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 |
"Seems Greece and other nations are returning illegal migrants straight away as shown in multiple media outlets. So… 1. Are they doing this in violation of international law? 2. If so, how are they getting away with it? 3. Why aren’t we doing the same? " They are doing it in the best interests of their respective nations - as any elected government worth it's salt should do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems Greece and other nations are returning illegal migrants straight away as shown in multiple media outlets. So… 1. Are they doing this in violation of international law? 2. If so, how are they getting away with it? 3. Why aren’t we doing the same? " Yes. The laws of a sovereign nation overrule international law. We are an international nation following outsourced legislative procedures. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. " This misinformation came from the Telegraph!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph! "Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. " On a lighter note, 4.7bn is roughly £70 on every man woman and child, for a family of 4 that would be £280 pa.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph! And what about the 3 bullet points made by the OP? " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?"I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph. "How is it misinformation exactly, just saying it is doesn't count.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph. "If you have determined that it is "misinformation", what factual information did you research to compare it to? Can you name your source please. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph. "I don’t read the Tory paywall. The £4.7bn quoted: New NAO overview shows Home Office total spending on asylum and migration for 2023-24 Summary £4.7 billion spent on asylum support in 2023-24, representing less than 0.5% of all government spending By EIN Date of Publication: 30 October 2024 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph.
If you have determined that it is "misinformation", what factual information did you research to compare it to? Can you name your source please."If someone is saying something that doesn't align with my views, it must be information  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems Greece and other nations are returning illegal migrants straight away as shown in multiple media outlets. So… 1. Are they doing this in violation of international law? 2. If so, how are they getting away with it? 3. Why aren’t we doing the same? " We appear to have been drawn into the usual financial argument and lost sight of the original issues on which I, for one, would be like to hear the views of the resident left | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph.
How is it misinformation exactly, just saying it is doesn't count. "Isn't the burden of proof on the person making the claim? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph.
I don’t read the Tory paywall.
The £4.7bn quoted:
New NAO overview shows Home Office total spending on asylum and migration for 2023-24
Summary
£4.7 billion spent on asylum support in 2023-24, representing less than 0.5% of all government spending
By EIN
Date of Publication:
30 October 2024
"There you go, radically different to "£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph.
I don’t read the Tory paywall.
The £4.7bn quoted:
New NAO overview shows Home Office total spending on asylum and migration for 2023-24
Summary
£4.7 billion spent on asylum support in 2023-24, representing less than 0.5% of all government spending
By EIN
Date of Publication:
30 October 2024
There you go, radically different to "£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer"."There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph.
How is it misinformation exactly, just saying it is doesn't count.
Isn't the burden of proof on the person making the claim?"The person shared numbers from actual articles available online. If you are going to tell people that it's misinformation, you have to give alternate statistics and a source. If not, you are the one spreading fake news. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems Greece and other nations are returning illegal migrants straight away as shown in multiple media outlets. So… 1. Are they doing this in violation of international law? 2. If so, how are they getting away with it? 3. Why aren’t we doing the same? " No idea if 1 is illegal but does it matter any country can do whatever it likes now due to actions of another country. All I know for sure that all this cash comes from somewhere, goes through a process were this cash comes out clean. I know SERCO they have never been accused of wrongdoing, but look at how long they have been operating in Britian and how much money they have handled. As for three if you understand what I have wrote then you'll know why we are not doing it, it is a gravy train. Whoo woo all aboard if your into migrant services. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph.
I don’t read the Tory paywall.
The £4.7bn quoted:
New NAO overview shows Home Office total spending on asylum and migration for 2023-24
Summary
£4.7 billion spent on asylum support in 2023-24, representing less than 0.5% of all government spending
By EIN
Date of Publication:
30 October 2024
There you go, radically different to "£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer".
There are ~33 million UK taxpayers.
4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million.
"You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you?" You win | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph.
I don’t read the Tory paywall.
The £4.7bn quoted:
New NAO overview shows Home Office total spending on asylum and migration for 2023-24
Summary
£4.7 billion spent on asylum support in 2023-24, representing less than 0.5% of all government spending
By EIN
Date of Publication:
30 October 2024
There you go, radically different to "£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer".
There are ~33 million UK taxpayers.
4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million.
You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you?"Employment rate of refugees who have right to work is 52% and their average wages are much lower than national average. Also, these people already make use of all the benefits that citizens have and the hotel cost is additional to all that. So your argument that they are paying taxes doesn't count. It's not like they won't use NHS or pensions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? You win "There are no winners here. The anti-immigrant brigade believe it and vote accordingly no matter what. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? You win
There are no winners here. The anti-immigrant brigade believe it and vote accordingly no matter what. "Any chance of an informed comment on the OPs opening comments? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? You win
There are no winners here. The anti-immigrant brigade believe it and vote accordingly no matter what.
Any chance of an informed comment on the OPs opening comments?"I'm flattered that you're interested in my comments. But no, I haven't commented on the OP's OP. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Seems Greece and other nations are returning illegal migrants straight away as shown in multiple media outlets. So… 1. Are they doing this in violation of international law? 2. If so, how are they getting away with it? 3. Why aren’t we doing the same? " The uk is not doing this. But we have conducted 518 RAF sortees from the IDF to bomb targets in Gaza. We haven’t taken any Palestinian refugees, so taking the small boats is our contribution towards the damage we have contributed to elsewhere. Add two million displaced Iraqis from the previous Labour governments illegal war. Balances things out a bit. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? You win
There are no winners here. The anti-immigrant brigade believe it and vote accordingly no matter what.
Any chance of an informed comment on the OPs opening comments?
I'm flattered that you're interested in my comments.
But no, I haven't commented on the OP's OP."And why would that be, I wonder, since you seem to have no scruples about commenting on everything else of this ilk? Could it possibly be that you don't actually have an answer?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? You win
There are no winners here. The anti-immigrant brigade believe it and vote accordingly no matter what.
Any chance of an informed comment on the OPs opening comments?
I'm flattered that you're interested in my comments.
But no, I haven't commented on the OP's OP.
And why would that be, I wonder, since you seem to have no scruples about commenting on everything else of this ilk? Could it possibly be that you don't actually have an answer? "No sure that I follow. I simply pointed out that the other chap posted some misinformation. As mentioned, I haven't addressed the OP's OP. But if you want to draw some conclusions based on your speculation on what my speculation might be. Then I can't stop you. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? You win
There are no winners here. The anti-immigrant brigade believe it and vote accordingly no matter what.
Any chance of an informed comment on the OPs opening comments?
I'm flattered that you're interested in my comments.
But no, I haven't commented on the OP's OP.
And why would that be, I wonder, since you seem to have no scruples about commenting on everything else of this ilk? Could it possibly be that you don't actually have an answer?
No sure that I follow. I simply pointed out that the other chap posted some misinformation.
As mentioned, I haven't addressed the OP's OP. But if you want to draw some conclusions based on your speculation on what my speculation might be. Then I can't stop you. "Bit of poor effort to avoid the initial question but since that's all you've got, I won't bother again on this thread | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? You win
There are no winners here. The anti-immigrant brigade believe it and vote accordingly no matter what.
Any chance of an informed comment on the OPs opening comments?
I'm flattered that you're interested in my comments.
But no, I haven't commented on the OP's OP.
And why would that be, I wonder, since you seem to have no scruples about commenting on everything else of this ilk? Could it possibly be that you don't actually have an answer?
No sure that I follow. I simply pointed out that the other chap posted some misinformation.
As mentioned, I haven't addressed the OP's OP. But if you want to draw some conclusions based on your speculation on what my speculation might be. Then I can't stop you.
Bit of poor effort to avoid the initial question but since that's all you've got, I won't bother again on this thread "Just checked for your response to the initial question. Seeing as you haven't addressed it, are you giving yourself a hard time for not commenting on the OP's OP, and making childish jibes at yourself too? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. This misinformation came from the Telegraph!
Are you saying there is no cost..? Or do you have another figure..?
I'm saying neither of those things. I googled the other person's claim and found it to be misinformation based on an article from the Telegraph.
How is it misinformation exactly, just saying it is doesn't count. "It's the torygraph, of course it’s misleading | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One option is to ask the people who are supportive of this to create a fund and pay for the hotel cost instead of using tax payers money. The people who support this will get a chance to do more for a cause they seem to genuinely care about. People who don't support this don't have to waste their money on a cause they don't like." Good idea, I'd like to withdraw my financial support for benefit claimants | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One option is to ask the people who are supportive of this to create a fund and pay for the hotel cost instead of using tax payers money. The people who support this will get a chance to do more for a cause they seem to genuinely care about. People who don't support this don't have to waste their money on a cause they don't like." That opens up a whole can of worms. Am against getting involved in foreign wars. Can I opt out of paying for those and those are for make up the shortfall..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"£140 a year cost of immigrants on each uk taxpayer( £4.7bn pa) No cost to the government. Reeves up soon for a bit of your pension. " so less than 2 hours work then? bargain! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One option is to ask the people who are supportive of this to create a fund and pay for the hotel cost instead of using tax payers money. The people who support this will get a chance to do more for a cause they seem to genuinely care about. People who don't support this don't have to waste their money on a cause they don't like. That opens up a whole can of worms. Am against getting involved in foreign wars. Can I opt out of paying for those and those are for make up the shortfall..?" Sure that would work too. Let's democratise public expenses
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? You win
There are no winners here. The anti-immigrant brigade believe it and vote accordingly no matter what.
Any chance of an informed comment on the OPs opening comments?
I'm flattered that you're interested in my comments.
But no, I haven't commented on the OP's OP.
And why would that be, I wonder, since you seem to have no scruples about commenting on everything else of this ilk? Could it possibly be that you don't actually have an answer?
No sure that I follow. I simply pointed out that the other chap posted some misinformation.
As mentioned, I haven't addressed the OP's OP. But if you want to draw some conclusions based on your speculation on what my speculation might be. Then I can't stop you.
Bit of poor effort to avoid the initial question but since that's all you've got, I won't bother again on this thread
Just checked for your response to the initial question. Seeing as you haven't addressed it, are you giving yourself a hard time for not commenting on the OP's OP, and making childish jibes at yourself too?"Well Johnny boy you still haven't responded to the initial question, I was merely highlighting that. Childish jibe or fact? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" There are ~33 million UK taxpayers. 4.7bn ÷ 140 =~33 million. You're not suggesting that all the tax collected in the UK comes from income tax are you? Or you're not suggesting that tax paid by immigrants doesn't outweigh the above costs are you? You win
There are no winners here. The anti-immigrant brigade believe it and vote accordingly no matter what.
Any chance of an informed comment on the OPs opening comments?
I'm flattered that you're interested in my comments.
But no, I haven't commented on the OP's OP.
And why would that be, I wonder, since you seem to have no scruples about commenting on everything else of this ilk? Could it possibly be that you don't actually have an answer?
No sure that I follow. I simply pointed out that the other chap posted some misinformation.
As mentioned, I haven't addressed the OP's OP. But if you want to draw some conclusions based on your speculation on what my speculation might be. Then I can't stop you.
Bit of poor effort to avoid the initial question but since that's all you've got, I won't bother again on this thread
Just checked for your response to the initial question. Seeing as you haven't addressed it, are you giving yourself a hard time for not commenting on the OP's OP, and making childish jibes at yourself too?
Well Johnny boy you still haven't responded to the initial question, I was merely highlighting that. Childish jibe or fact? "Well Amateur boy you still haven't responded to the initial question, I was merely highlighting that too. Have you been giving yourself a hard time over not answering the original question too? | |||
| 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 |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? " 16.Prior to 2016, very few people arrived in the UK in small boats having crossed the Channel. Between July 2014 and May 2016 Home Office data states that there were nine confirmed incidents of migrants reaching the UK having crossed the Channel in a small vessel.16 At that time a significantly larger proportion of migrants were arriving in the UK by lorry. 17.By 2018 the Home Office reported that 539 migrants had attempted to travel to the UK by small boats in that year.17 In response to this increase the then Home Secretary declared small boat crossings a “major incident” on 28 December 2018. This resulted in the deployment of additional UK patrol vessels in the Channel and a series of coordinated actions by the UK and French authorities aimed at preventing further crossings. 18.The number of people attempting to enter the UK in small boats has continued to grow. The New Plan for Immigration states that in 2020, around 8,500 people were detected attempting to enter the UK clandestinely by small boat—up from around 1,800 in 2019.18 There is currently no official statement on the number of people that have entered the UK in small boats in 2021, however, the Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that in the first six months of 2021, over 5,900 people crossed the Channel in small boats.19 News outlets have provided running tallies of the number of Channel migrants detected in 2021, said to be based on data given to them by the Home Office. For example, on 10 October 2021, the BBC reported that more than 18,000 people have made the crossing from France to England in small boats so far this year.20 Hm government 2021 New plan for immigration Policy statement | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One option is to ask the people who are supportive of this to create a fund and pay for the hotel cost instead of using tax payers money. The people who support this will get a chance to do more for a cause they seem to genuinely care about. People who don't support this don't have to waste their money on a cause they don't like. That opens up a whole can of worms. Am against getting involved in foreign wars. Can I opt out of paying for those and those are for make up the shortfall..?" Yes a novel concept and worthy of a thread in it's own right : What taxes would you opt out of? It would bring my tax bill down to almost affordable levels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? " You mean the unknown period, when travel between mainland Europe and the UK was very much open... There are an estimated 750K unknowns in the country, many outstayed many simply walked in. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"All this over (2024) 0.6% of the population. " I love this stat 
Now add all %'s together, and you will be looking at numbers that are the size of somewhere like Milton Keynes. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? You mean the unknown period, when travel between mainland Europe and the UK was very much open... There are an estimated 750K unknowns in the country, many outstayed many simply walked in." I meant the years prior to Brexit | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? You mean the unknown period, when travel between mainland Europe and the UK was very much open... There are an estimated 750K unknowns in the country, many outstayed many simply walked in. I meant the years prior to Brexit " Yes, that is what I'm referring to. The routes via lorries and channel tunnel were preferred, however some would simply travel under freedom of movement. We are left with the visa overstays, and the unknowns who simply entered, approx 750K. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? You mean the unknown period, when travel between mainland Europe and the UK was very much open... There are an estimated 750K unknowns in the country, many outstayed many simply walked in. I meant the years prior to Brexit Yes, that is what I'm referring to. The routes via lorries and channel tunnel were preferred, however some would simply travel under freedom of movement. We are left with the visa overstays, and the unknowns who simply entered, approx 750K. " I get your point but think you are answering a different question , , You seem to be talking about illegal immigrants I was asking about the number of small boats ,where I am lead to believe that the majority are asylum seekers ,who , under international law we have to process ( hence the hotel bills etc) Although I did ask for the number of small boats my question should probably have been How many people were applying for asylum in The UK prior to 2016 ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? You mean the unknown period, when travel between mainland Europe and the UK was very much open... There are an estimated 750K unknowns in the country, many outstayed many simply walked in. I meant the years prior to Brexit Yes, that is what I'm referring to. The routes via lorries and channel tunnel were preferred, however some would simply travel under freedom of movement. We are left with the visa overstays, and the unknowns who simply entered, approx 750K. I get your point but think you are answering a different question , , You seem to be talking about illegal immigrants I was asking about the number of small boats ,where I am lead to believe that the majority are asylum seekers ,who , under international law we have to process ( hence the hotel bills etc) Although I did ask for the number of small boats my question should probably have been How many people were applying for asylum in The UK prior to 2016 ? " From 2010 to 2016, there were a total of approximately 195,000 asylum applications in the UK. The number of applications fluctuated during this period, with a low of 17,916 in 2010 and a high of 36,465 in 2016. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? You mean the unknown period, when travel between mainland Europe and the UK was very much open... There are an estimated 750K unknowns in the country, many outstayed many simply walked in. I meant the years prior to Brexit Yes, that is what I'm referring to. The routes via lorries and channel tunnel were preferred, however some would simply travel under freedom of movement. We are left with the visa overstays, and the unknowns who simply entered, approx 750K. I get your point but think you are answering a different question , , You seem to be talking about illegal immigrants I was asking about the number of small boats ,where I am lead to believe that the majority are asylum seekers ,who , under international law we have to process ( hence the hotel bills etc) Although I did ask for the number of small boats my question should probably have been How many people were applying for asylum in The UK prior to 2016 ? " You could argue a lot has changed in the world in the last 10 years leading to migration I suppose | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People legitimately seeking asylum should be denied asylum. Really? Again, 0.6% of the population. Why the over reaction? " People lying to get asylum should be granted it? Really? I don’t get what you mean when you say over reaction. I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? You mean the unknown period, when travel between mainland Europe and the UK was very much open... There are an estimated 750K unknowns in the country, many outstayed many simply walked in. I meant the years prior to Brexit Yes, that is what I'm referring to. The routes via lorries and channel tunnel were preferred, however some would simply travel under freedom of movement. We are left with the visa overstays, and the unknowns who simply entered, approx 750K. I get your point but think you are answering a different question , , You seem to be talking about illegal immigrants I was asking about the number of small boats ,where I am lead to believe that the majority are asylum seekers ,who , under international law we have to process ( hence the hotel bills etc) Although I did ask for the number of small boats my question should probably have been How many people were applying for asylum in The UK prior to 2016 ? You could argue a lot has changed in the world in the last 10 years leading to migration I suppose " Yes , and closer to home Brexit ,, with the EU no longer shielding us , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? You mean the unknown period, when travel between mainland Europe and the UK was very much open... There are an estimated 750K unknowns in the country, many outstayed many simply walked in. I meant the years prior to Brexit Yes, that is what I'm referring to. The routes via lorries and channel tunnel were preferred, however some would simply travel under freedom of movement. We are left with the visa overstays, and the unknowns who simply entered, approx 750K. I get your point but think you are answering a different question , , You seem to be talking about illegal immigrants I was asking about the number of small boats ,where I am lead to believe that the majority are asylum seekers ,who , under international law we have to process ( hence the hotel bills etc) Although I did ask for the number of small boats my question should probably have been How many people were applying for asylum in The UK prior to 2016 ? You could argue a lot has changed in the world in the last 10 years leading to migration I suppose Yes , and closer to home Brexit ,, with the EU no longer shielding us , " How can EU shield us when they are struggling with the problem themselves? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People legitimately seeking asylum should be denied asylum. Really? Again, 0.6% of the population. Why the over reaction? " It's a simplistic take on such a complex problem. Providing asylum is an act of charity. No country has infinite resources to provide charity for everyone. UK already suffers from housing shortage and difficulty in sustaining the welfare system. Getting more people will create problems both economically and socially irrespective of whether their claims are legitimate or not. Then there is a question of validating legitimacy itself. You are talking about people who are willing to throw their passports, lie about their sexuality and religion to apply for asylum. It's close to impossible to validate their claims. Even if we find the asylum cases to be bogus, we couldn't deport them except if they are coming from countries that we have returns agreement with. We are practically having open borders today. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But we have conducted 518 RAF sortees from the IDF to bomb targets in Gaza. " Are you being serious? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People legitimately seeking asylum should be denied asylum. Really? Again, 0.6% of the population. Why the over reaction? It's a simplistic take on such a complex problem. Providing asylum is an act of charity. No country has infinite resources to provide charity for everyone. UK already suffers from housing shortage and difficulty in sustaining the welfare system. Getting more people will create problems both economically and socially irrespective of whether their claims are legitimate or not. Then there is a question of validating legitimacy itself. You are talking about people who are willing to throw their passports, lie about their sexuality and religion to apply for asylum. It's close to impossible to validate their claims. Even if we find the asylum cases to be bogus, we couldn't deport them except if they are coming from countries that we have returns agreement with. We are practically having open borders today." I haven't said anything about complexity. It's about proportionality. Try reading some of the research by the Migration Observatory. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But we have conducted 518 RAF sortees from the IDF to bomb targets in Gaza. Are you being serious?" The Royal Air Force (RAF) has conducted at least 518 surveillance flights around Gaza since December 2023, an investigation by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) for Declassified UK has found. The flights, carried out by 14 Squadron’s Shadow R1 aircraft from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, have been shrouded in secrecy, raising concerns about whether British intelligence has played a role in Israeli military operations that have resulted in mass civilian casualties in Gaza. These revelations come as Israel faces allegations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and war crimes at the International Criminal Court (ICC), with warrants issued for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Declassified UK org web | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. " out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" But we have conducted 518 RAF sortees from the IDF to bomb targets in Gaza. Are you being serious? The Royal Air Force (RAF) has conducted at least 518 surveillance flights around Gaza since December 2023, an investigation by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) for Declassified UK has found. The flights, carried out by 14 Squadron’s Shadow R1 aircraft from RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus, have been shrouded in secrecy, raising concerns about whether British intelligence has played a role in Israeli military operations that have resulted in mass civilian casualties in Gaza. These revelations come as Israel faces allegations of genocide at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and war crimes at the International Criminal Court (ICC), with warrants issued for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defence minister Yoav Gallant. Declassified UK org web " Usual conspiracy rubbish. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007?" Non Dom's paid tax on UK earnings but not on wealth outside of the UK so they did contribute | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People legitimately seeking asylum should be denied asylum. Really? Again, 0.6% of the population. Why the over reaction? It's a simplistic take on such a complex problem. Providing asylum is an act of charity. No country has infinite resources to provide charity for everyone. UK already suffers from housing shortage and difficulty in sustaining the welfare system. Getting more people will create problems both economically and socially irrespective of whether their claims are legitimate or not. Then there is a question of validating legitimacy itself. You are talking about people who are willing to throw their passports, lie about their sexuality and religion to apply for asylum. It's close to impossible to validate their claims. Even if we find the asylum cases to be bogus, we couldn't deport them except if they are coming from countries that we have returns agreement with. We are practically having open borders today. I haven't said anything about complexity. It's about proportionality. Try reading some of the research by the Migration Observatory. " 0.6% is a big number considering the population of a country. So proportionality is still an issue. Also, the same migration observatory published data that employment rates of people who have been given asylum is 52% and they earn less than the national average. So they are an economic burden. Not even mentioning the social issues. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People legitimately seeking asylum should be denied asylum. Really? Again, 0.6% of the population. Why the over reaction? It's a simplistic take on such a complex problem. Providing asylum is an act of charity. No country has infinite resources to provide charity for everyone. UK already suffers from housing shortage and difficulty in sustaining the welfare system. Getting more people will create problems both economically and socially irrespective of whether their claims are legitimate or not. Then there is a question of validating legitimacy itself. You are talking about people who are willing to throw their passports, lie about their sexuality and religion to apply for asylum. It's close to impossible to validate their claims. Even if we find the asylum cases to be bogus, we couldn't deport them except if they are coming from countries that we have returns agreement with. We are practically having open borders today. I haven't said anything about complexity. It's about proportionality. Try reading some of the research by the Migration Observatory. 0.6% is a big number considering the population of a country. So proportionality is still an issue. Also, the same migration observatory published data that employment rates of people who have been given asylum is 52% and they earn less than the national average. So they are an economic burden. Not even mentioning the social issues." The fact that 0.6% is a snapshot of only 1 period in time, and not an accumulative figure tells me all I need to know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People legitimately seeking asylum should be denied asylum. Really? Again, 0.6% of the population. Why the over reaction? It's a simplistic take on such a complex problem. Providing asylum is an act of charity. No country has infinite resources to provide charity for everyone. UK already suffers from housing shortage and difficulty in sustaining the welfare system. Getting more people will create problems both economically and socially irrespective of whether their claims are legitimate or not. Then there is a question of validating legitimacy itself. You are talking about people who are willing to throw their passports, lie about their sexuality and religion to apply for asylum. It's close to impossible to validate their claims. Even if we find the asylum cases to be bogus, we couldn't deport them except if they are coming from countries that we have returns agreement with. We are practically having open borders today. I haven't said anything about complexity. It's about proportionality. Try reading some of the research by the Migration Observatory. 0.6% is a big number considering the population of a country. So proportionality is still an issue. Also, the same migration observatory published data that employment rates of people who have been given asylum is 52% and they earn less than the national average. So they are an economic burden. Not even mentioning the social issues. The fact that 0.6% is a snapshot of only 1 period in time, and not an accumulative figure tells me all I need to know "What cumulative figure do you want to have? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People legitimately seeking asylum should be denied asylum. Really? Again, 0.6% of the population. Why the over reaction? It's a simplistic take on such a complex problem. Providing asylum is an act of charity. No country has infinite resources to provide charity for everyone. UK already suffers from housing shortage and difficulty in sustaining the welfare system. Getting more people will create problems both economically and socially irrespective of whether their claims are legitimate or not. Then there is a question of validating legitimacy itself. You are talking about people who are willing to throw their passports, lie about their sexuality and religion to apply for asylum. It's close to impossible to validate their claims. Even if we find the asylum cases to be bogus, we couldn't deport them except if they are coming from countries that we have returns agreement with. We are practically having open borders today. I haven't said anything about complexity. It's about proportionality. Try reading some of the research by the Migration Observatory. 0.6% is a big number considering the population of a country. So proportionality is still an issue. Also, the same migration observatory published data that employment rates of people who have been given asylum is 52% and they earn less than the national average. So they are an economic burden. Not even mentioning the social issues. The fact that 0.6% is a snapshot of only 1 period in time, and not an accumulative figure tells me all I need to know
What cumulative figure do you want to have? "I’m not interested in selective snapshots being used to downplay legitimate concerns. I understand the numbers and I understand the cumulative impact they are having. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007?" I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People legitimately seeking asylum should be denied asylum. Really? Again, 0.6% of the population. Why the over reaction? It's a simplistic take on such a complex problem. Providing asylum is an act of charity. No country has infinite resources to provide charity for everyone. UK already suffers from housing shortage and difficulty in sustaining the welfare system. Getting more people will create problems both economically and socially irrespective of whether their claims are legitimate or not. Then there is a question of validating legitimacy itself. You are talking about people who are willing to throw their passports, lie about their sexuality and religion to apply for asylum. It's close to impossible to validate their claims. Even if we find the asylum cases to be bogus, we couldn't deport them except if they are coming from countries that we have returns agreement with. We are practically having open borders today. I haven't said anything about complexity. It's about proportionality. Try reading some of the research by the Migration Observatory. 0.6% is a big number considering the population of a country. So proportionality is still an issue. Also, the same migration observatory published data that employment rates of people who have been given asylum is 52% and they earn less than the national average. So they are an economic burden. Not even mentioning the social issues." Compared to those who entered by legitimate channels. What are the social issues, by the way? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People legitimately seeking asylum should be denied asylum. Really? Again, 0.6% of the population. Why the over reaction? It's a simplistic take on such a complex problem. Providing asylum is an act of charity. No country has infinite resources to provide charity for everyone. UK already suffers from housing shortage and difficulty in sustaining the welfare system. Getting more people will create problems both economically and socially irrespective of whether their claims are legitimate or not. Then there is a question of validating legitimacy itself. You are talking about people who are willing to throw their passports, lie about their sexuality and religion to apply for asylum. It's close to impossible to validate their claims. Even if we find the asylum cases to be bogus, we couldn't deport them except if they are coming from countries that we have returns agreement with. We are practically having open borders today. I haven't said anything about complexity. It's about proportionality. Try reading some of the research by the Migration Observatory. 0.6% is a big number considering the population of a country. So proportionality is still an issue. Also, the same migration observatory published data that employment rates of people who have been given asylum is 52% and they earn less than the national average. So they are an economic burden. Not even mentioning the social issues. Compared to those who entered by legitimate channels. What are the social issues, by the way? " The topic of discussion here is illegal immigrants though. Social issues? The fact that we have blasphemy laws. Crime reports around the asylum hotels. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Does anyone have any information about the cost or even the number of small boats arriving on UK soil prior to 2016 ? You mean the unknown period, when travel between mainland Europe and the UK was very much open... There are an estimated 750K unknowns in the country, many outstayed many simply walked in. I meant the years prior to Brexit Yes, that is what I'm referring to. The routes via lorries and channel tunnel were preferred, however some would simply travel under freedom of movement. We are left with the visa overstays, and the unknowns who simply entered, approx 750K. I get your point but think you are answering a different question , , You seem to be talking about illegal immigrants I was asking about the number of small boats ,where I am lead to believe that the majority are asylum seekers ,who , under international law we have to process ( hence the hotel bills etc) Although I did ask for the number of small boats my question should probably have been How many people were applying for asylum in The UK prior to 2016 ? You could argue a lot has changed in the world in the last 10 years leading to migration I suppose Yes , and closer to home Brexit ,, with the EU no longer shielding us , How can EU shield us when they are struggling with the problem themselves? "They can't and don't anymore But look at the lack of "small boats" arriving here when we were still in The EU ( when we were shielded) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes , and closer to home Brexit ,, with the EU no longer shielding us" "How can EU shield us when they are struggling with the problem themselves?" "They can't and don't anymore But look at the lack of "small boats" arriving here when we were still in The EU ( when we were shielded)" There was a lack of small boat crossings 10 years ago because most economic immigrants could just get on the ferry. Those few that couldn't tended to store away on lorries. We stopped that route in 2015, which is when small boat crossings started The EU have never "shielded us". In fact, it was illegal under EU law for them to attempt to do so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. " i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes , and closer to home Brexit ,, with the EU no longer shielding us How can EU shield us when they are struggling with the problem themselves? They can't and don't anymore But look at the lack of "small boats" arriving here when we were still in The EU ( when we were shielded) There was a lack of small boat crossings 10 years ago because most economic immigrants could just get on the ferry. Those few that couldn't tended to store away on lorries. We stopped that route in 2015, which is when small boat crossings started The EU have never "shielded us". In fact, it was illegal under EU law for them to attempt to do so." As asylum seekers could claim asylum in a EU country they could do so without coming here first therefore saving us the hotel bills etc ,,, but "we" stopped that in 2016 ,,,if you vote for something think about the consequences which many clearly didn't ,, | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not. "I know. But the tide is turning 😊 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then." The OPs statement was also clear - that they didn't want to pay for economic migrants. We don't have to shell out for non-doms, instead they bring money into the country. Everyone here is happy with economic migrants that bring money or useful skills to this country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. "You don't get what "non dom" is, or how much they contribute in taxes (for the privilege to qualify as a non dom), do you? That's separate to, and before, any "trickle down" from spending or other economic benefits. If you're making a purely semantic point, then great. If you're equating the value to society of an average non dom billionaire and an average economic migrant masquerading as an asylum seeker, then you're either trolling or plain wrong. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not. "It's not double standards. Inward wealth is a good thing and should be welcomed. Look how many countries offer Golden Visa schemes or equivalent to encourage rich immigrants. Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution. These are secondary costs rarely factored-in to the cost of illegal migration. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then.
You don't get what "non dom" is, or how much they contribute in taxes (for the privilege to qualify as a non dom), do you? That's separate to, and before, any "trickle down" from spending or other economic benefits.
If you're making a purely semantic point, then great. If you're equating the value to society of an average non dom billionaire and an average economic migrant masquerading as an asylum seeker, then you're either trolling or plain wrong.
"again .... double standards from the far-right | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not.
It's not double standards. Inward wealth is a good thing and should be welcomed. Look how many countries offer Golden Visa schemes or equivalent to encourage rich immigrants. Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution. These are secondary costs rarely factored-in to the cost of illegal migration.".... and again | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not.
It's not double standards. Inward wealth is a good thing and should be welcomed. Look how many countries offer Golden Visa schemes or equivalent to encourage rich immigrants. Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution. These are secondary costs rarely factored-in to the cost of illegal migration.
.... and again".... an inconvenient truth too far? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" .... an inconvenient truth too far?" the only inconvenient truth here is the one that you don't want to admit. looking at the facts and figures from sources such as the NCA, the FT, Moody's etc., then the londograd laundramat is spinning ar=t full speed. even the big four banks got busted doing "elephant deals" worth multi billions and even gave 37million payouts if the clients identity is revealed. these are the apex predators of global crime, enjoying living high on the hog in our own back yard. now this isn't to say that all non-doms are organised crime lords but to refuse to admit it's a major problem that costs dearly to the nation is purile and moronic. but then to spin a line that all immigrants are criminals is equally moronic. if people don't like that truth or being seen as far-right then perhaps they should change the way they use the lexicon of the online far-right media about being concerned with economic migration. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" .... an inconvenient truth too far? the only inconvenient truth here is the one that you don't want to admit. looking at the facts and figures from sources such as the NCA, the FT, Moody's etc., then the londograd laundramat is spinning ar=t full speed. even the big four banks got busted doing "elephant deals" worth multi billions and even gave 37million payouts if the clients identity is revealed. these are the apex predators of global crime, enjoying living high on the hog in our own back yard. now this isn't to say that all non-doms are organised crime lords but to refuse to admit it's a major problem that costs dearly to the nation is purile and moronic. but then to spin a line that all immigrants are criminals is equally moronic. if people don't like that truth or being seen as far-right then perhaps they should change the way they use the lexicon of the online far-right media about being concerned with economic migration." Do you even know what non-dom is? You know majority of immigrants claim non-dom right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" .... an inconvenient truth too far? the only inconvenient truth here is the one that you don't want to admit. looking at the facts and figures from sources such as the NCA, the FT, Moody's etc., then the londograd laundramat is spinning ar=t full speed. even the big four banks got busted doing "elephant deals" worth multi billions and even gave 37million payouts if the clients identity is revealed. these are the apex predators of global crime, enjoying living high on the hog in our own back yard. now this isn't to say that all non-doms are organised crime lords but to refuse to admit it's a major problem that costs dearly to the nation is purile and moronic. but then to spin a line that all immigrants are criminals is equally moronic. if people don't like that truth or being seen as far-right then perhaps they should change the way they use the lexicon of the online far-right media about being concerned with economic migration. Do you even know what non-dom is? You know majority of immigrants claim non-dom right?" hilarious | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" again .... double standards from the far-right" Sorry - what are the double standards and who is far right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" again .... double standards from the far-right Sorry - what are the double standards and who is far right?" see above ⬆️⬆️ | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" .... an inconvenient truth too far? the only inconvenient truth here is the one that you don't want to admit. looking at the facts and figures from sources such as the NCA, the FT, Moody's etc., then the londograd laundramat is spinning ar=t full speed. even the big four banks got busted doing "elephant deals" worth multi billions and even gave 37million payouts if the clients identity is revealed. these are the apex predators of global crime, enjoying living high on the hog in our own back yard. now this isn't to say that all non-doms are organised crime lords but to refuse to admit it's a major problem that costs dearly to the nation is purile and moronic. but then to spin a line that all immigrants are criminals is equally moronic. if people don't like that truth or being seen as far-right then perhaps they should change the way they use the lexicon of the online far-right media about being concerned with economic migration. Do you even know what non-dom is? You know majority of immigrants claim non-dom right? hilarious "So you really don't know | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Specifically on money, tax shifting, non doms, off shoring profits, UK territory tax regimes (bvi cayman etc) saves the wealthy and corporations tens of billions a year, and dwarfs the spend on migrants The Duke of Westminster inherited a £13bn London property portfolio and didn’t pay any inheritance tax, via use of some complicated old trust HMRC couldn’t be bothered to challenge. Easier for HMRC to go after cash paid plumbers and taxi drivers " then there's reams of more direct incidents regarding domestic sl@very in UHNW non-dom households if the nay-sayers can be bothered. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not.
It's not double standards. Inward wealth is a good thing and should be welcomed. Look how many countries offer Golden Visa schemes or equivalent to encourage rich immigrants. Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution. These are secondary costs rarely factored-in to the cost of illegal migration.
.... and again"And again you are completely missing the point, quite deliberately…. If some Russian billionaire who earns his money drilling oil in the Caspian Sea applies to come here, even if the bulk of his money is taxed in Russia, he will pay tax here and he won’t cost us anything. He’s not gonna get a council house or his rent paid, he’s gonna buy a house in Mayfair and contribute to the economy, even if he doesn’t work here. Some random bloke from Iran hears about all the freebies we hand out, pays a gang £3k to get him here and rocks up on a Kent beach with nothing but the clothes on his back and lies about being persecuted, they will cost the county a fortune. If you are saying I have a double standard for allowing one and not the other, then you’re right. I have, one I’m very proud of. Your attitude is typical of a socialist. You don’t want to pay for anything, you want others to pay. How many asylum seekers have you personally taken in? Into your home? Fed them. Bought them clothes. Paid their legal fees. Everyone reading this thread knows the answer, and you never will. You think financial success is a bad thing. Anyone who has more money than you is evil and their money should be taken away and given to some scrounger who never did anything to help themselves or anyone else. The road you want to go down, the one the current government is taking us down ends in ruin. They are taking steps to increase poverty, decrease the taxpayer base, increase the numbers claiming benefits, increase taxes, increase spending on the black holes of public spending where money just vanishes with nothing to show for it. All while bashing British people as much as possible. So I put it to you that it is you who has the double standards. What were your words “tough shit, you have no choice”. Not for now, but there will be an election soon and then the last ever term of Labour government will come to an end and they will fade into political obscurity. And you’ll have no choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not.
It's not double standards. Inward wealth is a good thing and should be welcomed. Look how many countries offer Golden Visa schemes or equivalent to encourage rich immigrants. Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution. These are secondary costs rarely factored-in to the cost of illegal migration.
.... and again
And again you are completely missing the point, quite deliberately….
If some Russian billionaire who earns his money drilling oil in the Caspian Sea applies to come here, even if the bulk of his money is taxed in Russia, he will pay tax here and he won’t cost us anything. He’s not gonna get a council house or his rent paid, he’s gonna buy a house in Mayfair and contribute to the economy, even if he doesn’t work here.
Some random bloke from Iran hears about all the freebies we hand out, pays a gang £3k to get him here and rocks up on a Kent beach with nothing but the clothes on his back and lies about being persecuted, they will cost the county a fortune.
If you are saying I have a double standard for allowing one and not the other, then you’re right. I have, one I’m very proud of. Your attitude is typical of a socialist. You don’t want to pay for anything, you want others to pay. How many asylum seekers have you personally taken in? Into your home? Fed them. Bought them clothes. Paid their legal fees. Everyone reading this thread knows the answer, and you never will. You think financial success is a bad thing. Anyone who has more money than you is evil and their money should be taken away and given to some scrounger who never did anything to help themselves or anyone else.
The road you want to go down, the one the current government is taking us down ends in ruin. They are taking steps to increase poverty, decrease the taxpayer base, increase the numbers claiming benefits, increase taxes, increase spending on the black holes of public spending where money just vanishes with nothing to show for it. All while bashing British people as much as possible.
So I put it to you that it is you who has the double standards. What were your words “tough shit, you have no choice”. Not for now, but there will be an election soon and then the last ever term of Labour government will come to an end and they will fade into political obscurity. And you’ll have no choice. "so you're happy for the apex criminals to enjoy non-dom status in the uk while they use the property market here along with other devices to launder the profit from traffiking? double standards. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Specifically on money, tax shifting, non doms, off shoring profits, UK territory tax regimes (bvi cayman etc) saves the wealthy and corporations tens of billions a year, and dwarfs the spend on migrants The Duke of Westminster inherited a £13bn London property portfolio and didn’t pay any inheritance tax, via use of some complicated old trust HMRC couldn’t be bothered to challenge. Easier for HMRC to go after cash paid plumbers and taxi drivers then there's reams of more direct incidents regarding domestic sl@very in UHNW non-dom households if the nay-sayers can be bothered. " It looks like you are using "non-dom" as an alternative term for "rich foreigners" probably because you don't even know what non-dom means | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Specifically on money, tax shifting, non doms, off shoring profits, UK territory tax regimes (bvi cayman etc) saves the wealthy and corporations tens of billions a year, and dwarfs the spend on migrants The Duke of Westminster inherited a £13bn London property portfolio and didn’t pay any inheritance tax, via use of some complicated old trust HMRC couldn’t be bothered to challenge. Easier for HMRC to go after cash paid plumbers and taxi drivers You really need to go and look how tax works with Trusts like this and the tax that is paid on money taken from the trust " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Specifically on money, tax shifting, non doms, off shoring profits, UK territory tax regimes (bvi cayman etc) saves the wealthy and corporations tens of billions a year, and dwarfs the spend on migrants The Duke of Westminster inherited a £13bn London property portfolio and didn’t pay any inheritance tax, via use of some complicated old trust HMRC couldn’t be bothered to challenge. Easier for HMRC to go after cash paid plumbers and taxi drivers then there's reams of more direct incidents regarding domestic sl@very in UHNW non-dom households if the nay-sayers can be bothered. It looks like you are using "non-dom" as an alternative term for "rich foreigners" probably because you don't even know what non-dom means " yawn 🥱 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" so you're happy for the apex criminals to enjoy non-dom status in the uk while they use the property market here along with other devices to launder the profit from traffiking? double standards." How is money laundering by criminals related to non-dom? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not.
It's not double standards. Inward wealth is a good thing and should be welcomed. Look how many countries offer Golden Visa schemes or equivalent to encourage rich immigrants. Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution. These are secondary costs rarely factored-in to the cost of illegal migration.
.... and again
And again you are completely missing the point, quite deliberately….
If some Russian billionaire who earns his money drilling oil in the Caspian Sea applies to come here, even if the bulk of his money is taxed in Russia, he will pay tax here and he won’t cost us anything. He’s not gonna get a council house or his rent paid, he’s gonna buy a house in Mayfair and contribute to the economy, even if he doesn’t work here.
Some random bloke from Iran hears about all the freebies we hand out, pays a gang £3k to get him here and rocks up on a Kent beach with nothing but the clothes on his back and lies about being persecuted, they will cost the county a fortune.
If you are saying I have a double standard for allowing one and not the other, then you’re right. I have, one I’m very proud of. Your attitude is typical of a socialist. You don’t want to pay for anything, you want others to pay. How many asylum seekers have you personally taken in? Into your home? Fed them. Bought them clothes. Paid their legal fees. Everyone reading this thread knows the answer, and you never will. You think financial success is a bad thing. Anyone who has more money than you is evil and their money should be taken away and given to some scrounger who never did anything to help themselves or anyone else.
The road you want to go down, the one the current government is taking us down ends in ruin. They are taking steps to increase poverty, decrease the taxpayer base, increase the numbers claiming benefits, increase taxes, increase spending on the black holes of public spending where money just vanishes with nothing to show for it. All while bashing British people as much as possible.
So I put it to you that it is you who has the double standards. What were your words “tough shit, you have no choice”. Not for now, but there will be an election soon and then the last ever term of Labour government will come to an end and they will fade into political obscurity. And you’ll have no choice.
so you're happy for the apex criminals to enjoy non-dom status in the uk while they use the property market here along with other devices to launder the profit from traffiking? double standards."I asked you questions that you didn’t answer. What makes you think I’ll do anything except extend you the same curtesy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" It looks like you are using "non-dom" as an alternative term for "rich foreigners" probably because you don't even know what non-dom means " Pretty much this, it seems. Although: rich CRIMINAL foreigners... Because rich foreigners must be criminals, presumably. The problem is that we now get this kind of simplistic and populist thinking in government (screw the rich), who scare all the money out of the country. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not.
It's not double standards. Inward wealth is a good thing and should be welcomed. Look how many countries offer Golden Visa schemes or equivalent to encourage rich immigrants. Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution. These are secondary costs rarely factored-in to the cost of illegal migration.
.... and again
And again you are completely missing the point, quite deliberately….
If some Russian billionaire who earns his money drilling oil in the Caspian Sea applies to come here, even if the bulk of his money is taxed in Russia, he will pay tax here and he won’t cost us anything. He’s not gonna get a council house or his rent paid, he’s gonna buy a house in Mayfair and contribute to the economy, even if he doesn’t work here.
Some random bloke from Iran hears about all the freebies we hand out, pays a gang £3k to get him here and rocks up on a Kent beach with nothing but the clothes on his back and lies about being persecuted, they will cost the county a fortune.
If you are saying I have a double standard for allowing one and not the other, then you’re right. I have, one I’m very proud of. Your attitude is typical of a socialist. You don’t want to pay for anything, you want others to pay. How many asylum seekers have you personally taken in? Into your home? Fed them. Bought them clothes. Paid their legal fees. Everyone reading this thread knows the answer, and you never will. You think financial success is a bad thing. Anyone who has more money than you is evil and their money should be taken away and given to some scrounger who never did anything to help themselves or anyone else.
The road you want to go down, the one the current government is taking us down ends in ruin. They are taking steps to increase poverty, decrease the taxpayer base, increase the numbers claiming benefits, increase taxes, increase spending on the black holes of public spending where money just vanishes with nothing to show for it. All while bashing British people as much as possible.
So I put it to you that it is you who has the double standards. What were your words “tough shit, you have no choice”. Not for now, but there will be an election soon and then the last ever term of Labour government will come to an end and they will fade into political obscurity. And you’ll have no choice.
so you're happy for the apex criminals to enjoy non-dom status in the uk while they use the property market here along with other devices to launder the profit from traffiking? double standards.
I asked you questions that you didn’t answer. What makes you think I’ll do anything except extend you the same curtesy? "you haven't asked any questions, all you've done is surmise about my level of financial success and got that very badly wrong. right now i am sat in front of 3 monitors designing a 3-phase sub main distribution install for client and made a considerable sum for 2 hours worth of calcs i've done this morning not that it's much business of yours rudeboy. and actually i have had 2 brothers from hong kong living here last year who were escaping the country's regime, principally because i was able to give them some work and get their electrical qualifications harmonised with the british standard and now they are jib gold card holders. so stick that in your chap | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Pretty much this, it seems. Although: rich CRIMINAL foreigners... Because rich foreigners must be criminals, presumably. The problem is that we now get this kind of simplistic and populist thinking in government (screw the rich), who scare all the money out of the country." really? i forsaw that some foolish types would start with the misquoting with statements similar to "all foreigners ust be criminals" so i already detailed that in an earlier post, which you clearly didn't read. so i would say what you just wrote is garbage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Pretty much this, it seems. Although: rich CRIMINAL foreigners... Because rich foreigners must be criminals, presumably. The problem is that we now get this kind of simplistic and populist thinking in government (screw the rich), who scare all the money out of the country. really? i forsaw that some foolish types would start with the misquoting with statements similar to "all foreigners ust be criminals" so i already detailed that in an earlier post, which you clearly didn't read. so i would say what you just wrote is garbage. "Sometimes an explicit statement is belied by further speech, text or actions. Your intent was clear | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not.
It's not double standards. Inward wealth is a good thing and should be welcomed. Look how many countries offer Golden Visa schemes or equivalent to encourage rich immigrants. Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution. These are secondary costs rarely factored-in to the cost of illegal migration.
.... and again
And again you are completely missing the point, quite deliberately….
If some Russian billionaire who earns his money drilling oil in the Caspian Sea applies to come here, even if the bulk of his money is taxed in Russia, he will pay tax here and he won’t cost us anything. He’s not gonna get a council house or his rent paid, he’s gonna buy a house in Mayfair and contribute to the economy, even if he doesn’t work here.
Some random bloke from Iran hears about all the freebies we hand out, pays a gang £3k to get him here and rocks up on a Kent beach with nothing but the clothes on his back and lies about being persecuted, they will cost the county a fortune.
If you are saying I have a double standard for allowing one and not the other, then you’re right. I have, one I’m very proud of. Your attitude is typical of a socialist. You don’t want to pay for anything, you want others to pay. How many asylum seekers have you personally taken in? Into your home? Fed them. Bought them clothes. Paid their legal fees. Everyone reading this thread knows the answer, and you never will. You think financial success is a bad thing. Anyone who has more money than you is evil and their money should be taken away and given to some scrounger who never did anything to help themselves or anyone else.
The road you want to go down, the one the current government is taking us down ends in ruin. They are taking steps to increase poverty, decrease the taxpayer base, increase the numbers claiming benefits, increase taxes, increase spending on the black holes of public spending where money just vanishes with nothing to show for it. All while bashing British people as much as possible.
So I put it to you that it is you who has the double standards. What were your words “tough shit, you have no choice”. Not for now, but there will be an election soon and then the last ever term of Labour government will come to an end and they will fade into political obscurity. And you’ll have no choice.
so you're happy for the apex criminals to enjoy non-dom status in the uk while they use the property market here along with other devices to launder the profit from traffiking? double standards.
I asked you questions that you didn’t answer. What makes you think I’ll do anything except extend you the same curtesy?
you haven't asked any questions, all you've done is surmise about my level of financial success and got that very badly wrong. right now i am sat in front of 3 monitors designing a 3-phase sub main distribution install for client and made a considerable sum for 2 hours worth of calcs i've done this morning not that it's much business of yours rudeboy. and actually i have had 2 brothers from hong kong living here last year who were escaping the country's regime, principally because i was able to give them some work and get their electrical qualifications harmonised with the british standard and now they are jib gold card holders. so stick that in your chap "I didn’t say anything about your financial success. I couldn’t care less about yours or anyone else’s. But I see you gave an answer to questions you said I didn’t ask. That must have been some lucky guess. So you took in a couple of rich people from HK who were working illegally and you made a few quid on the side from doing so? Thats very generous of you. But it’s not helping an Afghan kiddy fiddler who has nothing that’s going to cost you money and potentially put your family at risk. That’s someone else’s job no doubt? Interesting choice tho. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Pretty much this, it seems. Although: rich CRIMINAL foreigners... Because rich foreigners must be criminals, presumably. The problem is that we now get this kind of simplistic and populist thinking in government (screw the rich), who scare all the money out of the country. really? i forsaw that some foolish types would start with the misquoting with statements similar to "all foreigners ust be criminals" so i already detailed that in an earlier post, which you clearly didn't read. so i would say what you just wrote is garbage.
Sometimes an explicit statement is belied by further speech, text or actions. Your intent was clear "but then so is yours and it appears you're just out to troll and bitch about my post .... which is actually against forum rules i believe. in a thread that started about illegal immigrants suffolk segued from illegal immigrant to economic migrant, of which neither should be conflated as economic migrant includes the doctor from nigeria working in worthing, the chef from bangladesh working in walsall, the aussie carpenter building the school in winchester and most definately includes non-doms who come to enjoy a better life. to attempt to frame economic migrants as all being benefit scroungers posing as refugees is disingenuous media manipulation nonsense from online far-right chat groups as they attempt to own the language and consequently own the debate. when that lexicon is regurgitated on forum like this then expect the users of that lexicon to challenged on using that far-right language. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don’t want to pay for economic migrants and I don’t see why I should. out of curiosity, does that include the 238,000 non-doms who refused to contribute, which came here since 2007? I think my statement is fairly clear, as long as you know what an economic migrant is. You seem to have an issue with wealthy people coming here who don’t claim any benefits but you’re ok with people whose only reason for coming here is our benefits system? Roughly half living on state benefits once granted permission to stay, with even more getting their low wages topped up with UC. If you want to give these people money that’s fine, knock yourself out. But I don’t and there’s a lot of other people who don’t and that doesn’t make us “far right” or racist. The economic migrants are gonna kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. i think my statement is clear. you don't want economic migrants here but fail to admit that non-doms are economic migrants. double standards from you then. and in any case, tough shit, you are going to cough up and pay wether you like it not.
It's not double standards. Inward wealth is a good thing and should be welcomed. Look how many countries offer Golden Visa schemes or equivalent to encourage rich immigrants. Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution. These are secondary costs rarely factored-in to the cost of illegal migration.
.... and again
And again you are completely missing the point, quite deliberately….
If some Russian billionaire who earns his money drilling oil in the Caspian Sea applies to come here, even if the bulk of his money is taxed in Russia, he will pay tax here and he won’t cost us anything. He’s not gonna get a council house or his rent paid, he’s gonna buy a house in Mayfair and contribute to the economy, even if he doesn’t work here.
Some random bloke from Iran hears about all the freebies we hand out, pays a gang £3k to get him here and rocks up on a Kent beach with nothing but the clothes on his back and lies about being persecuted, they will cost the county a fortune.
If you are saying I have a double standard for allowing one and not the other, then you’re right. I have, one I’m very proud of. Your attitude is typical of a socialist. You don’t want to pay for anything, you want others to pay. How many asylum seekers have you personally taken in? Into your home? Fed them. Bought them clothes. Paid their legal fees. Everyone reading this thread knows the answer, and you never will. You think financial success is a bad thing. Anyone who has more money than you is evil and their money should be taken away and given to some scrounger who never did anything to help themselves or anyone else.
The road you want to go down, the one the current government is taking us down ends in ruin. They are taking steps to increase poverty, decrease the taxpayer base, increase the numbers claiming benefits, increase taxes, increase spending on the black holes of public spending where money just vanishes with nothing to show for it. All while bashing British people as much as possible.
So I put it to you that it is you who has the double standards. What were your words “tough shit, you have no choice”. Not for now, but there will be an election soon and then the last ever term of Labour government will come to an end and they will fade into political obscurity. And you’ll have no choice.
so you're happy for the apex criminals to enjoy non-dom status in the uk while they use the property market here along with other devices to launder the profit from traffiking? double standards.
I asked you questions that you didn’t answer. What makes you think I’ll do anything except extend you the same curtesy?
you haven't asked any questions, all you've done is surmise about my level of financial success and got that very badly wrong. right now i am sat in front of 3 monitors designing a 3-phase sub main distribution install for client and made a considerable sum for 2 hours worth of calcs i've done this morning not that it's much business of yours rudeboy. and actually i have had 2 brothers from hong kong living here last year who were escaping the country's regime, principally because i was able to give them some work and get their electrical qualifications harmonised with the british standard and now they are jib gold card holders. so stick that in your chap
I didn’t say anything about your financial success. I couldn’t care less about yours or anyone else’s.
But I see you gave an answer to questions you said I didn’t ask. That must have been some lucky guess.
So you took in a couple of rich people from HK who were working illegally and you made a few quid on the side from doing so? Thats very generous of you. But it’s not helping an Afghan kiddy fiddler who has nothing that’s going to cost you money and potentially put your family at risk. That’s someone else’s job no doubt? Interesting choice tho. "you just seem to be spouting confused garbled nonsense and wild surmise for the sake of it now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Pretty much this, it seems. Although: rich CRIMINAL foreigners... Because rich foreigners must be criminals, presumably. The problem is that we now get this kind of simplistic and populist thinking in government (screw the rich), who scare all the money out of the country. really? i forsaw that some foolish types would start with the misquoting with statements similar to "all foreigners ust be criminals" so i already detailed that in an earlier post, which you clearly didn't read. so i would say what you just wrote is garbage.
Sometimes an explicit statement is belied by further speech, text or actions. Your intent was clear
but then so is yours and it appears you're just out to troll and bitch about my post .... which is actually against forum rules i believe.
in a thread that started about illegal immigrants suffolk segued from illegal immigrant to economic migrant, of which neither should be conflated as economic migrant includes the doctor from nigeria working in worthing, the chef from bangladesh working in walsall, the aussie carpenter building the school in winchester and most definately includes non-doms who come to enjoy a better life. to attempt to frame economic migrants as all being benefit scroungers posing as refugees is disingenuous media manipulation nonsense from online far-right chat groups as they attempt to own the language and consequently own the debate. when that lexicon is regurgitated on forum like this then expect the users of that lexicon to challenged on using that far-right language. "The thread is about other countries returning people or turning them away, the legality of it, how they are able to do it if it is in violation of international law, and if it’s not, why aren’t we doing it. Labour claims to be “cracking down” but they obviously aren’t going anywhere near as far as the rest of Europe. So yes the thread certainly implies illegal migrants as you state, and that was definitely my intent. So when when a subset of that group of people is discussed, what’s the issue? Of the people entering illegally there will be genuine asylum seekers and none genuine. People lying just to get all the freebies are economic migrants. The people you mentioned are also economic migrants but they are not illegal. There’s no engineers and doctors in the small boats, they arrive on scheduled flights having already been granted visas and work permits. The men in the small boats haven’t. Why would I ask why someone with a visa and a work permit isn’t getting deported? You knew what was meant, and if you didn’t you certainly do now. You have your opinion, I have mine, we will clearly never agree and that’s perfectly ok with me. I just don’t expect other people to pay for my desires. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Pretty much this, it seems. Although: rich CRIMINAL foreigners... Because rich foreigners must be criminals, presumably. The problem is that we now get this kind of simplistic and populist thinking in government (screw the rich), who scare all the money out of the country. really? i forsaw that some foolish types would start with the misquoting with statements similar to "all foreigners ust be criminals" so i already detailed that in an earlier post, which you clearly didn't read. so i would say what you just wrote is garbage.
Sometimes an explicit statement is belied by further speech, text or actions. Your intent was clear
but then so is yours and it appears you're just out to troll and bitch about my post .... which is actually against forum rules i believe.
in a thread that started about illegal immigrants suffolk segued from illegal immigrant to economic migrant, of which neither should be conflated as economic migrant includes the doctor from nigeria working in worthing, the chef from bangladesh working in walsall, the aussie carpenter building the school in winchester and most definately includes non-doms who come to enjoy a better life. to attempt to frame economic migrants as all being benefit scroungers posing as refugees is disingenuous media manipulation nonsense from online far-right chat groups as they attempt to own the language and consequently own the debate. when that lexicon is regurgitated on forum like this then expect the users of that lexicon to challenged on using that far-right language.
The thread is about other countries returning people or turning them away, the legality of it, how they are able to do it if it is in violation of international law, and if it’s not, why aren’t we doing it. Labour claims to be “cracking down” but they obviously aren’t going anywhere near as far as the rest of Europe.
So yes the thread certainly implies illegal migrants as you state, and that was definitely my intent. So when when a subset of that group of people is discussed, what’s the issue?
Of the people entering illegally there will be genuine asylum seekers and none genuine. People lying just to get all the freebies are economic migrants.
The people you mentioned are also economic migrants but they are not illegal. There’s no engineers and doctors in the small boats, they arrive on scheduled flights having already been granted visas and work permits. The men in the small boats haven’t.
Why would I ask why someone with a visa and a work permit isn’t getting deported? You knew what was meant, and if you didn’t you certainly do now.
You have your opinion, I have mine, we will clearly never agree and that’s perfectly ok with me. I just don’t expect other people to pay for my desires. "Claiming asylum isn't illegal. People aren't illegal. Dehumanizing language helps create the atmosphere for people to be bussed around the country to protest outside derelict hotels | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" but then so is yours and it appears you're just out to troll and bitch about my post .... which is actually against forum rules i believe." Nope, the intent was one thing only: to point out that non doms do, in fact, contribute considerable to the UK and that any comparison of them to the other subject of discussion - irregular migrants coming to this country - is disingenuous. (Okay, you can call that two things) It was triggered by an assertion that non doms do not contribute and compounded by an implication that they generally bring crime or are otherwise odious people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Pretty much this, it seems. Although: rich CRIMINAL foreigners... Because rich foreigners must be criminals, presumably. The problem is that we now get this kind of simplistic and populist thinking in government (screw the rich), who scare all the money out of the country. really? i forsaw that some foolish types would start with the misquoting with statements similar to "all foreigners ust be criminals" so i already detailed that in an earlier post, which you clearly didn't read. so i would say what you just wrote is garbage.
Sometimes an explicit statement is belied by further speech, text or actions. Your intent was clear
but then so is yours and it appears you're just out to troll and bitch about my post .... which is actually against forum rules i believe.
in a thread that started about illegal immigrants suffolk segued from illegal immigrant to economic migrant, of which neither should be conflated as economic migrant includes the doctor from nigeria working in worthing, the chef from bangladesh working in walsall, the aussie carpenter building the school in winchester and most definately includes non-doms who come to enjoy a better life. to attempt to frame economic migrants as all being benefit scroungers posing as refugees is disingenuous media manipulation nonsense from online far-right chat groups as they attempt to own the language and consequently own the debate. when that lexicon is regurgitated on forum like this then expect the users of that lexicon to challenged on using that far-right language.
The thread is about other countries returning people or turning them away, the legality of it, how they are able to do it if it is in violation of international law, and if it’s not, why aren’t we doing it. Labour claims to be “cracking down” but they obviously aren’t going anywhere near as far as the rest of Europe.
So yes the thread certainly implies illegal migrants as you state, and that was definitely my intent. So when when a subset of that group of people is discussed, what’s the issue?
Of the people entering illegally there will be genuine asylum seekers and none genuine. People lying just to get all the freebies are economic migrants.
The people you mentioned are also economic migrants but they are not illegal. There’s no engineers and doctors in the small boats, they arrive on scheduled flights having already been granted visas and work permits. The men in the small boats haven’t.
Why would I ask why someone with a visa and a work permit isn’t getting deported? You knew what was meant, and if you didn’t you certainly do now.
You have your opinion, I have mine, we will clearly never agree and that’s perfectly ok with me. I just don’t expect other people to pay for my desires.
Claiming asylum isn't illegal. People aren't illegal.
Dehumanizing language helps create the atmosphere for people to be bussed around the country to protest outside derelict hotels "One group don’t need buses, the police provide transport for them and guide them right up to a peaceful protest to throw fireworks at them. Thus causing the breaches of the peace they claim to be trying to prevent. Who’s to say the police didn’t provide them with the fireworks? Isn’t the use of fireworks outside of certain time periods banned? I wasn’t aware it was November already. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Claiming asylum isn't illegal. People aren't illegal. Dehumanizing language helps create the atmosphere for people to be bussed around the country to protest outside derelict hotels " "Illegal" isn't really dehumanising. In fact, only humans can do illegal things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn’t the use of fireworks outside of certain time periods banned? I wasn’t aware it was November already. " Only late at night. In general, there's no problem (buying them is another matter). https://www.gov.uk/fireworks-the-law | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Isn’t the use of fireworks outside of certain time periods banned? I wasn’t aware it was November already. Only late at night. In general, there's no problem (buying them is another matter). https://www.gov.uk/fireworks-the-law" Thank you for that. Quite likely the police provided them then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Bogus asylum seekers just imports poverty, a burden on taxpayers, and in many cases criminality. Our streets are awash with foreign gangs peddling smuggled cigarettes, drugs and prostitution..." If the local providers of these services haven't got these things sewn up already then, surely, they need to learn a few skills from the more accomplished? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" .... an inconvenient truth too far? the only inconvenient truth here is the one that you don't want to admit. looking at the facts and figures from sources such as the NCA, the FT, Moody's etc., then the londograd laundramat is spinning ar=t full speed. even the big four banks got busted doing "elephant deals" worth multi billions and even gave 37million payouts if the clients identity is revealed. these are the apex predators of global crime, enjoying living high on the hog in our own back yard. now this isn't to say that all non-doms are organised crime lords but to refuse to admit it's a major problem that costs dearly to the nation is purile and moronic. but then to spin a line that all immigrants are criminals is equally moronic. if people don't like that truth or being seen as far-right then perhaps they should change the way they use the lexicon of the online far-right media about being concerned with economic migration." It's not a matter of being far right, it's a matter of stopping illegal entry by bogus asylum seekers and the criminals who smuggle them. Apart from the principle of illegality, there is the huge social and financial cost of processing illegals. Then finally, there is the impact on genuine asylum seekers who are being squeezed out of the system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
