British public wrong about nearly everything...
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
The Mailistas don't seem to be very annoyed by your post. It is more than three hours since you posted it, and there is not a single response.I'm a really nice guy, so I will give you a bit of advice on trolling.
You need to mix up 50% truth with a blatent lie.
You are also a bit of a leftie. As such you will be unable to take my advice.
You are also an intelligent lawyer, so you should be able to understand what I am saying.
I don't envy you your conundrum.
Countdown said:
Perhaps they haven't posted because its too difficult to argue against the evidence in the link? That was my assumption.
Just read this link.Didn't see any 'evidence' just half baked assertions.
example 'Back to the entitlements set out above. If we are to compare, as the original email does, a single pensioner, with a single asylum seeker, we see that the asylum seeker is entitled to £36.62 a week. '
This completely ignores the other benefits available, housing, health and what ever else there is.
Btw using tabloid headlines as a straw man to attempt to knock down is pretty funny. They are tabloids for a reason.
I have no problem with people spending their own money on what ever they see as good causes.
I am not happy for my taxes to be squandered in the same way.
Nic
NicD said:
Countdown said:
Perhaps they haven't posted because its too difficult to argue against the evidence in the link? That was my assumption.
Just read this link.Didn't see any 'evidence' just half baked assertions.
example 'Back to the entitlements set out above. If we are to compare, as the original email does, a single pensioner, with a single asylum seeker, we see that the asylum seeker is entitled to £36.62 a week. '
This completely ignores the other benefits available, housing, health and what ever else there is.
NicD said:
Btw using tabloid headlines as a straw man to attempt to knock down is pretty funny. They are tabloids for a reason.
Agreed. Unfortunately some people take tabloid headlines as fact. That's why this thread is helpful in pointing out the drivel that some of them print.NicD said:
I have no problem with people spending their own money on what ever they see as good causes. I am not happy for my taxes to be squandered in the same way.
Again, agreed. I feel the same way about my taxes. the problem is that each of us has different views about how their taxes are used. Whats "squander" for you might not be "squander" for me, and vice versa. Countdown
No doubt the quoted tabloid headline compares apples and oranges but the link states ' I am therefore, unable to find anything close to the £29,900 that the above print claims those seeking asylum in the UK are entitled to. It is simply a fabrication.'
Do you agree with that?
From memory, there have been several cases where so called asylum seekers have been provided with housing costing much more than £29,000 pa.
so saying pensioners are also entitled rather misses the point, don't you think?
Btw, all the quoting of Home Office definitions of asylum, pretty funny when most of the claimants have broken the basic tenet 'claim asylum in first safe country'.
Most of them are economic migrants, nothing wring with that provided the host country is able to use them to its advantage, but that is not the case in our sad, left/right struggle riven UK.
Nic
No doubt the quoted tabloid headline compares apples and oranges but the link states ' I am therefore, unable to find anything close to the £29,900 that the above print claims those seeking asylum in the UK are entitled to. It is simply a fabrication.'
Do you agree with that?
From memory, there have been several cases where so called asylum seekers have been provided with housing costing much more than £29,000 pa.
so saying pensioners are also entitled rather misses the point, don't you think?
Btw, all the quoting of Home Office definitions of asylum, pretty funny when most of the claimants have broken the basic tenet 'claim asylum in first safe country'.
Most of them are economic migrants, nothing wring with that provided the host country is able to use them to its advantage, but that is not the case in our sad, left/right struggle riven UK.
Nic
NicD said:
Countdown said:
Perhaps they haven't posted because its too difficult to argue against the evidence in the link? That was my assumption.
Just read this link....
example 'Back to the entitlements set out above. If we are to compare, as the original email does, a single pensioner, with a single asylum seeker, we see that the asylum seeker is entitled to £36.62 a week. '
This completely ignores the other benefits available, housing, health and what ever else there is.
...
NWTony said:
A pensioner would get more than that. As well as many of the benefits listed in your link they would get a minimum of £145 pension, winter fuel payments, cold weather payment, attendance allowance, and carers allowance for somebody looking after them. So it's incorrect for the tabloid article to suggest that asylum seekers are better off than pensioners.NicD said:
Countdown
No doubt the quoted tabloid headline compares apples and oranges but the link states ' I am therefore, unable to find anything close to the £29,900 that the above print claims those seeking asylum in the UK are entitled to. It is simply a fabrication.'
Do you agree with that?
From memory, there have been several cases where so called asylum seekers have been provided with housing costing much more than £29,000 pa.
so saying pensioners are also entitled rather misses the point, don't you think?
Btw, all the quoting of Home Office definitions of asylum, pretty funny when most of the claimants have broken the basic tenet 'claim asylum in first safe country'.
Most of them are economic migrants, nothing wring with that provided the host country is able to use them to its advantage, but that is not the case in our sad, left/right struggle riven UK.
Nic
There may well be some asylum seekers whose landlords get £29k in HB. I doubt it's many, and I doubt if its for any length of time. But the article makes it look as if ALL Asylum seekers are entitled to cash benefits of £29k when the reality is significantly different.No doubt the quoted tabloid headline compares apples and oranges but the link states ' I am therefore, unable to find anything close to the £29,900 that the above print claims those seeking asylum in the UK are entitled to. It is simply a fabrication.'
Do you agree with that?
From memory, there have been several cases where so called asylum seekers have been provided with housing costing much more than £29,000 pa.
so saying pensioners are also entitled rather misses the point, don't you think?
Btw, all the quoting of Home Office definitions of asylum, pretty funny when most of the claimants have broken the basic tenet 'claim asylum in first safe country'.
Most of them are economic migrants, nothing wring with that provided the host country is able to use them to its advantage, but that is not the case in our sad, left/right struggle riven UK.
Nic
Countdown said:
A pensioner would get more than that. As well as many of the benefits listed in your link they would get a minimum of £145 pension, winter fuel payments, cold weather payment, attendance allowance, and carers allowance for somebody looking after them. So it's incorrect for the tabloid article to suggest that asylum seekers are better off than pensioners.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but I suspect the "tabloid" is comparing the minimum amount a pensioner gets with the most an asylum seeker gets. Not every pensioner gets carers or attendance, whilst I imagine that since asylum seekers can't work, they get everything listed.Breadvan72 said:
That mentions the Leveson Inquiry.So does this:
http://www.thisiscornwall.co.uk/Devon-Cornwall-pol...
Rather than getting in tizz over the Daily Mail and their website I think most right thinking people should more concerned about that.
I think we need to sort out what passes itself off as a judicial system before we worry about the press and put constraints on them.
It seems that Hacked Off, like the judicial system, can't deal with the truth.
And it pains me deeply to agree with Ben Bradshaw MP, an ex-BBC man that did his own little rendition of the Alastair 'How very dare you' Campbell strop he did on C4 News, but against the BBC and 'editorial standards' for them mentioning 'sexed up' justifications for war.
And what's happened now? It's come out in the Brooks and Coulson trial that Blair advised her to do a 'Hutton'. Maybe one day Bradshaw will apologise for his railing against the BBC over 'editorial standards'?
And yes, your new Spyder is as visually stimulating as the average Daily Mail website 'wardrobe malfunction' exposure.
Edited by carinaman on Saturday 1st March 23:01
I tend to think of my old cars as driven by a tit rather than looking like one, but never mind that. My new Spyder is now my old Spyder, as I have got rid of it, and now have an HPE Volumex instead to satisfy my lust for rust and urge for electrical surge.
PS: apols for mentioning cars in NPE.
I am not quite sure what your point about Leveson is. I thought that the Inquiry rather pulled its punches, but I don't support statutory press regulation, because I trust governments even less than I trust newspapers. I don't think that you can judge the judicial system by reference to Public Inquiries, which are rather odd creatures. They may or may not have Judges in charge of them but they aren't Courts.
Did I mention, BTW, that I am a shameless w
e and got paid by the Daily Mail to challenge one of Leveson's rulings in the High Court? We lost. The Mail is a good quick payer, I must say.
PS: apols for mentioning cars in NPE.
I am not quite sure what your point about Leveson is. I thought that the Inquiry rather pulled its punches, but I don't support statutory press regulation, because I trust governments even less than I trust newspapers. I don't think that you can judge the judicial system by reference to Public Inquiries, which are rather odd creatures. They may or may not have Judges in charge of them but they aren't Courts.
Did I mention, BTW, that I am a shameless w
e and got paid by the Daily Mail to challenge one of Leveson's rulings in the High Court? We lost. The Mail is a good quick payer, I must say. Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 2nd March 21:44
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff