Spindle
Member
- Country
England
It grows like a tumor
Reform
- Topic starter Stirlingsays
- Start date
It grows like a tumor
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
I notice that today’s attempt by Reform to divert attention from the accusations of sleaze has spectacularly misfired, again. Yet it gets no attention here!
Suggesting that the Royal Navy can intercept boatloads of illegal immigrants and then dump them in France, without French approval, is just populist fodder for the intellectually dumb.
It’s rightly been rubbished by all. Except the intellectually dumb.
All this shows is desperation and malignant incompetence.
Suggesting that the Royal Navy can intercept boatloads of illegal immigrants and then dump them in France, without French approval, is just populist fodder for the intellectually dumb.
It’s rightly been rubbished by all. Except the intellectually dumb.
All this shows is desperation and malignant incompetence.
Teddy Eagle
Member
- Country
Scotland
Populist?
Burnham pledges to be 'relentless' in curbing small boat crossings
The PM says enforcement is being increased but there also need to be more safe routes into the UK.
www.bbc.co.uk
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
The fact that this non working community, who number amongst the highest on benefits, exist within that Islamic community centre. Objectively, you should take your frequently made message on work inactivity to them.
But you never would.
You raised it, so you obviously knew the place existed.
Right up your street then
Rent free.
How do you know if they are likely to suffer such problems? Most people look at crime statistics before moving, along with quality of life , schooling ( if required) and healthcare facilities
Not if they have a job, that’s the priority
Note to self, go and complain to specsavers who said my eyesight was fine.
When Wisbech turned around just saw your shoes Centurion
Meanwhile back at the ranch....
Reform has announced it will tow back to France the migrant boats.
Predictably the French are upset and say this violates international law. Well they would wouldn't they.
Of course international law is nothing but a series of treaties, take your pick which one you apply and respect, the French do.
I wonder if there is anything in International law about a country failing to control it's own borders and allowing people to cross over into another country? I'm guessing that somewhere there will be a clause stating countries have a right to defend their borders.
I do think it's a fight worth having. We are paying the French millions not to do a job. So we have tried the carrot approach so maybe a bit of Trump politics is called for, now where my stick.
Reform has announced it will tow back to France the migrant boats.
Predictably the French are upset and say this violates international law. Well they would wouldn't they.
Of course international law is nothing but a series of treaties, take your pick which one you apply and respect, the French do.
I wonder if there is anything in International law about a country failing to control it's own borders and allowing people to cross over into another country? I'm guessing that somewhere there will be a clause stating countries have a right to defend their borders.
I do think it's a fight worth having. We are paying the French millions not to do a job. So we have tried the carrot approach so maybe a bit of Trump politics is called for, now where my stick.
The International Law of the Sea requires the rescue of unseaworthy craft and them being taken to the nearest landfall. Yusuf and Farage are correct in this
1) The French coast guard are breaking this law by allowing the boats to continue towards the English coast
2) The RN would be acting entirely lawfully
3) We would be assisting the French in carrying out the job we are paying them a shed load to do
4) I agree that if this results in a reduction in the people trafficking the residents of the French towns currently under siege would be delighted
Easier said than done but that is the basic position
1) The French coast guard are breaking this law by allowing the boats to continue towards the English coast
2) The RN would be acting entirely lawfully
3) We would be assisting the French in carrying out the job we are paying them a shed load to do
4) I agree that if this results in a reduction in the people trafficking the residents of the French towns currently under siege would be delighted
Easier said than done but that is the basic position
My post is slightly tongue in cheek. Actually towing boats back to France would be a major escalation and should only be a last resort. Otherwise it would be another cod wars.*
The real solution is to follow the advice of the Mayor of Calais who pointed out that the UK is a magnet for migrants and that the best way to stop this is to identify why they prefer the UK over France.
Simply put we give them housing, food and money and endless opportunities to stay using the legal system (paid for by us) and the French err don't.
This is why the French have these unofficial migrant camps and we don't. Apparently once a migrant has successfully applied for asylum in France financially they are pretty much in the same boat as in the UK. The keyword is successfully, it is far harder to gain that status in France than the UK.
The bleeding hearts will point out that once in the UK we are a legal obligation to throw money at these people ad provide them with free legal, education, health housing etc even before they have applied or been given asylum. That is only true because of laws that Parliament has passed and could change.
Other countries do not do such "largess" and don't appear to be in contravention of the ECHR. So this is the real area that needs to be addressed. Stop giving out freebies and they wont come.
*For the youngsters. Icelandic gunboats and the Royal Navy played bumper cars during the cod wars. I could see the French Navy and the RN doing the same.
The real solution is to follow the advice of the Mayor of Calais who pointed out that the UK is a magnet for migrants and that the best way to stop this is to identify why they prefer the UK over France.
Simply put we give them housing, food and money and endless opportunities to stay using the legal system (paid for by us) and the French err don't.
This is why the French have these unofficial migrant camps and we don't. Apparently once a migrant has successfully applied for asylum in France financially they are pretty much in the same boat as in the UK. The keyword is successfully, it is far harder to gain that status in France than the UK.
The bleeding hearts will point out that once in the UK we are a legal obligation to throw money at these people ad provide them with free legal, education, health housing etc even before they have applied or been given asylum. That is only true because of laws that Parliament has passed and could change.
Other countries do not do such "largess" and don't appear to be in contravention of the ECHR. So this is the real area that needs to be addressed. Stop giving out freebies and they wont come.
*For the youngsters. Icelandic gunboats and the Royal Navy played bumper cars during the cod wars. I could see the French Navy and the RN doing the same.
Something for Reform to think about, from ChatGPT
Someone living in Britain during much of the 1960s might have been eligible for:
The welfare system was built around the post-war Beveridge Report model, with a strong emphasis on National Insurance contributions. Many benefits were flat-rate rather than earnings-related. Eligibility often depended on having paid sufficient National Insurance contributions. Those without enough contributions could rely on National Assistance (and later Supplementary Benefit). Historical reforms through the 1960s and beyond gradually expanded and reshaped this system.
Today's system includes a much broader range of support, including:
The biggest changes since the 1960s are:
Overall, the 1960s welfare state was narrower in scope but simpler and more focused on contribution-based insurance. Today's system covers a wider range of life circumstances—such as disability, caring responsibilities, housing costs, and low income—but is generally more complex and relies more heavily on means-testing alongside National Insurance-based entitlements.
In plain words back in the sixties if you didn't put in then you didn't get much out and what you did get was fixed rate.
Benefits available in the 1960s
Someone living in Britain during much of the 1960s might have been eligible for:
- Basic State Pension
- National Insurance unemployment benefit
- National Insurance sickness benefit
- Family Allowance
- Maternity Allowance
- National Assistance (means-tested)
- Industrial Injuries Benefit
- War pensions (where applicable)
- Widows' pensions and allowances
The welfare system was built around the post-war Beveridge Report model, with a strong emphasis on National Insurance contributions. Many benefits were flat-rate rather than earnings-related. Eligibility often depended on having paid sufficient National Insurance contributions. Those without enough contributions could rely on National Assistance (and later Supplementary Benefit). Historical reforms through the 1960s and beyond gradually expanded and reshaped this system.
Benefits available today
Today's system includes a much broader range of support, including:
- Universal Credit
- New Style Jobseeker's Allowance
- New Style Employment and Support Allowance
- Personal Independence Payment (PIP)
- Attendance Allowance
- Child Benefit
- Housing Benefit (for some existing claimants)
- Pension Credit
- Carer's Allowance
- State Pension
- Bereavement Support Payment
- Guardian's Allowance
- Maternity Allowance
- Statutory Maternity, Paternity, Adoption and Shared Parental Pay (through employers)
- Council Tax Reduction (local schemes)
- Free school meals (means-tested)
- Healthy Start
- Various energy and cost-of-living support schemes (when in operation)
Key differences
The biggest changes since the 1960s are:
- More support for disability. Modern disability benefits are far more extensive and are not solely based on inability to work.
- Housing assistance. Housing Benefit and the housing element of Universal Credit provide dedicated support with rent, which was much more limited in the 1960s.
- Support for carers. Unpaid carers now have dedicated financial support.
- Means-testing. A larger share of today's benefits depends on income and savings, whereas the original post-war system relied more heavily on National Insurance contributions.
- Universal Credit. Introduced from 2013 onward, it combines several previous means-tested benefits into a single payment for most working-age claimants.
- Family support. Support is available for every eligible child through Child Benefit, whereas Family Allowance originally excluded the first child.
- Complexity. The 1960s system involved relatively few benefits with simpler rules. Today's system has many more benefits, eligibility tests, and interactions between them.
Overall, the 1960s welfare state was narrower in scope but simpler and more focused on contribution-based insurance. Today's system covers a wider range of life circumstances—such as disability, caring responsibilities, housing costs, and low income—but is generally more complex and relies more heavily on means-testing alongside National Insurance-based entitlements.
In plain words back in the sixties if you didn't put in then you didn't get much out and what you did get was fixed rate.
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Yeah I would expect it would be for you Dan considering just how far up his backside you are.
My shoes comment refers
Stirlingsays
Member
- Country
-
England
Can't see it realistically happening.....it would have to be lied about because no one's going to vote to be the Turkey at Christmas.....especially boomers.
Boomers are the highest voting block.
A lot of these benefits effect them.....younger people get far less spent on them for obvious reasons.
I'm 57 now and I must admit, I do get a bit miffed for the deal the younger generation get compared to the grey haired.....The economic mess given to them now wasn't their fault was it? Because they didn't vote for these people. All the ladders are drawn up and well paid jobs are drying up in anything like the numbers they need, all while their rulers bring in a foreign young male work force to replace them......And on top of that boomers seem to want to kick them even more....all while not being willing to give up anything themselves.
Anyway:
Back in the sixties the average life expectancy was :
- 1960: ~71.1
- 1961: ~70.9
- 1962: ~70.9
- 1963: ~70.8
- 1964–1966: ~71.6
- 1967: ~72.1
- 1968–1969: ~71.7
To illustrate this more fully and compare it to today you have the graph below:
Getting rid of the benefits that provide for all these economically non productive people would certainly save the state money, but it would also bring that life expectancy down as well......I hear the argument 'I've worked hard all my life, paid my taxes'....and so on....Maybe all of that is true (I doubt it in the case of women). However, the brutal truth is that...even if you never took anything from the state all the way from 16 to 65, that on average all that tax paid in is used up after seven years on a state pension....Everything after that is dipping into someone's else's pocket.
In my view, nothing really changes until the system collapses.
Key comparison
| Period | Overall (both sexes) | Males | Females |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1960s (decade avg) | ~71.4 years | ~68–69 | ~74–75 |
| Recent (2022–2024) | ~81 years | 79.1 | 83.0 |
| 2024 (single year) | ~81.4 | 79.4 | 83.3 |
Last edited:
silvertop
Member
- Location
- Portishead
- Country
-
England
Commie bastards. I knew it!
Another pithy joke that needed explaining, HKPatriot.
Wisbech Eagle
Member
- Location
- Truro Cornwall
- Country
-
England
I have no idea why you think like that, although you are in good company here. This section of the site is full of such warped thinking.
No one in their right mind would welcome any kind of institution of that sort opening up on their doorstep, so to suggest I would be a “big fan” is malicious nonsense. I wouldn’t be.
That though is entirely different to understanding and respecting the need for our country to have to deal with the realities of a situation none of us want. We have obligations under international treaties. People make asylum claims that take time to process. Our means of doing so is overwhelmed so delays occur. We don't yet have enough purpose built facilities to house those needing to be housed.
Those who suggest simplistic solutions are misleading people irresponsibly. There aren’t any such solutions. The only way to overcome this is the long hard slog we are involved in, which is, very slowly, working. In the meantime some will get discomforted. It might be me, although practically I see no actual chance of that happening as nothing remotely suitable exists locally.
How we manage such facilities is an entirely different matter. Unless families are involved I see no reason why those being housed are permitted to roam in communities. I am not any kind of expert on the logistics and manpower required but secure facilities, well away from urban centres, with basic work expected in return for accommodation, seem sensible to me. They aren’t here on holiday. Keeping them safe and fed is all we should be doing. Alongside ensuring our lives are disrupted as little as possible. I see some signs of attempts to do this.