Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would you like to post a link to where you got this information?" I met people at the weekend flying into Birmingham and they told me. Three families , 8 children, 2 min wage care assistant jobs in Warwickshire secured the move and paid for the the travel, relocation allowance and initial one month accom. They knew all about universal credit and had been doing the forms and calculations already | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would you like to post a link to where you got this information?" And I’ve seen the citizenship test , I actually know the company in Langley Mill who administer it. It’s not based on skills, education or ability to contribute to the economy, it’s based on knowledge of history like the war of the roses and culture like Eastenders. And there is no limit to how many people can apply each year. If you are here and working you are eligible to take the test. Who are the lunatics running the asylum ? Surely this is because of Brexit ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I met people at the weekend flying into Birmingham and they told me. Three families , 8 children, 2 min wage care assistant jobs in Warwickshire secured the move and paid for the the travel, relocation allowance and initial one month accom." So it's not the UK government paying to bring them over (which is what I thought you were saying in your first post), but it's a UK company sponsoring them. Where did you get the idea that they are guaranteed citizenship and access to benefits for life? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I met people at the weekend flying into Birmingham and they told me. Three families , 8 children, 2 min wage care assistant jobs in Warwickshire secured the move and paid for the the travel, relocation allowance and initial one month accom. So it's not the UK government paying to bring them over (which is what I thought you were saying in your first post), but it's a UK company sponsoring them. Where did you get the idea that they are guaranteed citizenship and access to benefits for life?" Indirectly, the companies are funded by local authorities to provide care. It all comes from the sane place That’s uk policy , it is why so many poor people come because permanent citizenship is offered to all residents unlike other countries that offer temporary residency, there is always the risk they lose their job and have to return home. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brits won't work in Care Homes, nor the NHS, nor Coffee shops, nor Amazon warehouses, nor harvesting in the fields. Somebody has to do the work, so we need immigrants. Before we can sort out immigration, we have to understand why Brits won't do low level jobs." Because they are unfit, lazy and not hungry enough as they are cared for by the benefits system? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brits won't work in Care Homes, nor the NHS, nor Coffee shops, nor Amazon warehouses, nor harvesting in the fields. Somebody has to do the work, so we need immigrants. Before we can sort out immigration, we have to understand why Brits won't do low level jobs. Because they are unfit, lazy and not hungry enough as they are cared for by the benefits system?" I couldn't possibly comment on such an outrageous claim - but I see where you're coming from    | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brits won't work in Care Homes, nor the NHS, nor Coffee shops, nor Amazon warehouses, nor harvesting in the fields. Somebody has to do the work, so we need immigrants. Before we can sort out immigration, we have to understand why Brits won't do low level jobs." Because they are glued to their mobile phones day and night! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brits won't work in Care Homes, nor the NHS, nor Coffee shops, nor Amazon warehouses, nor harvesting in the fields. Somebody has to do the work, so we need immigrants. Before we can sort out immigration, we have to understand why Brits won't do low level jobs. Because they are glued to their mobile phones day and night!" ...on fab. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"That’s uk policy , it is why so many poor people come because permanent citizenship is offered to all residents ..." Again - where do you get the idea that all care workers brought over here will be guaranteed citizenship? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brits won't work in Care Homes, nor the NHS, nor Coffee shops, nor Amazon warehouses, nor harvesting in the fields. Somebody has to do the work, so we need immigrants. Before we can sort out immigration, we have to understand why Brits won't do low level jobs." Several people I went to school with work in care homes. And I know a fair few working in warehouses. I was an accountant at a former ftse 100 logistics company. Uk people will work in warehouses but want more money than what e.u migrants would ask for. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brits won't work in Care Homes, nor the NHS, nor Coffee shops, nor Amazon warehouses, nor harvesting in the fields. Somebody has to do the work, so we need immigrants. Before we can sort out immigration, we have to understand why Brits won't do low level jobs." easy they don't pay enough for a English person to take the job where alot of immigrants either work for it because of no family here or there are a few sharing a house so bills aren't as high for them also a cultural thing that they share houses with other family members we English tend to live alone or with a partner. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Brits won't work in Care Homes, nor the NHS, nor Coffee shops, nor Amazon warehouses, nor harvesting in the fields. Somebody has to do the work, so we need immigrants. Before we can sort out immigration, we have to understand why Brits won't do low level jobs.easy they don't pay enough for a English person to take the job where alot of immigrants either work for it because of no family here or there are a few sharing a house so bills aren't as high for them also a cultural thing that they share houses with other family members we English tend to live alone or with a partner." Better get all those Welsh, Scots, and Northern Irish to do their bit then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system" Again someone implies a large quantity this time saying “with so many clearly gaming the system”. Now that may be true but I would like to see some evidence or data that confirms it is “so many”. Pat says c.70%. Is it that many? What constitutes “many”? Is it the majority? Or should we stick to saying “some”? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system" Exactly this, people who are fleeing and need refuge for genuine reasons are being denied or held up by a ring of people who are lower than a snakes belly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system Exactly this, people who are fleeing and need refuge for genuine reasons are being denied or held up by a ring of people who are lower than a snakes belly." Agreed. The genuine are hampered by the spurious. So what should be done that doesn’t penalise the genuine? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system Again someone implies a large quantity this time saying “with so many clearly gaming the system”. Now that may be true but I would like to see some evidence or data that confirms it is “so many”. Pat says c.70%. Is it that many? What constitutes “many”? Is it the majority? Or should we stick to saying “some”?" 94% arrive with no documentation having destroyed it on or before the crossing. Could that be a good starting point? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system Exactly this, people who are fleeing and need refuge for genuine reasons are being denied or held up by a ring of people who are lower than a snakes belly. Agreed. The genuine are hampered by the spurious. So what should be done that doesn’t penalise the genuine?" Removal of the criminals is a top priority, followed by the removal of anyone arriving without documentation. I understand the outlier that people feeling for their lives do not have time to grab documents, but if it is a known instant refusal, it would change the landscape, anything that can prove who you are stops the removal. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system Exactly this, people who are fleeing and need refuge for genuine reasons are being denied or held up by a ring of people who are lower than a snakes belly. Agreed. The genuine are hampered by the spurious. So what should be done that doesn’t penalise the genuine? Removal of the criminals is a top priority, followed by the removal of anyone arriving without documentation. I understand the outlier that people feeling for their lives do not have time to grab documents, but if it is a known instant refusal, it would change the landscape, anything that can prove who you are stops the removal. " Replying to both your posts... what is the source of that 94% figure. I trust you NotMe, unlike some other posters, so will assume it is kosher in which case WOW. That really is shocking. Do we know if the criminal gangs are taking ID (as some kind of insurance policy/future leverage)? So this would say to me that the UK Govt should make a clear statement: 1. If you arrive in the UK without ID and the ability for us to quickly establish your right to asylum we will consider you to not have a legitimate reason to claim asylum. You will be detained without freedom of movement and deported if we cannot establish ID and legitimacy of your claim. 2. If you arrive with your ID etc intact we will treat you with the utmost care and respect and seek to process your claim ASAP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system Exactly this, people who are fleeing and need refuge for genuine reasons are being denied or held up by a ring of people who are lower than a snakes belly. Agreed. The genuine are hampered by the spurious. So what should be done that doesn’t penalise the genuine? Removal of the criminals is a top priority, followed by the removal of anyone arriving without documentation. I understand the outlier that people feeling for their lives do not have time to grab documents, but if it is a known instant refusal, it would change the landscape, anything that can prove who you are stops the removal. Replying to both your posts... what is the source of that 94% figure. I trust you NotMe, unlike some other posters, so will assume it is kosher in which case WOW. That really is shocking. Do we know if the criminal gangs are taking ID (as some kind of insurance policy/future leverage)? So this would say to me that the UK Govt should make a clear statement: 1. If you arrive in the UK without ID and the ability for us to quickly establish your right to asylum we will consider you to not have a legitimate reason to claim asylum. You will be detained without freedom of movement and deported if we cannot establish ID and legitimacy of your claim. 2. If you arrive with your ID etc intact we will treat you with the utmost care and respect and seek to process your claim ASAP. " I'd agree with both of those proposals. However, how do we deport if we cannot establish country of origin? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system Exactly this, people who are fleeing and need refuge for genuine reasons are being denied or held up by a ring of people who are lower than a snakes belly. Agreed. The genuine are hampered by the spurious. So what should be done that doesn’t penalise the genuine? Removal of the criminals is a top priority, followed by the removal of anyone arriving without documentation. I understand the outlier that people feeling for their lives do not have time to grab documents, but if it is a known instant refusal, it would change the landscape, anything that can prove who you are stops the removal. Replying to both your posts... what is the source of that 94% figure. I trust you NotMe, unlike some other posters, so will assume it is kosher in which case WOW. That really is shocking. Do we know if the criminal gangs are taking ID (as some kind of insurance policy/future leverage)? So this would say to me that the UK Govt should make a clear statement: 1. If you arrive in the UK without ID and the ability for us to quickly establish your right to asylum we will consider you to not have a legitimate reason to claim asylum. You will be detained without freedom of movement and deported if we cannot establish ID and legitimacy of your claim. 2. If you arrive with your ID etc intact we will treat you with the utmost care and respect and seek to process your claim ASAP. I'd agree with both of those proposals. However, how do we deport if we cannot establish country of origin?" Hmmm good point! Where I was going is the whole carrot and stick approach again. Come here with a legitimate claim and ID to help us establish that and we will do all we can to help vs the harsh alternative. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system Exactly this, people who are fleeing and need refuge for genuine reasons are being denied or held up by a ring of people who are lower than a snakes belly. Agreed. The genuine are hampered by the spurious. So what should be done that doesn’t penalise the genuine? Removal of the criminals is a top priority, followed by the removal of anyone arriving without documentation. I understand the outlier that people feeling for their lives do not have time to grab documents, but if it is a known instant refusal, it would change the landscape, anything that can prove who you are stops the removal. Replying to both your posts... what is the source of that 94% figure. I trust you NotMe, unlike some other posters, so will assume it is kosher in which case WOW. That really is shocking. Do we know if the criminal gangs are taking ID (as some kind of insurance policy/future leverage)? So this would say to me that the UK Govt should make a clear statement: 1. If you arrive in the UK without ID and the ability for us to quickly establish your right to asylum we will consider you to not have a legitimate reason to claim asylum. You will be detained without freedom of movement and deported if we cannot establish ID and legitimacy of your claim. 2. If you arrive with your ID etc intact we will treat you with the utmost care and respect and seek to process your claim ASAP. I'd agree with both of those proposals. However, how do we deport if we cannot establish country of origin? Hmmm good point! Where I was going is the whole carrot and stick approach again. Come here with a legitimate claim and ID to help us establish that and we will do all we can to help vs the harsh alternative." From what we're told people are actively encouraged to discard their ID. The only solution I can see is to imprison these people and monitor them around the clock, we will find out where they're from soon enough, then we can make a decision. If they're from a region where there's conflict, we can then investigate. People will argue that's inhumane, and they may have a point but we need to stop people arriving without documentation and false stories. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system Exactly this, people who are fleeing and need refuge for genuine reasons are being denied or held up by a ring of people who are lower than a snakes belly. Agreed. The genuine are hampered by the spurious. So what should be done that doesn’t penalise the genuine? Removal of the criminals is a top priority, followed by the removal of anyone arriving without documentation. I understand the outlier that people feeling for their lives do not have time to grab documents, but if it is a known instant refusal, it would change the landscape, anything that can prove who you are stops the removal. Replying to both your posts... what is the source of that 94% figure. I trust you NotMe, unlike some other posters, so will assume it is kosher in which case WOW. That really is shocking. Do we know if the criminal gangs are taking ID (as some kind of insurance policy/future leverage)? So this would say to me that the UK Govt should make a clear statement: 1. If you arrive in the UK without ID and the ability for us to quickly establish your right to asylum we will consider you to not have a legitimate reason to claim asylum. You will be detained without freedom of movement and deported if we cannot establish ID and legitimacy of your claim. 2. If you arrive with your ID etc intact we will treat you with the utmost care and respect and seek to process your claim ASAP. " A freedom of information request revealed that 98% of people arriving by small boat had no ID, I wrongly remembered 94%. It is a proven method of delaying and eventually beating the system. It is obviously not working for a small % and that is why I assume they are ending up at less than honest solicitors as per the original post. My take away is, we have an issue that does not allow our border control to establish a duty of care to the most vulnerable of people arriving here due to criminality, and that is wrong | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A bit of topic but I just seen footage of the daily mail under cover report on asylum lawyers. It's truly shocking seeing these lawyers telling claimants what to claim has happened to them regardless of if it's actually happened. One lawyer is heard telling a claimant not to worry as he will just make something up. He knows what things the authorities need to hear. The sad thing is as usual, genuine people may have a harder time with so many clearly gaming the system Exactly this, people who are fleeing and need refuge for genuine reasons are being denied or held up by a ring of people who are lower than a snakes belly. Agreed. The genuine are hampered by the spurious. So what should be done that doesn’t penalise the genuine? Removal of the criminals is a top priority, followed by the removal of anyone arriving without documentation. I understand the outlier that people feeling for their lives do not have time to grab documents, but if it is a known instant refusal, it would change the landscape, anything that can prove who you are stops the removal. Replying to both your posts... what is the source of that 94% figure. I trust you NotMe, unlike some other posters, so will assume it is kosher in which case WOW. That really is shocking. Do we know if the criminal gangs are taking ID (as some kind of insurance policy/future leverage)? So this would say to me that the UK Govt should make a clear statement: 1. If you arrive in the UK without ID and the ability for us to quickly establish your right to asylum we will consider you to not have a legitimate reason to claim asylum. You will be detained without freedom of movement and deported if we cannot establish ID and legitimacy of your claim. 2. If you arrive with your ID etc intact we will treat you with the utmost care and respect and seek to process your claim ASAP. A freedom of information request revealed that 98% of people arriving by small boat had no ID, I wrongly remembered 94%. It is a proven method of delaying and eventually beating the system. It is obviously not working for a small % and that is why I assume they are ending up at less than honest solicitors as per the original post. My take away is, we have an issue that does not allow our border control to establish a duty of care to the most vulnerable of people arriving here due to criminality, and that is wrong " Why is it wrong if the mergorety are spoiling it for the minority is it wrong that thay abuse the UK system. It is the UK that needs to change their system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Home Office. But it's for passports, but I believe in the commons it was discussed they had no other documentation either." Bit more clarity please? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Home Office. But it's for passports, but I believe in the commons it was discussed they had no other documentation either. Bit more clarity please?" I mean. If you Google "98% passport asylum uk" it will take you to a migration observatory website with the FoI request. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Home Office. But it's for passports, but I believe in the commons it was discussed they had no other documentation either. Bit more clarity please? I mean. If you Google "98% passport asylum uk" it will take you to a migration observatory website with the FoI request. "  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. Awful right wing intolerant country I could say more It’s embarrassing to read xenophobia on here" I don't see any xenophobia in this thread. I see one person complaining about the benefits system being too generous. I see people complaining about fraudulent immigration claims. I see people moaning that British people are lazy. But i don't see anyone saying that foreigners are bad, and that we shouldn't let them in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"U.K. Awful right wing intolerant country I could say more It’s embarrassing to read xenophobia on here " What do you think is xenophobic? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Would you like to post a link to where you got this information? I met people at the weekend flying into Birmingham and they told me. Three families , 8 children, 2 min wage care assistant jobs in Warwickshire secured the move and paid for the the travel, relocation allowance and initial one month accom. They knew all about universal credit and had been doing the forms and calculations already " I met a guy works down the chip shop - swears he is Elvis. Jezuz  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Home Office. But it's for passports, but I believe in the commons it was discussed they had no other documentation either. Bit more clarity please? I mean. If you Google "98% passport asylum uk" it will take you to a migration observatory website with the FoI request. "I wonder which London address Migration Watch is based out of…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Home Office. But it's for passports, but I believe in the commons it was discussed they had no other documentation either. Bit more clarity please? I mean. If you Google "98% passport asylum uk" it will take you to a migration observatory website with the FoI request.
I wonder which London address Migration Watch is based out of…."Missed the point again… it was a freedom of information request, it’s the data that is being quoted and is readily available from many other places | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Home Office. But it's for passports, but I believe in the commons it was discussed they had no other documentation either. Bit more clarity please? I mean. If you Google "98% passport asylum uk" it will take you to a migration observatory website with the FoI request.
I wonder which London address Migration Watch is based out of….
Missed the point again… it was a freedom of information request, it’s the data that is being quoted and is readily available from many other places
"I’ve missed no point at all, just keeping a little joke running. Chill your boots. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Home Office. But it's for passports, but I believe in the commons it was discussed they had no other documentation either. Bit more clarity please? I mean. If you Google "98% passport asylum uk" it will take you to a migration observatory website with the FoI request.
I wonder which London address Migration Watch is based out of….
Missed the point again… it was a freedom of information request, it’s the data that is being quoted and is readily available from many other places
I’ve missed no point at all, just keeping a little joke running. Chill your boots."I’m having a mare, gotcha. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
