty job then.
sphericalfox Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 Here's an interesting study on migrant workers in Peterborough Access to services and facilities • 87% of respondents were currently registered with or accessing a Doctor/GP, while 53% were accessing a dentist. • 33% of respondents had children attending local schools or nurseries in Peterborough. Stakeholder consultation suggested that there can be issues with attendance and different holiday patterns. Children of primary school age were seen adapt to British schooling much easier than those attending high schools. • 93% of respondents had a mobile phone, compared to having a landline phone (12%); 41% had internet access. • 87% of respondents had a bank/building society account. The Czech and Slovak samples had a lower percentage of people with a bank/building society account. • 57% of respondents were currently receiving benefits or tax credits. The Portuguese and Czech samples had the highest percentage of benefit take-up (68% and 65% respectively). The benefits that were taken up most frequently were those relating to children or low income employment. • 34% of respondents had been provided with an interpreter during their contact with service providers; 25% indicated that family/friends acted as interpreters. • Respondents suggested that the information that would have been most useful on arrival in Peterborough was information on how to find a job. People also felt that they needed advice on language classes, benefits, schools, transport services, housing and other services (for example, GPs).
Strokes Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 Must be doing a shitty job then. You can't reduce EU immigration, that's the point.
sphericalfox Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 You can't reduce EU immigration, that's the point. It was a general point.
sphericalfox Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 Here's another article and it mentions the pressure on the schools in Peterborough. I suspect the Tory leader, Marco Cereste, must be on the phone day and night to DC telling him to stop these immigrants putting a strain on his locality and his bank balance. I suspect his wallet doesn't fit anymore in his trouser pocket ffs!
Rincewind Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 I meant not reading links! I do read links. Others do not read the same links as I do. Just because they are not the mainstream media does not mean they are any less relevant.
Jimothy Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 I do read links. Others do not read the same links as I do. Just because they are not the mainstream media does not mean they are any less relevant. Seriously??? How many links have you posted without reading them? Must be in the hundreds now.
Rincewind Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 My mum used to say to me I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
lavrentis Posted 18 April 2015 Posted 18 April 2015 My mum used to say to me I've told you a million times not to exaggerate.
Benji Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Finally got round to watching the opposition debate - Natalie Bennett and Leanne Wood are horrific public speakers.
L1HT Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 If Judges are the authorities then 2 huge precidents have been set.... Judge in Leicester who said because the racist muslim gang who battered the 'white girl' weren't used to drinking alcohol, he wouldn't send them to prison. Now I wonder if the same would be said if I took crack and did a racist attack in the town centre on a Saturday night. Blame the crack...I'm not used to taking it. Judge in Nottingham who let of the rape of 13 yr old because of religion, but thats just repeating whats above. So actually it is the AUTHORITIES fault. It is JUDGES taking actions like this, POLITICIANS like Gordon Brown who simply wont talk about immigration/ethinic groups, POLICE who in Rotherham were too scared to take action. Muslims do bad things, but so does every type of person. Difference is how the authorities are dealing with them
MooseBreath Posted 19 April 2015 Posted 19 April 2015 Rhea Page and the guy who raped a kid because he wasn't told not to were a couple of absolutely appalling judicial decisions that should have deeply offended any right-minded person. The only reason there weren't riots is because of lack of coverage. So the media also need to grow some balls. Everyone needs to grow some balls in the Muslim debate. Too many people still too afraid to call a spade a spade and I imagine you'll be seeing plenty of that in this thread.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.