RIB with 19 on board intercepted at 2am off Kent coast
Discussion
oyster said:
tannhauser said:
No idea - the whole western world as we know it is going down the pan. Besides, why should I have to go anywhere? A return back to some common sense and moral values would be a start.
Which period would you return to?1960's? AFTER mass immigration from the British Colonies.
1100AD? AFTER mass immigration from the Normans.
700AD? AFTER mass immigration from the Vikings.
300AD? AFTER mass immigration from the Romans.
Just wondering when was this immigrant-free and high-moral Britain you desire to return to?
On this last point, I agree with Kermit Power - government excess is by far our biggest enemy but, that said, given we've been failing to keep up with construction of homes, roads, schools, hospitals etc. etc. for decades, the is an argument that any and all immigration is having a very detrimental effect on the quality of life of UK citizens.
TTwiggy said:
Digga said:
the is an argument that any and all immigration is having a very detrimental effect on the quality of life of UK citizens.
Conversely, if you really want to see a massive drop in the quality of life of UK citizens, simply stop all immigration.However, right now, we can't really pick and choose whether we get car washers and fruit pickers, or doctors and engineers. That's pretty daft IMHO.
Digga said:
TTwiggy said:
Digga said:
the is an argument that any and all immigration is having a very detrimental effect on the quality of life of UK citizens.
Conversely, if you really want to see a massive drop in the quality of life of UK citizens, simply stop all immigration.However, right now, we can't really pick and choose whether we get car washers and fruit pickers, or doctors and engineers. That's pretty daft IMHO.
TTwiggy said:
Digga said:
TTwiggy said:
Digga said:
the is an argument that any and all immigration is having a very detrimental effect on the quality of life of UK citizens.
Conversely, if you really want to see a massive drop in the quality of life of UK citizens, simply stop all immigration.However, right now, we can't really pick and choose whether we get car washers and fruit pickers, or doctors and engineers. That's pretty daft IMHO.
We have a problem, however, in that we allow our benefits system to massively distort market forces if we allow people to turn up and start claiming.
Now, this is one of the key planks of the anti EU campaign... "The EU says we have to pay benefits to everyone, so we should leave the EU". This is daft, though for two reasons.
Firstly, if we leave the EU to get rid of a small number of undesirables, any savings made will be massively outweighed by the added bureaucracy and rigidity that would have to be introduced to get the desirable elements in.
Secondly, I'm not happy about paying benefits to someone from Bulgaria who has never worked here, but I'm not happy about paying them to someone from Basingstoke, Birmingham or Burnley who hasn't worked either. Why should I pay for people who can't be arsed to work just because they happen to be born here?
Change the benefits system so that nobody, regardless of place of birth can claim benefits until they've worked for at least two years and you immediately (and legally) remove immigrants from the system, plus also remove the far larger number of domestic scrubbers scroungers too, and if they have to go out and get jobs, there's less attraction to foreigners as well, as they'll face stiffer competition for jobs.
Kermit power said:
I absolutely agree that market forces could and should take care of the issue.
We have a problem, however, in that we allow our benefits system to massively distort market forces if we allow people to turn up and start claiming.
....
Change the benefits system so that nobody, regardless of place of birth can claim benefits until they've worked for at least two years and you immediately (and legally) remove immigrants from the system, plus also remove the far larger number of domestic scrubbers scroungers too, and if they have to go out and get jobs, there's less attraction to foreigners as well, as they'll face stiffer competition for jobs.
I agree totally. The sad fact is that there is no choice - there is no electable party that is not pro-big government and pro state dependence.We have a problem, however, in that we allow our benefits system to massively distort market forces if we allow people to turn up and start claiming.
....
Change the benefits system so that nobody, regardless of place of birth can claim benefits until they've worked for at least two years and you immediately (and legally) remove immigrants from the system, plus also remove the far larger number of domestic scrubbers scroungers too, and if they have to go out and get jobs, there's less attraction to foreigners as well, as they'll face stiffer competition for jobs.
Kermit power said:
I absolutely agree that market forces could and should take care of the issue.
We have a problem, however, in that we allow our benefits system to massively distort market forces if we allow people to turn up and start claiming.
Now, this is one of the key planks of the anti EU campaign... "The EU says we have to pay benefits to everyone, so we should leave the EU". This is daft, though for two reasons.
Firstly, if we leave the EU to get rid of a small number of undesirables, any savings made will be massively outweighed by the added bureaucracy and rigidity that would have to be introduced to get the desirable elements in.
Secondly, I'm not happy about paying benefits to someone from Bulgaria who has never worked here, but I'm not happy about paying them to someone from Basingstoke, Birmingham or Burnley who hasn't worked either. Why should I pay for people who can't be arsed to work just because they happen to be born here?
Change the benefits system so that nobody, regardless of place of birth can claim benefits until they've worked for at least two years and you immediately (and legally) remove immigrants from the system, plus also remove the far larger number of domestic scrubbers scroungers too, and if they have to go out and get jobs, there's less attraction to foreigners as well, as they'll face stiffer competition for jobs.
Do you think that people are travelling thousands of miles to claim benefits? Genuine question by the way, as my take on it is that people for whom 'the dole' is a career move will generally lack the gumption to undertake such a life-changing move. We have a problem, however, in that we allow our benefits system to massively distort market forces if we allow people to turn up and start claiming.
Now, this is one of the key planks of the anti EU campaign... "The EU says we have to pay benefits to everyone, so we should leave the EU". This is daft, though for two reasons.
Firstly, if we leave the EU to get rid of a small number of undesirables, any savings made will be massively outweighed by the added bureaucracy and rigidity that would have to be introduced to get the desirable elements in.
Secondly, I'm not happy about paying benefits to someone from Bulgaria who has never worked here, but I'm not happy about paying them to someone from Basingstoke, Birmingham or Burnley who hasn't worked either. Why should I pay for people who can't be arsed to work just because they happen to be born here?
Change the benefits system so that nobody, regardless of place of birth can claim benefits until they've worked for at least two years and you immediately (and legally) remove immigrants from the system, plus also remove the far larger number of domestic scrubbers scroungers too, and if they have to go out and get jobs, there's less attraction to foreigners as well, as they'll face stiffer competition for jobs.
If Poland were paying triple the job-seekers' allowance that we are, do you think that many of our feckless long-term unemployed would load up an old Audi 80, fill it with their family and belongings and head to Warsaw?
0000 said:
I think they'd do anything to avoid working for a living, so if they weren't getting enough for fags here, then yes.
Well, we're only trading opinions here, but I doubt it. It's a masssive undertaking to leave behind friends and family and head out into the unknown. It takes a degree of gumption that I simply feel is lacking in people who can't even get out of bed to do a day's work in their own town or city.If I could earn triple my salary in Poland, for doing the same job, I might be tempted, and 15-20 years ago I'd probably go. But I have commitments here and would have to think very seriously about just upping sticks and leaving. I'm quite adventurous and believe I have a good work ethic. But the idea of heading off like that, regardless of the financial benefit, would scare me a bit.
TTwiggy said:
0000 said:
I think they'd do anything to avoid working for a living, so if they weren't getting enough for fags here, then yes.
Well, we're only trading opinions here, but I doubt it. It's a masssive undertaking to leave behind friends and family and head out into the unknown. It takes a degree of gumption that I simply feel is lacking in people who can't even get out of bed to do a day's work in their own town or city.If I could earn triple my salary in Poland, for doing the same job, I might be tempted, and 15-20 years ago I'd probably go. But I have commitments here and would have to think very seriously about just upping sticks and leaving. I'm quite adventurous and believe I have a good work ethic. But the idea of heading off like that, regardless of the financial benefit, would scare me a bit.
TTwiggy said:
Do you think that people are travelling thousands of miles to claim benefits? Genuine question by the way, as my take on it is that people for whom 'the dole' is a career move will generally lack the gumption to undertake such a life-changing move.
If Poland were paying triple the job-seekers' allowance that we are, do you think that many of our feckless long-term unemployed would load up an old Audi 80, fill it with their family and belongings and head to Warsaw?
No, I don't think people are travelling here specifically to claim benefits, but if they know that they can travel here and we'll just throw money at them if they can't find a job, I think that makes it more likely that they'll come here rather than another EU country, and maybe mean they won't feel the need to get paying employment immediately if they don't find a job they particularly like straight away.If Poland were paying triple the job-seekers' allowance that we are, do you think that many of our feckless long-term unemployed would load up an old Audi 80, fill it with their family and belongings and head to Warsaw?
Kermit power said:
The NHS currently costs around £2,000 per annum for every single man, woman and child in the country, and it's only going up.
The State Pension costs around £2,800 per person, and it's going up even faster.
The remainder of our welfare bill excluding pensions is around £3,000.
So just on those things alone, before we consider defence, infrastructure projects, policing or anything else, we're looking at nearly £8k for every man, woman and child to run the country.
Thing is, not every man, woman or child is a taxpayer, are they? I worked the above out using a population of roughly 60 million, but only half that number are taxpayers, so just health and welfare alone are costing £16k per taxpayer per annum.
Whilst I don't disagree with your sentiment, (I agree with trying to make government spending more efficient, and taxation fairer, you're numbers don't tell the whole story.The State Pension costs around £2,800 per person, and it's going up even faster.
The remainder of our welfare bill excluding pensions is around £3,000.
So just on those things alone, before we consider defence, infrastructure projects, policing or anything else, we're looking at nearly £8k for every man, woman and child to run the country.
Thing is, not every man, woman or child is a taxpayer, are they? I worked the above out using a population of roughly 60 million, but only half that number are taxpayers, so just health and welfare alone are costing £16k per taxpayer per annum.
Much of the NHS spending goes on staff, who pay income tax and NI. They also pay the relevant VAT and other levies on stuff they spend their wages on. This applies to pensions and other benefits too. There may be an argument that those so called "benefits scroungers" (not your term, or mine, but widely used and understood) pay even more tax as they spend their money on highly taxed items like alcohol and tobacco.
As I said, I generally agree with the sentiment, but your numbers don't necessarily tell the whole story.
(Not a personal attack.)
louiebaby said:
Much of the NHS spending goes on staff, who pay income tax and NI. They also pay the relevant VAT and other levies on stuff they spend their wages on. This applies to pensions and other benefits too. There may be an argument that those so called "benefits scroungers" (not your term, or mine, but widely used and understood) pay even more tax as they spend their money on highly taxed items like alcohol and tobacco.
Unless many of these goods (tobacco in particular) are coming in from Albania with the repeated waves of immigrants or by truck as part of the organised crime gangs who are helping them in. Puggit said:
louiebaby said:
Much of the NHS spending goes on staff, who pay income tax and NI. They also pay the relevant VAT and other levies on stuff they spend their wages on. This applies to pensions and other benefits too. There may be an argument that those so called "benefits scroungers" (not your term, or mine, but widely used and understood) pay even more tax as they spend their money on highly taxed items like alcohol and tobacco.
Unless many of these goods (tobacco in particular) are coming in from Albania with the repeated waves of immigrants or by truck as part of the organised crime gangs who are helping them in. Puggit said:
Wow, it's just hit me!
As we currently have no naval small boats or coast guard worthy of the name to intercept these small boats, we can ask our European partners to help!
RNLI are briefed how to handle migrants as the number of boat crossings is expected to soar all along the South coast, not just Dover etcAs we currently have no naval small boats or coast guard worthy of the name to intercept these small boats, we can ask our European partners to help!
21TonyK said:
Puggit said:
Wow, it's just hit me!
As we currently have no naval small boats or coast guard worthy of the name to intercept these small boats, we can ask our European partners to help!
RNLI are briefed how to handle migrants as the number of boat crossings is expected to soar all along the South coast, not just Dover etcAs we currently have no naval small boats or coast guard worthy of the name to intercept these small boats, we can ask our European partners to help!
williamp said:
TTwiggy said:
0000 said:
I think they'd do anything to avoid working for a living, so if they weren't getting enough for fags here, then yes.
Well, we're only trading opinions here, but I doubt it. It's a masssive undertaking to leave behind friends and family and head out into the unknown. It takes a degree of gumption that I simply feel is lacking in people who can't even get out of bed to do a day's work in their own town or city.If I could earn triple my salary in Poland, for doing the same job, I might be tempted, and 15-20 years ago I'd probably go. But I have commitments here and would have to think very seriously about just upping sticks and leaving. I'm quite adventurous and believe I have a good work ethic. But the idea of heading off like that, regardless of the financial benefit, would scare me a bit.
I still think that the driver for migration is job/pay prospects and not our 'milk & honey' benefits system.
Back on topic, this I see as a major issue that will require some manpower to cull. There are thousands of cheap boats available, there are no licence rules to buy or own one, plenty are capable to cross the channel with some fuel.
Only the major ports have any type of controls, everywhere else is wide open.
Only the major ports have any type of controls, everywhere else is wide open.
cptsideways said:
Back on topic, this I see as a major issue that will require some manpower to cull. There are thousands of cheap boats available, there are no licence rules to buy or own one, plenty are capable to cross the channel with some fuel.
Only the major ports have any type of controls, everywhere else is wide open.
You cannot police the entire coast and you cannot police the whole channel/north sea. That said, I don't imagine a large number of people will cross this way as an open-boat navigation of the channel or north sea is not a pleasant experience.Only the major ports have any type of controls, everywhere else is wide open.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff