FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Care homes
Care homes
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
Nottm labour has to find 53 million pound cuts to budget , plans going through to close 2 council run homes ,lots of other schemes to help youngers and community, Joe Vloggs has loads of stuff out there of huge hotels given over to house migrants . I cant do all that link stuff , its out there anyway . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 38 weeks ago
South Devon |
"Nottm labour has to find 53 million pound cuts to budget , plans going through to close 2 council run homes ,lots of other schemes to help youngers and community, Joe Vloggs has loads of stuff out there of huge hotels given over to house migrants . I cant do all that link stuff , its out there anyway ."
Joe Vloggs the Jeans person?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
I have worked on lots of these hotels ,they cost a lot of money to run plus upgrade if empty . I am more concerned with residents being uprooted into other accomodation when they are their most vunerable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have worked on lots of these hotels ,they cost a lot of money to run plus upgrade if empty . I am more concerned with residents being uprooted into other accomodation when they are their most vunerable. "
Yes but asylum seekers being in hotels has absolutely nothing to do with care homes closing. Why mention the two in the same post? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The point l make is government money is cut to councils who run care homes ,yet millions a day to pay for the hotels . Doesn't seem fair to me ."
But one has nothing to do with the other. It’s like saying there was no milk in Tesco but next door has bought a new car. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 38 weeks ago
South Devon |
"The point l make is government money is cut to councils who run care homes ,yet millions a day to pay for the hotels . Doesn't seem fair to me ."
£1.8m per asylum seeker to Rwanda, another great idea from this government |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
We all have our own views, l think an old person or someone vulnerable would not want to have to be rehoused, because of cost cutting ,no matter where the money comes from ,the government ,home office whatever. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"The point l make is government money is cut to councils who run care homes ,yet millions a day to pay for the hotels . Doesn't seem fair to me .
But one has nothing to do with the other. It’s like saying there was no milk in Tesco but next door has bought a new car."
it's not exactly, as it's all tax money.
From what I've seen, a lot of the asylum spend is sunk, as HMG have signed 10 year contracts. So it now it isn't a choice of one or the other.
For me, it's more pertinent this is happening on the eve of tax cuts.
Let's work part time says the man with an expensive car on finance and starting to live on beans. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We all have our own views, l think an old person or someone vulnerable would not want to have to be rehoused, because of cost cutting ,no matter where the money comes from ,the government ,home office whatever."
I completely agree, it’s a terrible thing to happen but it has absolutely nothing to do with asylum seekers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners."
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sad indeed ,they cant be helped then , just moved around , which can cause so much stress .maybe open up some empty hotels for them too."
Who knows, I suspect that councils will just pay for people to go into privately run care homes, they still have a statutory duty to look after them after all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot."
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
Just leave them in the care homes then , can't be much difference in costs. But l'm also concerned about the community schemes being closed, award winning volunteers having their centres shut down due to cost . I just don't get the maths. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just leave them in the care homes then , can't be much difference in costs. But l'm also concerned about the community schemes being closed, award winning volunteers having their centres shut down due to cost . I just don't get the maths."
The government knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Also it’s not rich people who will be affected by the cuts so the Tories don’t give a shit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
"Just leave them in the care homes then , can't be much difference in costs. But l'm also concerned about the community schemes being closed, award winning volunteers having their centres shut down due to cost . I just don't get the maths.
The government knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Also it’s not rich people who will be affected by the cuts so the Tories don’t give a shit."
Glad we agree on something . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that."
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The point l make is government money is cut to councils who run care homes ,yet millions a day to pay for the hotels . Doesn't seem fair to me .
But one has nothing to do with the other. It’s like saying there was no milk in Tesco but next door has bought a new car."
No it's like saying we have no money for the old. But an unlimited pot for imagination.
Give each of the them a fixed amount and a NI number so they can work and let them stand on there own to feet like everyone else.
Close the hotels not the care homes in a nut shell. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year. "
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers."
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year. "
Was liking your post at the start.
But you also forget after Thatcher more people where encouraged to go self employed reducing there Tax and NI payments. And so the gig economy grew and more and more don't have to pay large amounts in Tax and NI. And so the rich get richer and the less well off get less.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
"The point l make is government money is cut to councils who run care homes ,yet millions a day to pay for the hotels . Doesn't seem fair to me .
But one has nothing to do with the other. It’s like saying there was no milk in Tesco but next door has bought a new car.
No it's like saying we have no money for the old. But an unlimited pot for imagination.
Give each of the them a fixed amount and a NI number so they can work and let them stand on there own to feet like everyone else.
Close the hotels not the care homes in a nut shell."
After a certain time they are moved from the hotels to more permanent accomodation , no housing crisis either then if there are homes for everyone, yet thousands are on waiting lists for housing. Best leave it to the private sector then . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state."
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The point l make is government money is cut to councils who run care homes ,yet millions a day to pay for the hotels . Doesn't seem fair to me .
But one has nothing to do with the other. It’s like saying there was no milk in Tesco but next door has bought a new car.
No it's like saying we have no money for the old. But an unlimited pot for imagination.
Give each of the them a fixed amount and a NI number so they can work and let them stand on there own to feet like everyone else.
Close the hotels not the care homes in a nut shell.
After a certain time they are moved from the hotels to more permanent accomodation , no housing crisis either then if there are homes for everyone, yet thousands are on waiting lists for housing. Best leave it to the private sector then ."
I'm with you charity starts at home with the old and vunerable.
There was a topic on the radio that children coming in to the UK alown where not being cared for properly? Have to ask where are the parents and how would put a young child in to a small over crowd boat to cross the channel with out a thought for there safety. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum."
If it so stacked against them why do so meany get granted asylum.
Some even go on to commit crime but don't get deported they serve there time at tax payers cost. Then get released back in to the community.
Baby it time if you get kicked out of an old people home you go and stab someone and get locked in prison at least you will get care a roof an 3 square a day. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum."
Yet they can afford thousands to board illegal boats, all have top of the range mobiles...in my opinion older UK citizens come before young, healthy migrants, illegal or legal |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
If it so stacked against them why do so meany get granted asylum.
Some even go on to commit crime but don't get deported they serve there time at tax payers cost. Then get released back in to the community.
Baby it time if you get kicked out of an old people home you go and stab someone and get locked in prison at least you will get care a roof an 3 square a day. "
Because they will be at very real danger of persecution, torture, and death if they are returned to their home country. That’s how it works. To be granted asylum you have to show that to be the case, and that such a high percentage are able to shows how much danger they would be in, in their home countries.
Have you considered what it says about you that you are unable to believe that people who successfully get through a very difficult asylum process are genuine? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
Yet they can afford thousands to board illegal boats, all have top of the range mobiles...in my opinion older UK citizens come before young, healthy migrants, illegal or legal "
Just at because you are in danger of being persecuted by your own government doesn’t mean you’re poor. Totalitarian governments are notorious for persecuting academics and the educated middle classes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"https://tribunemag.co.uk/2022/02/adult-social-care-private-profit-nationalised-service
How Private Profit Destroys Social Care"
Privet profit DESTROYS a social system...
Look at housing
I work for a self employed to a company that makes a profit. How work for Southern Housing. How must be homemaking money as every company working for them need a profit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destrothere documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
If it so stacked against them why do so meany get granted asylum.
Some even go on to commit crime but don't get deported they serve there time at tax payers cost. Then get released back in to the community.
Baby it time if you get kicked out of an old people home you go and stab someone and get locked in prison at least you will get care a roof an 3 square a day.
Because they will be at very real danger of persecution, torture, and death if they are returned to their home country. That’s how it works. To be granted asylum you have to show that to be the case, and that such a high percentage are able to shows how much danger they would be in, in their home countries.
Have you considered what it says about you that you are unable to believe that people who successfully get through a very difficult asylum process are genuine?"
Persecution, torture and death? Claiming to be homosexual or similar doesn't mean you are. Being homosexual or similar isn't going to cause risk of persecution, torture or death in the EU so it would seem to me that it's just an excuse to be able to choose where you want to go IE the UK but, of course, you'll disagree as is your right |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
If it so stacked against them why do so meany get granted asylum.
Some even go on to commit crime but don't get deported they serve there time at tax payers cost. Then get released back in to the community.
Baby it time if you get kicked out of an old people home you go and stab someone and get locked in prison at least you will get care a roof an 3 square a day.
Because they will be at very real danger of persecution, torture, and death if they are returned to their home country. That’s how it works. To be granted asylum you have to show that to be the case, and that such a high percentage are able to shows how much danger they would be in, in their home countries.
Have you considered what it says about you that you are unable to believe that people who successfully get through a very difficult asylum process are genuine?"
So explain how you prove you gay so there is now way you could go back to you country as you would be put in prison or killed. So they get looked after. But the old how have created the system that is keeping them safe have to move out of there care home due to lack of funding. Where is the justice for the OLD And vunerable. The burden on this small island is now to much to quick. In my opinion.
By All means let them come but and alow them to work but they should get no more then a 18 year old leaving child chare. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
Yet they can afford thousands to board illegal boats, all have top of the range mobiles...in my opinion older UK citizens come before young, healthy migrants, illegal or legal
Just at because you are in danger of being persecuted by your own government doesn’t mean you’re poor. Totalitarian governments are notorious for persecuting academics and the educated middle classes."
The post is about cost cutting and in my opinion putting migrants in hotels should not be going on at the expense of cutting care homes. Simple as that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
If it so stacked against them why do so meany get granted asylum.
Some even go on to commit crime but don't get deported they serve there time at tax payers cost. Then get released back in to the community.
Baby it time if you get kicked out of an old people home you go and stab someone and get locked in prison at least you will get care a roof an 3 square a day.
Because they will be at very real danger of persecution, torture, and death if they are returned to their home country. That’s how it works. To be granted asylum you have to show that to be the case, and that such a high percentage are able to shows how much danger they would be in, in their home countries.
Have you considered what it says about you that you are unable to believe that people who successfully get through a very difficult asylum process are genuine?"
So what dose it say about you that you will alow the old and vunerable be displaced in favour of migrants. Why do we as a national need to sped so much on as you put it the well of middle class coming hear. As said if you can afford the boat you don't need as much help. Don't misunderstand I don't agree with the small boats at all they should be better ways of getting hear. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum."
Hogwash.. the burden of proof is low and its very hard for that claim to be challenged and not accepted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
If it so stacked against them why do so meany get granted asylum.
Some even go on to commit crime but don't get deported they serve there time at tax payers cost. Then get released back in to the community.
Baby it time if you get kicked out of an old people home you go and stab someone and get locked in prison at least you will get care a roof an 3 square a day.
Because they will be at very real danger of persecution, torture, and death if they are returned to their home country. That’s how it works. To be granted asylum you have to show that to be the case, and that such a high percentage are able to shows how much danger they would be in, in their home countries.
Have you considered what it says about you that you are unable to believe that people who successfully get through a very difficult asylum process are genuine?"
If they are in very real danger of persecution, torture and death why do large amounts of people that have been granted asylum go on holiday back to there country of origin to visit relatives ect ect. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners."
So back to the question what would you cut to ballance the books.
Most councils are going to put council tax up by 10% some are going to charge for public toilets
But how do you ballance the book. When you need to do more, that costs more but have less to do it with.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
So back to the question what would you cut to ballance the books.
Most councils are going to put council tax up by 10% some are going to charge for public toilets
But how do you ballance the book. When you need to do more, that costs more but have less to do it with.."
Tax the rich. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
More dodgy landlords subletting making huge sums of money, l'm all for diversity but l'm not seeing that at the moment .Being old and infirm in this country not a good prospect if you don't have an adequate pension. Years ago Italian families all clubbed together to get a young couple on the ladder, can't see a single disabled young mum looking after her mum . The scenarios are endless. Can look at it in so many ways. But neglecting the eldery needy generation for the sake of cost cutting will be forever in the history books . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
So back to the question what would you cut to ballance the books.
Most councils are going to put council tax up by 10% some are going to charge for public toilets
But how do you ballance the book. When you need to do more, that costs more but have less to do it with..
Tax the rich."
Easy said in simple terms.
The question is how. Tax them to much they just move over sea and you get nothing in return.
Or less then you do now for me the cash economy has to be looked at. And an increase in vat might help. Increase duty on sugar. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"More dodgy landlords subletting making huge sums of money, l'm all for diversity but l'm not seeing that at the moment .Being old and infirm in this country not a good prospect if you don't have an adequate pension. Years ago Italian families all clubbed together to get a young couple on the ladder, can't see a single disabled young mum looking after her mum . The scenarios are endless. Can look at it in so many ways. But neglecting the eldery needy generation for the sake of cost cutting will be forever in the history books ."
You forgot to add cutting care for the elderly and increasing the provision for care, increase the burden on the NHS Directly provenshion is better than cure. And then there is bed blocking.
Care for the old should be under the NHS sum how call it the OCS
OLD CARE SERVICE! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We have spent 12 Billion on support for the Ukraine.
Or the money spaffed on dodgy PPE that was not fit for purpose
Just wondering how many care homes that would fund.
Great points"
The support of the brave people of Ukraine is quite obviously in our interests. As for dodgy PPE, I'm sure there would've been an outcry if there had been a lack of the stuff so you can't have it both ways |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
So back to the question what would you cut to ballance the books.
Most councils are going to put council tax up by 10% some are going to charge for public toilets
But how do you ballance the book. When you need to do more, that costs more but have less to do it with..
Tax the rich."
Pathetic answer. How about the rich relocate elsewhere and the poor have to get on with it themselves with no funding from the very people you seem to dislike? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
Seems to me common sense and decency have gone out the window. Abandoning areas of care and welfare due to lack of funds seems unjust to me when vast sums are found to cater for an endless stream of asylum seekers , valid or not. Hairbrained schemes that have no hope of getting off the ground.Sooner or later the UK will not be worth escaping to. I have lived in the past for many years in a multicultural society and had no issues at all , l just don't see that now. Just division and argument . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
So back to the question what would you cut to ballance the books.
Most councils are going to put council tax up by 10% some are going to charge for public toilets
But how do you ballance the book. When you need to do more, that costs more but have less to do it with..
Tax the rich.
Easy said in simple terms.
The question is how. Tax them to much they just move over sea and you get nothing in return.
Or less then you do now for me the cash economy has to be looked at. And an increase in vat might help. Increase duty on sugar. "
VAT disproportionately affects the poor worse than the rich. It’s regressive. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
So back to the question what would you cut to ballance the books.
Most councils are going to put council tax up by 10% some are going to charge for public toilets
But how do you ballance the book. When you need to do more, that costs more but have less to do it with..
Tax the rich.
Easy said in simple terms.
The question is how. Tax them to much they just move over sea and you get nothing in return.
Or less then you do now for me the cash economy has to be looked at. And an increase in vat might help. Increase duty on sugar.
VAT disproportionately affects the poor worse than the rich. It’s regressive."
How if they have less to spend I think I'm in the middle but the poor I see Vat would not realy affect as thay have nothing to spend. I get it would hit the middle class.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
So back to the question what would you cut to ballance the books.
Most councils are going to put council tax up by 10% some are going to charge for public toilets
But how do you ballance the book. When you need to do more, that costs more but have less to do it with..
Tax the rich.
Easy said in simple terms.
The question is how. Tax them to much they just move over sea and you get nothing in return.
Or less then you do now for me the cash economy has to be looked at. And an increase in vat might help. Increase duty on sugar.
VAT disproportionately affects the poor worse than the rich. It’s regressive.
How if they have less to spend I think I'm in the middle but the poor I see Vat would not realy affect as thay have nothing to spend. I get it would hit the middle class.."
It impacts them greater as a percentage of their expendable income. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 38 weeks ago
South Devon |
"Keep it to the forum please.
Ouch answer the question how do you tax the rich with out them leaving the UK all together??"
They already have left the UK, do you not remember the Paradise papers. There money is offshore paying no tax.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 38 weeks ago
South Devon |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
So back to the question what would you cut to ballance the books.
Most councils are going to put council tax up by 10% some are going to charge for public toilets
But how do you ballance the book. When you need to do more, that costs more but have less to do it with..
Tax the rich.
Pathetic answer. How about the rich relocate elsewhere and the poor have to get on with it themselves with no funding from the very people you seem to dislike?"
Paradise papers?.... they relocated decades ago, they don't need to move country just bank accounts offshore. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
Lets get it over with ,give George Galloway what he wants ,then he can answer the 'Oil for Food' , ' Miriam' and other schemes where accounts were never published. I'm sure the bosses at the country clubs will build their outer walls a bit higher now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Keep it to the forum please.
Ouch answer the question how do you tax the rich with out them leaving the UK all together??"
Sorry we didn’t answer as quickly as you would like, have you considered talking to someone about why you got so annoyed that we didn’t?
Frankly we don’t care if rich people (we’re talking the top 4% of earners, so anyone who earns over £100k pa) leave the country, let them go. Is it worth leaving the country over? We doubt it very much. However we need to close all loopholes on money earned in this country being taxed elsewhere. Remove non-dom status, for a start. Then move on to the issue of companies based in Britain paying foreign companies (owned by the same people) for the right to use their own name, so taxable profits are reduced, and similar dodges. Stop bonuses being paid in stock options or into pension pots to avoid tax.
These are just a few suggestions, what you have to remember is that companies like Amazon earned £30 billion in the UK in 2022 but paid zero corporation tax. Companies are not going to risk losing those earnings over having to pay tax.
The loopholes can be closed but our government chooses not to do it, why is that do you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lets get it over with ,give George Galloway what he wants ,then he can answer the 'Oil for Food' , ' Miriam' and other schemes where accounts were never published. I'm sure the bosses at the country clubs will build their outer walls a bit higher now."
Calloway’s election was an aberration, he’ll be gone at the next election. People are placing far more significance on it than it deserves. This publicity serves only the government and Galloway himself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
He not going anywhere,just going to carry on ,he said so recently, my thoughts are with the eldery being kicked out of their care homes to god knows where. This talk of funding all being seperate doesnt seem right to me . Money is found for all the other stuff, mass policing for marches ,accomodation for asylum seekers , failed Schemes costing millions , it doesn't make sense when eldery who have paid their taxes all these years face worry and uncertainty. If you arrive here then start trouble etc they dont get exported ,due to their human rights ,what a joke.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"He not going anywhere,just going to carry on ,he said so recently, my thoughts are with the eldery being kicked out of their care homes to god knows where. This talk of funding all being seperate doesnt seem right to me . Money is found for all the other stuff, mass policing for marches ,accomodation for asylum seekers , failed Schemes costing millions , it doesn't make sense when eldery who have paid their taxes all these years face worry and uncertainty. If you arrive here then start trouble etc they dont get exported ,due to their human rights ,what a joke. "
The government is choosing to prioritise many, many things ahead f old people in care homes, yet you choose to focus on asylum seekers. Have you considered why you do that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
The constant threats of violence ,mass marches ,blockading tescos getting grief in asda, we werent getting any of this til lmmigration got out of hand . They got to live somewhere, multi occupation homes without proper safety checks , corrupt business. All l see is nasty abuse in the streets . If they brought in National Service would every one join up ?, Burning the Union Jack in the street ,why would any one do that ? Not all young feral youths causing bother are immigrants ,but 400 a day ,the money for them is found ,no problem . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 38 weeks ago
Brighton |
"Amazes me that people come on a swinging/sex site and then argue about politics….. surely there are other sites for that?"
And yet here you are? 
Nobody has to venture into any of the forums. Some people like discussing a wide range of topics.
What makes me laugh more is that we discuss (and argue) about serious issues while our avatars are full of ass, cock, and pussy! Kind of surreal at times  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The constant threats of violence ,mass marches ,blockading tescos getting grief in asda, we werent getting any of this til lmmigration got out of hand . They got to live somewhere, multi occupation homes without proper safety checks , corrupt business. All l see is nasty abuse in the streets . If they brought in National Service would every one join up ?, Burning the Union Jack in the street ,why would any one do that ? Not all young feral youths causing bother are immigrants ,but 400 a day ,the money for them is found ,no problem ."
It’s found for lots of things but you focus on immigrants, why do you think that is?
Also, you seem to have forgotten about mass riots in 1981, 1991, 1992, 2001, and 2011. We have always had riots and street violence.
Again, why do you think you are focusing on asylum seekers, rather than all the other things? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I can focus on what l like , l have focused on here about lots of things that bother me , this one seems so unjust to me ."
I’m not saying that you can’t focus on whatever you want, I’m asking you why, that of all the things that could be called unfair, you have chosen to focus on asylum seekers? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
Their drain on resources has got to be found somewhere, do we need libraries? District Nurses ,Dentists? Or maybe get rid of the Navy or other armed services , Border Control must cost a lot ,get rid of that then , money can be found from anywhere ,maybe 10p on tax , the maths just dont add up to support mass immigration . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Their drain on resources has got to be found somewhere, do we need libraries? District Nurses ,Dentists? Or maybe get rid of the Navy or other armed services , Border Control must cost a lot ,get rid of that then , money can be found from anywhere ,maybe 10p on tax , the maths just dont add up to support mass immigration ."
Asylum seekers and mass immigration are not the same thing. Why conflate them? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Their drain on resources has got to be found somewhere, do we need libraries? District Nurses ,Dentists? Or maybe get rid of the Navy or other armed services , Border Control must cost a lot ,get rid of that then , money can be found from anywhere ,maybe 10p on tax , the maths just dont add up to support mass immigration ."
The maths more than add up, pretty much every economist says we need mass immigration in order to improve the economy. Also immigrants contribute, on average, far more to the exchequer than British born people do, and are far less likely to receive benefits, use the NHS, or live in social housing.
Yet you choose to focus on them, again why do you focus on immigrants do you think? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"Im sure the residents of care homes being moved out will get comfort from that"
Incidentally, the care industry is massively reliant on immigration, it would collapse with it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
Im blaming lots of things ,not just immigrants , l focused on this topic this time , l have worked in the past with polish workers who were great people ,yet most of them sentvas much money back to Poland to build houses for themselves ,not right in my view.
Another thread was on on capitalist Mone , you just trying to make out l'm a racist . Which l'm not , l have employed lots of people beforevl retired , asians , troubled female apprentices . Just keep the care homes open then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Im blaming lots of things ,not just immigrants , l focused on this topic this time , l have worked in the past with polish workers who were great people ,yet most of them sentvas much money back to Poland to build houses for themselves ,not right in my view.
Another thread was on on capitalist Mone , you just trying to make out l'm a racist . Which l'm not , l have employed lots of people beforevl retired , asians , troubled female apprentices . Just keep the care homes open then. "
I’m not saying you’re racist at all, I’m asking you why you are focusing on immigrants in relation to the government choosing to reduce funding to councils? You chose to conflate the two things when there are many, many other things you could’ve mentioned. I’m just asking you why you think you chose to do that?
Also, you don’t think people should be allowed to work in other countries but spend money in their home country? Even when they have paid tax and NI in the country they are working in? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Their drain on resources has got to be found somewhere, do we need libraries? District Nurses ,Dentists? Or maybe get rid of the Navy or other armed services , Border Control must cost a lot ,get rid of that then , money can be found from anywhere ,maybe 10p on tax , the maths just dont add up to support mass immigration ."
Are you talking about legal migrants that come to fill unfilled vacancies, completely legal above board and make a valued contribution or do you mean those arriving by small boats? As you mention hotel fees I'm guessing the small boat side if things but I don't want to assume |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"All UK exports have been in the decline in recent years
Not according to the official ONS figures they haven't. Quite the opposite"
Export volumes down 12.4% since 2018. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All UK exports have been in the decline in recent years
Not according to the official ONS figures they haven't. Quite the opposite
Export volumes down 12.4% since 2018. "
Uk now imports lots more than it exports manufacturing is at an all time low |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 38 weeks ago
|
"All UK exports have been in the decline in recent years
Not according to the official ONS figures they haven't. Quite the opposite
Export volumes down 12.4% since 2018.
Uk now imports lots more than it exports manufacturing is at an all time low "
Indeed, we’re a service based economy and have been for decades. That’s one of the myriad reasons that Brexit was a stupid idea, but hey ho. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"what you have to remember is that companies like Amazon earned £30 billion in the UK in 2022 but paid zero corporation tax."
Amazon brought in £24bn from their UK operations in 2022. £9.5bn was spent on operating costs, and £12bn was spent on UK-based infrastructure. They didn't owe any corporation tax in 2022 because they didn't make any profit in 2022. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"All UK exports have been in the decline in recent years
Not according to the official ONS figures they haven't. Quite the opposite
Export volumes down 12.4% since 2018. "
ONS says for the 4 quarters until September 23 (latest they show with breakdown) exports to Eu increased 8.4% . Exports to non EU increased 13.7%. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"what you have to remember is that companies like Amazon earned £30 billion in the UK in 2022 but paid zero corporation tax.
Amazon brought in £24bn from their UK operations in 2022. £9.5bn was spent on operating costs, and £12bn was spent on UK-based infrastructure. They didn't owe any corporation tax in 2022 because they didn't make any profit in 2022."
Amazon UK Services made a profit of £222 million in 2022 and paid no corporation tax, in fact they were given £7.7 million in tax breaks by the government. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"what you have to remember is that companies like Amazon earned £30 billion in the UK in 2022 but paid zero corporation tax."
"Amazon brought in £24bn from their UK operations in 2022. £9.5bn was spent on operating costs, and £12bn was spent on UK-based infrastructure. They didn't owe any corporation tax in 2022 because they didn't make any profit in 2022."
"Amazon UK Services made a profit of £222 million in 2022 and paid no corporation tax, in fact they were given £7.7 million in tax breaks by the government."
Yes. As I said above, they made very large UK investment in fixed assets, earning them a tax break on UK investment. The same tax break that is available to every other company in the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"what you have to remember is that companies like Amazon earned £30 billion in the UK in 2022 but paid zero corporation tax.
Amazon brought in £24bn from their UK operations in 2022. £9.5bn was spent on operating costs, and £12bn was spent on UK-based infrastructure. They didn't owe any corporation tax in 2022 because they didn't make any profit in 2022.
Amazon UK Services made a profit of £222 million in 2022 and paid no corporation tax, in fact they were given £7.7 million in tax breaks by the government.
Yes. As I said above, they made very large UK investment in fixed assets, earning them a tax break on UK investment. The same tax break that is available to every other company in the UK."
You seem to be labouring under the false impression this is Amazon bashing, it’s not just them, this sort of tax loophole should be closed for all massive corporations like them. What are they going to do, not conduct business here? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"what you have to remember is that companies like Amazon earned £30 billion in the UK in 2022 but paid zero corporation tax.
Amazon brought in £24bn from their UK operations in 2022. £9.5bn was spent on operating costs, and £12bn was spent on UK-based infrastructure. They didn't owe any corporation tax in 2022 because they didn't make any profit in 2022.
Amazon UK Services made a profit of £222 million in 2022 and paid no corporation tax, in fact they were given £7.7 million in tax breaks by the government.
Yes. As I said above, they made very large UK investment in fixed assets, earning them a tax break on UK investment. The same tax break that is available to every other company in the UK.
You seem to be labouring under the false impression this is Amazon bashing, it’s not just them, this sort of tax loophole should be closed for all massive corporations like them. What are they going to do, not conduct business here?"
.These companies are providing the public exactly what they want at very competitive prices . We should be praising them for providing exactly what the public want at very competitive prices . Apart from direct employees Amazon use lots of local businnesses such as couriers , hauliers and warehouses .
They are subject to exactly the same tax rules as every other company. You seem to resent their success and the services that they provide to ordinary working people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP 38 weeks ago
|
The EEA immigrants l have no issue with , worked with lots over the years. As for the Polish worker l mentioned he was a great bloke , just never paid tax n insurance being self employed and not declaring his income ,easy to do at the time. If they are not contributing to the economy l can't see how they are not draining resources ,the queue round the block for a new dentist must be a clue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"what you have to remember is that companies like Amazon earned £30 billion in the UK in 2022 but paid zero corporation tax."
"Amazon brought in £24bn from their UK operations in 2022. £9.5bn was spent on operating costs, and £12bn was spent on UK-based infrastructure. They didn't owe any corporation tax in 2022 because they didn't make any profit in 2022."
"Amazon UK Services made a profit of £222 million in 2022 and paid no corporation tax, in fact they were given £7.7 million in tax breaks by the government."
"Yes. As I said above, they made very large UK investment in fixed assets, earning them a tax break on UK investment. The same tax break that is available to every other company in the UK."
"You seem to be labouring under the false impression this is Amazon bashing, it’s not just them, this sort of tax loophole should be closed for all massive corporations like them. What are they going to do, not conduct business here?"
This isn't a tax loophole, it's a well-publicised policy designed to get companies to invest in the UK, to stimulate the UK economy.
Your attitude seems to be that they have lots of money, and they can't run away, so let's take it off them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EEA immigrants l have no issue with , worked with lots over the years. As for the Polish worker l mentioned he was a great bloke , just never paid tax n insurance being self employed and not declaring his income ,easy to do at the time. If they are not contributing to the economy l can't see how they are not draining resources ,the queue round the block for a new dentist must be a clue."
To be fair you speak of a polish guy self employed not paying tax.
As an employed person for my own limited company I do not pay much tax. And so meany are now working like this to reduce there tax burden. Also like to do cash work but told it on hear its just small change by so meny.
My personal tax for last year was less then £1000 and CT tax is about £2500 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple 38 weeks ago
Brighton |
"The EEA immigrants l have no issue with , worked with lots over the years. As for the Polish worker l mentioned he was a great bloke , just never paid tax n insurance being self employed and not declaring his income ,easy to do at the time. If they are not contributing to the economy l can't see how they are not draining resources ,the queue round the block for a new dentist must be a clue.
To be fair you speak of a polish guy self employed not paying tax.
As an employed person for my own limited company I do not pay much tax. And so meany are now working like this to reduce there tax burden. Also like to do cash work but told it on hear its just small change by so meny.
My personal tax for last year was less then £1000 and CT tax is about £2500 "
Your pre-tax profit must be pretty small. Do you pay yourself a salary from Ltd or only dividends? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The point l make is government money is cut to councils who run care homes ,yet millions a day to pay for the hotels . Doesn't seem fair to me .
£1.8m per asylum seeker to Rwanda, another great idea from this government "
But that is what the people want!! Get rid of asylum seekers. Asylum seeking is however only going to get worse as the damaging effects of global warming progress. Get used to it! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Asylum seeking is however only going to get worse as the damaging effects of global warming progress. Get used to it!"
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but those claims will be easy to reject, as an asylum claim needs a "well-founded fear of persecution" from the claimant's state. Having your homeland made uninhabitable, whether by war, or climate, or a zombie outbreak, is not a valid reason for an asylum claim. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Asylum seeking is however only going to get worse as the damaging effects of global warming progress. Get used to it!
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but those claims will be easy to reject, as an asylum claim needs a "well-founded fear of persecution" from the claimant's state. Having your homeland made uninhabitable, whether by war, or climate, or a zombie outbreak, is not a valid reason for an asylum claim."
Yes it is as those with power will seek to subjugate the others, or eliminate altogether, because of lack of resources. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Asylum seeking is however only going to get worse as the damaging effects of global warming progress. Get used to it!
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but those claims will be easy to reject, as an asylum claim needs a "well-founded fear of persecution" from the claimant's state. Having your homeland made uninhabitable, whether by war, or climate, or a zombie outbreak, is not a valid reason for an asylum claim.
Yes it is as those with power will seek to subjugate the others, or eliminate altogether, because of lack of resources. "
and you really think other countrys are gona let asylum seekers in if the climate starts spinning out of control and resourses are scarce? Sorry to break it to you but they wont even be allowed to make it to mainland europe if it gets that bad, countrys will start looking after those who are already there and fuck everyone else |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Asylum seeking is however only going to get worse as the damaging effects of global warming progress. Get used to it!
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but those claims will be easy to reject, as an asylum claim needs a "well-founded fear of persecution" from the claimant's state. Having your homeland made uninhabitable, whether by war, or climate, or a zombie outbreak, is not a valid reason for an asylum claim.
Yes it is as those with power will seek to subjugate the others, or eliminate altogether, because of lack of resources. and you really think other countrys are gona let asylum seekers in if the climate starts spinning out of control and resourses are scarce? Sorry to break it to you but they wont even be allowed to make it to mainland europe if it gets that bad, countrys will start looking after those who are already there and fuck everyone else"
I agree totally! But the desperate ones will arm themselves and try and enter by force of arms. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Israel, Jordan, plus central American countries etc. first. They will head north and south. War is almost inevitable. Most people in the north think "I am all right it will just mean better summers" However, those in the areas being affected are thinking "Where do we go when we cannot live here any more? How will I get in?" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The EEA immigrants l have no issue with , worked with lots over the years. As for the Polish worker l mentioned he was a great bloke , just never paid tax n insurance being self employed and not declaring his income ,easy to do at the time. If they are not contributing to the economy l can't see how they are not draining resources ,the queue round the block for a new dentist must be a clue.
To be fair you speak of a polish guy self employed not paying tax.
As an employed person for my own limited company I do not pay much tax. And so meany are now working like this to reduce there tax burden. Also like to do cash work but told it on hear its just small change by so meny.
My personal tax for last year was less then £1000 and CT tax is about £2500
Your pre-tax profit must be pretty small. Do you pay yourself a salary from Ltd or only dividends?"
Yep pay my self £1047.50p a month
Lots of work is still cash.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Asylum seeking is however only going to get worse as the damaging effects of global warming progress. Get used to it!
I don't disagree with what you're saying, but those claims will be easy to reject, as an asylum claim needs a "well-founded fear of persecution" from the claimant's state. Having your homeland made uninhabitable, whether by war, or climate, or a zombie outbreak, is not a valid reason for an asylum claim.
Yes it is as those with power will seek to subjugate the others, or eliminate altogether, because of lack of resources. and you really think other countrys are gona let asylum seekers in if the climate starts spinning out of control and resourses are scarce? Sorry to break it to you but they wont even be allowed to make it to mainland europe if it gets that bad, countrys will start looking after those who are already there and fuck everyone else
I agree totally! But the desperate ones will arm themselves and try and enter by force of arms. Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Israel, Jordan, plus central American countries etc. first. They will head north and south. War is almost inevitable. Most people in the north think "I am all right it will just mean better summers" However, those in the areas being affected are thinking "Where do we go when we cannot live here any more? How will I get in?""
thats ok they have to cross seas pretty sure italy spain greece would blow em out the water before they got anywhere near there coastline lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
If it so stacked against them why do so meany get granted asylum.
Some even go on to commit crime but don't get deported they serve there time at tax payers cost. Then get released back in to the community.
Baby it time if you get kicked out of an old people home you go and stab someone and get locked in prison at least you will get care a roof an 3 square a day.
Because they will be at very real danger of persecution, torture, and death if they are returned to their home country. That’s how it works. To be granted asylum you have to show that to be the case, and that such a high percentage are able to shows how much danger they would be in, in their home countries.
Have you considered what it says about you that you are unable to believe that people who successfully get through a very difficult asylum process are genuine?
So explain how you prove you gay so there is now way you could go back to you country as you would be put in prison or killed. So they get looked after. But the old how have created the system that is keeping them safe have to move out of there care home due to lack of funding. Where is the justice for the OLD And vunerable. The burden on this small island is now to much to quick. In my opinion.
By All means let them come but and alow them to work but they should get no more then a 18 year old leaving child chare. "
It's not easy to prove being LGBT leading to granting of asylum. The whole process isn't easy for any asylum seeker. Thankfully, the vast majority of asylum seekers manage to prove and are granted asylum seeker status.
There's a high success rate, for those appealing rejection
'Between 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.', for example.
We have a duty of care, where needed, for all people in our country. That things are so bad, after 14 years of this lot, just highlights their inhumanity and incompetence, amongst other sickening traits. Divide and conquer works well, diverting attention away from where it's due. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andu66Couple 38 weeks ago
South Devon |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
If it so stacked against them why do so meany get granted asylum.
Some even go on to commit crime but don't get deported they serve there time at tax payers cost. Then get released back in to the community.
Baby it time if you get kicked out of an old people home you go and stab someone and get locked in prison at least you will get care a roof an 3 square a day.
Because they will be at very real danger of persecution, torture, and death if they are returned to their home country. That’s how it works. To be granted asylum you have to show that to be the case, and that such a high percentage are able to shows how much danger they would be in, in their home countries.
Have you considered what it says about you that you are unable to believe that people who successfully get through a very difficult asylum process are genuine?
So explain how you prove you gay so there is now way you could go back to you country as you would be put in prison or killed. So they get looked after. But the old how have created the system that is keeping them safe have to move out of there care home due to lack of funding. Where is the justice for the OLD And vunerable. The burden on this small island is now to much to quick. In my opinion.
By All means let them come but and alow them to work but they should get no more then a 18 year old leaving child chare.
It's not easy to prove being LGBT leading to granting of asylum. The whole process isn't easy for any asylum seeker. Thankfully, the vast majority of asylum seekers manage to prove and are granted asylum seeker status.
There's a high success rate, for those appealing rejection
'Between 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.', for example.
We have a duty of care, where needed, for all people in our country. That things are so bad, after 14 years of this lot, just highlights their inhumanity and incompetence, amongst other sickening traits. Divide and conquer works well, diverting attention away from where it's due. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Councils have had their central funding cut massively by the government, something has to give.
It has nothing to do with hotels being given over to asylum seekers, it’s just something racists conflate to make people think it’s the fault of foreigners.
Don't start labeling people racist because they would rarther the money spent on asylum was spent on care for the elderly and vulnerable.
As you said something has to give.. There isn't a magic money pot.
The government is making a choice to pay councils less money, that has nothing to do with the foreign aid budget, which is where the money for asylum seekers comes from. There are many things the government chooses to pay for yet for some reason people with a certain agenda always seem to pick on asylum seekers.
It’s never things like £1 billion support given to fossil fuel companies, or £465 million spent on Brexit import inspection sites that have never been used, or the HS2 land sold for £100 million loss. It always seems to be asylum seekers, funny that.
Because if you want a social security system, it only works if enough people are paying in to it. It totally breaks down if it has to pay for large amounts of people that have never and will never likely contribute. Most are not even geniune asylum seekers.
Subsidies encourage investment in the UK.
The asylum bill is now predicted to be multiple billions per year.
How come more than 3/4 of asylum applications are approved if most aren’t genuine asylum seekers?
Incidentally, the amount the government is cutting from council budgets is more than 4 times the amount it costs to house asylum seekers.
Partly incompetence and partly because illegitimate asylum claims are very hard to prove. People destroy there documentation and claim there from contries in conflict when really they are economic migrants looking for a better life.
At one point almost 20% of total UK asylum claims where from Albania.. a safe country that is on its way to being a EU state.
You are aware that people have to prove they qualify for asylum don’t you? The government does not have to prove they don’t. The deck is very much stacked against people claiming asylum.
If it so stacked against them why do so meany get granted asylum.
Some even go on to commit crime but don't get deported they serve there time at tax payers cost. Then get released back in to the community.
Baby it time if you get kicked out of an old people home you go and stab someone and get locked in prison at least you will get care a roof an 3 square a day.
Because they will be at very real danger of persecution, torture, and death if they are returned to their home country. That’s how it works. To be granted asylum you have to show that to be the case, and that such a high percentage are able to shows how much danger they would be in, in their home countries.
Have you considered what it says about you that you are unable to believe that people who successfully get through a very difficult asylum process are genuine?
So explain how you prove you gay so there is now way you could go back to you country as you would be put in prison or killed. So they get looked after. But the old how have created the system that is keeping them safe have to move out of there care home due to lack of funding. Where is the justice for the OLD And vunerable. The burden on this small island is now to much to quick. In my opinion.
By All means let them come but and alow them to work but they should get no more then a 18 year old leaving child chare.
It's not easy to prove being LGBT leading to granting of asylum. The whole process isn't easy for any asylum seeker. Thankfully, the vast majority of asylum seekers manage to prove and are granted asylum seeker status.
There's a high success rate, for those appealing rejection
'Between 2004 to 2021, around three-quarters of applicants refused asylum at initial decision lodged an appeal and almost one third of those appeals were allowed.', for example.
We have a duty of care, where needed, for all people in our country. That things are so bad, after 14 years of this lot, just highlights their inhumanity and incompetence, amongst other sickening traits. Divide and conquer works well, diverting attention away from where it's due. "
If the NHS has the same duty of of care should all AnE be seen within 30 minutes and ambulance be available no matter the cost and cut watting list to 7 days. All possible with large amounts of cash. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
