OT Border Control State of Emergency

[KerrAvon]

And that demonstrates one of the problems with this debate - 'benefit claimants' become 'low life scroungers'.

That very polarised viewpoint ignores the fact that a lot of benefits are paid to people who have the misfortune to be in low paid work.

That benefits are paid to people who are in low paid work also illustrates the difficulty that arises when a 'cost' is attached to benefit claimants (whether in a genuine effort or simply guff that is pumped out on Twitter). Low paid work can be work that is, perversely, very valuable to society, such as looking after the sick and elderly.

[Back of the net]

And that demonstrates one of the problems with this debate - 'benefit claimants' become 'low life scroungers'.

That very polarised viewpoint ignores the fact that a lot of benefits are paid to people who have the misfortune to be in low paid work.

That benefits are paid to people who are in low paid work also illustrates the difficulty that arises when a 'cost' is attached to benefit claimants (whether in a genuine effort or simply guff that is pumped out on Twitter). Low paid work can be work that is, perversely, very valuable to society, such as looking after the sick and elderly.

There is a distinct difference to people in low paid work than those sat on their arse milking the system.
I was referring to Cam saying nothings changed for some who imo see it as a lifestyle choice.
The tories and Liebour have rewarded these for years.
Lazy low life scroungers who expect everything paid for them.
The carers in nursing homes etc deserve more money without a doubt. Stop the benefits for the scroungers would be a good start imo.

[animallittle3]

There is a distinct difference to people in low paid work than those sat on their arse milking the system.
I was referring to Cam saying nothings changed for some who imo see it as a lifestyle choice.
The tories and Liebour have rewarded these for years.
Lazy low life scroungers who expect everything paid for them.
The carers in nursing homes etc deserve more money without a doubt. Stop the benefits for the scroungers would be a good start imo.

The problem is most of these people are totally unemployable , recreational drugs , alcohol issues , attitudes that are impossible to manage .

Those who'd end up working with them would see their motivation levels drop and they'd leave and the company would suffer massively .

It's just not worth the bother of forcing them to work , if these people really wanted to make something of themselves then it's far from impossible even if you start on minimum wage .

Even the much maligned Amazon is a starting point and have career plans , apprenticeship schemes and they pay 28k a year for full time hours .

Motivation comes from within and forcing people to work whilst solving one issue creates several more that are worse .

I look at them the other way , a life wasted , no structure , a waste of space with no pride .

[frogmiller]

The problem is most of these people are totally unemployable , recreational drugs , alcohol issues , attitudes that are impossible to manage .

Those who'd end up working with them would see their motivation levels drop and they'd leave and the company would suffer massively .

It's just not worth the bother of forcing them to work , if these people really wanted to make something of themselves then it's far from impossible even if you start on minimum wage .

Even the much maligned Amazon is a starting point and have career plans , apprenticeship schemes and they pay 28k a year for full time hours .

Motivation comes from within and forcing people to work whilst solving one issue creates several more that are worse .

I look at them the other way , a life wasted , no structure , a waste of space with no pride .

I a not sure if people can compute what you have written Animal.
Most people on here have been hard working family people that have provided the best they possible could do to raise a family often I would suggest going without at times to fulfill what they were brought up to believe.

Having someone living a life on benefits living a life equivalent to them without lifting a finger is understandable frustrating.

Although Kerr saw the other side of the coin and s suggested people using benefits for what they are and were designed to do and provide for is an easy misunderstanding of what people see on housing estates.

He is of course correct but unfortunately the abuse of the benefit system is rife and the easiest people threatened by the loss of their benefits are often the most in need.

[Shark27]

And that demonstrates one of the problems with this debate - 'benefit claimants' become 'low life scroungers'.

That very polarised viewpoint ignores the fact that a lot of benefits are paid to people who have the misfortune to be in low paid work.

That benefits are paid to people who are in low paid work also illustrates the difficulty that arises when a 'cost' is attached to benefit claimants (whether in a genuine effort or simply guff that is pumped out on Twitter). Low paid work can be work that is, perversely, very valuable to society, such as looking after the sick and elderly.

Wrong again Kerr, Cams point was regarding the amount of families where benefit claimants seem to pass down the family line. That would be why he uses the term ‘family business’.

There will definitely be a great number of people in this country who are fully deserving of their benefits.

[KerrAvon]

Wrong again Kerr, Cams point was regarding the amount of families where benefit claimants seem to pass down the family line. That would be why he uses the term ‘family business’.

There will definitely be a great number of people in this country who are fully deserving of their benefits.

I'm wrong? Look again. I wasn't commenting on Cam's post.

BOTN said So as well as our own low life scrounges. We?re importing them too. Great economic sense.

BOTN and you might like to 're-imagine' what he was referring to, but I'm just going to stick with what he was saying.

That there are many people in this country who are 'fully deserving of their benefits' was my point. And that includes both those who are born in this country and migrants. My second point is that trying to quantify the cost to the country of a benefit claimant (migrant or otherwise) is absurd unless you can put a monetary value upon the work they do.

Hope that helps.

[Back of the net]

And there are many people who are not deserving of benefits migrants included
Work shy , lazy scroungers done of them and migrants shouldn’t come here and get benefits 👍

[Shark27]

I'm wrong? Look again. I wasn't commenting on Cam's post.

BOTN said So as well as our own low life scrounges. We?re importing them too. Great economic sense.

BOTN and you might like to 're-imagine' what he was referring to, but I'm just going to stick with what he was saying.

That there are many people in this country who are 'fully deserving of their benefits' was my point. And that includes both those who are born in this country and migrants. My second point is that trying to quantify the cost to the country of a benefit claimant (migrant or otherwise) is absurd unless you can put a monetary value upon the work they do.

Hope that helps.

BOTN was responding to CAMs post. If you?re going to post on a message board you need to follow the posts. Yes, wrong again.

[Shark27]

Do you know what the figure is?

Raging, have you blocked me recently?

[ragingpup]

Raging, havSharke you blocked me recently?

Sorry Sharky. No I don't and I don't think anyone does. What EO was referring to was an OBR report that tried to examine, over a number of years approx costs of long term costs to the country of economic migrants that fall on benefits over x period of time. A number of online sources, with the usual integrity, somehow went viral online claiming that the same report concluded that each migrant on benefits cost tax payers 50k per year. But even a1 minute look at the facts shows that the report concluded nothing of the sort. It was a cynical distortion that quoted the report and shamefully went viral even amongst sources that should know better. All based on the simple fact that this is what these people, reading these sources, want to read. And then share.

All EO has done is read these fake sources, believed them, and then chose to try and share them on a footy message board. But in answer to your question, no one has the answer to your question. Simply due to the complexity of trying to trace x number of migrant benefit claimants vs x number of domestic (how would you even define that? How far back would you go??). It's extremely difficult figure to even get close to, not least due to parameters you'd have to use: how long would the migrant have had to be in the country? How long would they have to be on benefits? So, no, no one has these figures in anything like any reliable way.

[Shark27]

Sorry Sharky. No I don't and I don't think anyone does. What EO was referring to was an OBR report that tried to examine, over a number of years approx costs of long term costs to the country of economic migrants that fall on benefits over x period of time. A number of online sources, with the usual integrity, somehow went viral online claiming that the same report concluded that each migrant on benefits cost tax payers 50k per year. But even a1 minute look at the facts shows that the report concluded nothing of the sort. It was a cynical distortion that quoted the report and shamefully went viral even amongst sources that should know better. All based on the simple fact that this is what these people, reading these sources, want to read. And then share.

All EO has done is read these fake sources, believed them, and then chose to try and share them on a footy message board. But in answer to your question, no one has the answer to your question. Simply due to the complexity of trying to trace x number of migrant benefit claimants vs x number of domestic (how would you even define that? How far back would you go??). It's extremely difficult figure to even get close to, not least due to parameters you'd have to use: how long would the migrant have had to be in the country? How long would they have to be on benefits? So, no, no one has these figures in anything like any reliable way.

But you said his claim was false. Surely this means you know the correct figure?

[ragingpup]

But you said his claim was false. Surely this means you know the correct figure?

No it doesn't. It just means that the figure of 50k per person per year isn't a government statistic as EO claimed. It is a distortion of an OBR report which stated no such figure but in our age of wilfully spreading misinformation, still went viral with people claiming that the report gave this figure. No one, as far as I'm aware, as ever officially given the cost of a migrant on benefits per person, per year, probably due to how much each individual case can vary.

If going by your logic here, I could equally say that government figures say that the cost to the tax payer per person per year is actually ?50. And when you rightfully call that "*******s" I could say "well it must be true because you can't prove otherwise".

It's all nonsense, but because it suits people's agenda in building public resentment towards migrants, people spread it regardless, even if they know it's not true.

[Back of the net]

No it doesn't. It just means that the figure of 50k per person per year isn't a government statistic as EO claimed. It is a distortion of an OBR report which stated no such figure but in our age of wilfully spreading misinformation, still went viral with people claiming that the report gave this figure. No one, as far as I'm aware, as ever officially given the cost of a migrant on benefits per person, per year, probably due to how much each individual case can vary.

If going by your logic here, I could equally say that government figures say that the cost to the tax payer per person per year is actually ?50. And when you rightfully call that "*******s" I could say "well it must be true because you can't prove otherwise".

It's all nonsense, but because it suits people's agenda in building public resentment towards migrants, people spread it regardless, even if they know it's not true.

The number 1 reason why there is resentment of migrants is the inept, lying treacherous government.
Gaslighting us every day which most people see through.

[frogmiller]

A 22 year old Afghan national has been arrested somewhere in London for the murder of one person and the attempted murder of 2 others.

[Stansmate]

Wonder how he got here ???

Happening far too often - yet the idiots in charge do bugger all !!

Crappy times these !