OT Border Control State of Emergency

[Shark27]

That's a completely different issue though. EO was claiming that legal migrants, people who entered the county legally, but are not working for whatever reason, cost the taxpayer 50k per year.

Well at least that's what the hugely misleading claim that went flying into social media feeds of EO and like minded gullible chums was talking about. Whether EO is also conflating the two things is also unclear. But the 50k per year false rumour is only related to legal migrants, nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

Do you know what the figure is?

[frogmiller]

That's a completely different issue though. EO was claiming that legal migrants, people who entered the county legally, but are not working for whatever reason, cost the taxpayer 50k per year.

Well at least that's what the hugely misleading claim that went flying into social media feeds of EO and like minded gullible chums was talking about. Whether EO is also conflating the two things is also unclear. But the 50k per year false rumour is only related to legal migrants, nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

It would still be interesting to see the figures all same.

[CAMiller]

It would still be interesting to see the figures all same.

I wonder what the figure is for 'born and bred' Brits? I only ask because some, who were on benefits when I left these shores in 1999 are still living that life on my return here in 2025. Shocking I know, but many of their offspring also seem to have gone into the 'family' business.

[frogmiller]

I wonder what the figure is for 'born and bred' Brits? I only ask because some, who were on benefits when I left these shores in 1999 are still living that life on my return here in 2025. Shocking I know, but many of their offspring also seem to have gone into the 'family' business.

Would they dare release all the figures?

Unfortunately it is a way of life for some.

[Back of the net]

I wonder what the figure is for 'born and bred' Brits? I only ask because some, who were on benefits when I left these shores in 1999 are still living that life on my return here in 2025. Shocking I know, but many of their offspring also seem to have gone into the 'family' business.

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

[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.