Guest MattP Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Don't say that to Ken. Sometimes you have to feel sorry for governments. On one side you've got people saying the welfare reforms are doing nothing and are little more than a PR effort and then you've got some people claiming that they are reforms that are treating people worse than the Nazis did.
ADK Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Sometimes you have to feel sorry for governments. On one side you've got people saying the welfare reforms are doing nothing and are little more than a PR effort and then you've got some people claiming that they are reforms that are treating people worse than the Nazis did. It's pretty much both though. I'm worried about the direction we are going in.
Rincewind Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 True but unless you are directly or indirectly affected by the reforms it becomes easier to distance yourself from them. It is now not only the unemployed, low paid and disabled being hit. They are now proposing to reduce sickness benefit. So do not become ill or break a limb or be in need of an operation.. They will punish you for it. The benefit cheats are still out there and always will be The government had an offer from a company that searches a data base for fraudsters that uses diseased people's names for passports etc. at no cost and it was turned down. They would rather set up their system costing the taxpayer a few million quid.
absolutelegend Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 True but unless you are directly or indirectly affected by the reforms it becomes easier to distance yourself from them. It is now not only the unemployed, low paid and disabled being hit. They are now proposing to reduce sickness benefit. So do not become ill or break a limb or be in need of an operation.. They will punish you for it. The benefit cheats are still out there and always will be The government had an offer from a company that searches a data base for fraudsters that uses diseased people's names for passports etc. at no cost and it was turned down. They would rather set up their system costing the taxpayer a few million quid. I'd sooner the government employ people to set up a new it system than paying for the work shy to sit on their backsides all day
MooseBreath Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 While you're at it ken, a source on the government proposing to reduce "sickness benefit" would be great. As far as I can see statutory sick pay has increased this year again. Would be great if they reduced it, people skiving on ssp are almost as bad as the unemployed.
Buce Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Ken will no doubt speak for himself, but it may be this that he's refering to: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29821696
Bettsj2 Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 I feel very sorry for anyone who thinks that skiving to claim SSP is a goid idea.
yorkie1999 Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 That somali woman had a point though. If all the asylum seekers etc were sent back home, would the rest of us pay any less tax. I don't think so. That would get smoothed away straight into some mp owned business.
Dr The Singh Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 That somali woman had a point though. If all the asylum seekers etc were sent back home, would the rest of us pay any less tax. I don't think so. That would get smoothed away straight into some mp owned business.Bull, is that a point, yes we wouldn't pay more tax, but the added numbers on immigrants especially asylum seekers puts our services under strain, those taxes would be better spent, there would be more availinlity and better services,
Bettsj2 Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Bull, is that a point, yes we wouldn't pay more tax, but the added numbers on immigrants especially asylum seekers puts our services under strain, those taxes would be better spent, there would be more availinlity and better services, Thats an assumption with no basis. The majority of public services have been gash for years on end, way before the immigration/asylum issue arose. The only thing that will make public services better is by politicians ceasing to hire think tanks and quangos on £100k a year and actually listen to front line staff who know what they're talking about. Would also help if they didnt reward those who have put in 30 years service to the public sector by stealing their pensions and cutting their wages!
Dr The Singh Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 Thats an assumption with no basis. The majority of public services have been gash for years on end, way before the immigration/asylum issue arose. The only thing that will make public services better is by politicians ceasing to hire think tanks and quangos on £100k a year and actually listen to front line staff who know what they're talking about. Would also help if they didnt reward those who have put in 30 years service to the public sector by stealing their pensions and cutting their wages! How can it be an assumption, less assulum seekers means less asylums seekers taking beds in maternity wards, doctors waiting rooms, school places. I read somewhere where 1 in 4 children born in LRI is from a assulum seeking family. My Mrs works for LRI in children's ward, the increase in children suffering from sickle cell attending the wards from the Somalian community has had a massive impact.
Bettsj2 Posted 6 November 2014 Posted 6 November 2014 How can it be an assumption, less assulum seekers means less asylums seekers taking beds in maternity wards, doctors waiting rooms, school places. I read somewhere where 1 in 4 children born in LRI is from a assulum seeking family. My Mrs works for LRI in children's ward, the increase in children suffering from sickle cell attending the wards from the Somalian community has had a massive impact. What i'm saying is you assume that if there were no asylum seekers or immigrants, services would improve. What i'm asking you is, why were the services shit before asylum seekers and immigrants, plagued our nation?
DennisNedry Posted 7 November 2014 Posted 7 November 2014 What i'm saying is you assume that if there were no asylum seekers or immigrants, services would improve. What i'm asking you is, why were the services shit before asylum seekers and immigrants, plagued our nation? Who's saying they were shit? I don't really know anything about how much better if at all the NHS used to be, although I'm sure there's a big impact on waiting times.
Harry - LCFC Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 Harry I think the vast majority know that the vast majority of poles are hard workers, very often more hard working and willing to work than British people. Stereotypes don't just come from no where, they are based on truths or at least half truths or past truths. What is the employment rate for Somalis? Apologies for my late response. The Somali unemployment rate is a lot higher at around 40% according to Wikipedia. I don't know how much of that can be excused as a lot of them are asylum seekers but I won't deny that there appears to be a cultural problem there. I defended the Polish because there's evidence to show that they aren't avoiding employment. But I won't hide away if there's reason to think that a certain culture does indeed have a negative attitude towards work. EDIT: I see you've already had this discussion. My bad for being late to the conversation! Who said the above? You appeared to be suggesting that the stereotype about Polish workers was a myth, that was what I was responding to. Apologies if I've misunderstood your point.
Dr The Singh Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 What i'm saying is you assume that if there were no asylum seekers or immigrants, services would improve. What i'm asking you is, why were the services shit before asylum seekers and immigrants, plagued our nation?Yes!You imagine with vs without. I have lived through it and defo would have without even if it cost me more
Rincewind Posted 8 November 2014 Posted 8 November 2014 By removing services for new immigrants there is less need for them sothey can be cut to save money but it does not mean the immigrants go away. They just locate to different areas like A&E and prisons which will cost more.
Bettsj2 Posted 9 November 2014 Posted 9 November 2014 Yes! You imagine with vs without. I have lived through it and defo would have without even if it cost me more Fair enough, i'm convinced.'Immigrants out!'
fuchsntf Posted 11 November 2014 Posted 11 November 2014 What i'm saying is you assume that if there were no asylum seekers or immigrants, services would improve. What i'm asking you is, why were the services shit before asylum seekers and immigrants, plagued our nation?The plague first of all, was the guys up top, didnt want to increase the wages, and know bringing in new immigrants keeps the rheins on any decent wage increase.That goes also for good qualified older generation immigrants who havent seen any generous wage increases over the years, especially in the medical proffesions.Services goes down with the lowered expectations in skilled labour, hence the brain drain syndrome of various generations. Why is it for example somebody can do a 6-18 months crash course in plumbing, or as an electrician, and consider themselves qualified, where before you needed 4-5 yrs, anything under was judged to be semi-skilled. Hardworkers dont keep your Skills and qualifications needed well honed.Many a good immigrant came with good qualifications, but some of those qualifications were lower than that of the workforce of that present time, plus not the high level of realtime experience, needed in our society. That also ran into the lower middle management, where descision making became a hot potato. Make no mistake IMO its been a must that we have had immigration, but silly buggers in business and politics, have taken the immoral ground, and mis-used the immigrant situation, deliberately using it to cause unrest between the older, modern indigenous, and the new immigrant generations.Hiding behind this issue where the actual running of the countrys other intern problems dont get discussed. The NHS services has gone down not up, because govt mismanagement has caused, developed, and created a circle of management postions which are not responsible for anything but delegating answerable descisions from themselves, deflecting all to the same type of depts, who also cant take responsibilities.Then using gogglygook has communication, and answers to the crumbling situation...50yrs plus of deceit.!!!! If we have an healthy immigration workforce well managed policies, instead of pouting out BS and deliberate lies, we could also take care on a better managed and ground level of the asylum issue. Canada, UsA, Australia, NZ, SA, plus other advanced EU countries, tend to handle their immigration policies, not brilliantly, but alot better. ,
davieG Posted 16 April 2015 Posted 16 April 2015 Make Leicester British's Sukiy Singh stands as UKIP city council candidate By danjmartin | Posted: April 16, 2015 UKIP's Sukiy Singh Comments (0)A businessman who appeared in the controversial documentary Make Leicester British is standing as a UKIP candidate in next month's city council election. Sukiy Singh is seeking to become a councillor for the Braunstone and Rowley Fields ward. Mr Singh, 63, was one of a number of Leicester people featured in the Channel 4 documentary in November. It looked to shine a spotlight on Leicester's diverse ethnic makeup but was criticised at the time for unfairly representing the city describing it as "divided". Mr Singh, who owns a cafe in the city's West End, expressed strong opinions about the impact immigration has had on the city. Mr Singh, himself an immigrant who came to Leicester from India in 1962, told the Mercury: "I am standing for UKIP because I believe in their policy on immigration. I want controlled immigration. "Here it's now overflooded. "This area use to be a nice area but now you can't get no jobs. "If immigration is controlled it could be a really nice place. "We could trade with the world and this would be a much better country to live in." Mr Singh said the difference between the immigration that brought him to the UK and the current movement into the country is that he came from the Commonwealth. He said: "That was controlled. "We need to get out of Europe now so we can get control of our borders. "UKIP wants a points based immigration system like they have in Australia." Mr Singh said he had no regrets about regrets about appearing in the Channel 4 program. He said: "It was a fair representation. I actually got a lot of support after it." He criticised the Labour city council for "wasting money" on things like the decoration of the railway bridge over Narborough Road. He said: "I think they spent £75,000 and they could have just repainted it." Labour candidate for Braunstone and Rowley Fields Steve Corrall said: "I don't have any problem with immigration in any part of the city. "People just get along. "I heard him what he said on the television and I didn't think it was very clever and he's still trying to make it into a major issue." The candidates standing in the Braunstone Park and Rowley Fields Ward are: Ian Bradwell - Liberal Democrat Steve Corrall - Labour Karen Green - UKIP Elaine Halford - Labour William Healey - English Democrats Jumi Hollist - Leicester Independent Councillors Against Cuts (LICAC) Brian Kirkup - UKIP Wayne Naylor - LICAC Sukiy Singh - UKIP Kulwinder Singh Johal - Labour Zina Zelter - Green Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Make-Leicester-British-s-Sukiy-Singh-stands-UKIP/story-26344230-detail/story.html#ixzz3XUFHQqQd Follow us: @Leicester_Merc on Twitter | leicestermercury on Facebook
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.