Hit and run - four months in jail and no deportation
Comments
-
bails87 wrote:
No because they (in the main) have made contributions to the state for 50 years...have you heard of the state pension......yes they can continue to work if they so wish and rightly so.0 -
Pudseyp wrote:
No because they (in the main) have made contributions to the state for 50 years...have you heard of the state pension......yes they can continue to work if they so wish and rightly so.
Yes I have heard of the state pension. Which is £96/week. Against the benefits for an asylum seeker which is £46/week. I wasn't saying we should take anything away from pensioners btw!
So is £46 per week really that much? Less than £7 per day?0 -
bails87 wrote:Pudseyp wrote:
No because they (in the main) have made contributions to the state for 50 years...have you heard of the state pension......yes they can continue to work if they so wish and rightly so.
Yes I have heard of the state pension. Which is £96/week. Against the benefits for an asylum seeker which is £46/week. I wasn't saying we should take anything away from pensioners btw!
So is £46 per week really that much? Less than £7 per day?
Ok so what do you suggest ?? perhaps we could pay you to stand at the ports and start giving out cheques and then sending them by luxuary coach to a nice big house in the county...
Also there is not set limit to what you can claim:
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/roap-benefits.pdf0 -
Pudseyp wrote:bails87 wrote:Pudseyp wrote:
No because they (in the main) have made contributions to the state for 50 years...have you heard of the state pension......yes they can continue to work if they so wish and rightly so.
Yes I have heard of the state pension. Which is £96/week. Against the benefits for an asylum seeker which is £46/week. I wasn't saying we should take anything away from pensioners btw!
So is £46 per week really that much? Less than £7 per day?
Ok so what do you suggest ?? perhaps we could pay you to stand at the ports and start giving out cheques and then sending them by luxuary coach to a nice big house in the county...
Also there is not set limit to what you can claim:
http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/roap-benefits.pdf
So unless you're from the EU or from a couple of select countries, you can't get any of the above. And the standard asylum seeker benefit for a single person is £46. there's no limit to what I can earn. That doesn't mean I'm a millionaire :?your link wrote:Most asylum seekers are excluded from most benefits. If you are an asylum seeker, unless you are covered by one of the groups listed below, you are not
entitled to any of the following benefits –
Income Support
Income-based Job Seekers Allowance
Housing Benefit
Council Tax Benefit
Social Fund
Disability Living Allowance
Attendance Allowance
Invalid Care Allowance
Severe Disablement Allowance
Non-contributory incapacity benefit
Working Families' Tax Credit
Disabled Person's Tax Credit
Child Benefit
I'm just pointing out that the image of asylum seekers being 'showered with benefits' is a load of rubbish (well, IMO, I wouldn't call £46/week a huge amount of money, you might), not suggesting we should give anyone free Aston Martins on the NHS.0 -
£46 is a shower of benefits compared to what many other countries provide
0 -
Briggo wrote:£46 is a shower of benefits compared to what many other countries provide
Exactly......why do you think they travel thousands and thousands of miles and risk death for £46....because at the end of the day they don't..they go to court claim breach of human rights and get a hell of a lot more....all before there case is concluded....0 -
Briggo wrote:£46 is a shower of benefits compared to what many other countries provide
It's not actually all that much, there's a fair few EU countries that offer more, or more benefits in kind. We don't have all that many asylum seekers either, we're only 8th in the EU.
What we are, is rubbish at processing asylum claims, which is why our reasonably small number of applicants turns into a disproportionately high number of resident claimants. People complain about the appeals process but around a quarter of all asylum decisions are overturned on appeal, which is nuts frankly- imagine if 25% of court cases was overturned on appeal.Uncompromising extremist0 -
I still maintain that we should be using prisoners for labour, as a way of teaching them skills and manufacturing things this country needs. It costs enough to lock them up, we may as well get some return on it.0
-
Gazlar wrote:I still maintain that we should be using prisoners for labour, as a way of teaching them skills and manufacturing things this country needs. It costs enough to lock them up, we may as well get some return on it.
Ah... Well, the US model usually ends up costing money rather than saving it... But prison factories ain't a bad idea apart from that, prisoners are often in favour of them too so it's not as if they're being whipped into working. Learn some skills, do something halfway interesting with your time. But then again we have loads of jobseekers so why take jobs away from working men and give them to convicts, is one of the counterarguments.Uncompromising extremist0 -
But could it not create jobs? Initially in construction and then employing skilled workers as supervisors and trainers? And the products we could target could be rather than imports or to address shortfall of equipment or stockpile reserves?0
-
Pudseyp wrote:Briggo wrote:£46 is a shower of benefits compared to what many other countries provide
Exactly......why do you think they travel thousands and thousands of miles and risk death for £46....because at the end of the day they don't..they go to court claim breach of human rights and get a hell of a lot more....all before there case is concluded....
I think you'll find in most cases they're leaving their country to avoid persecution and a very real threat of death.
I suppose when you only see people as money-grabbing leeches coming here for the (pretty meagre) handouts, it's easy to complain. If you see them as people trying to avoid being murdered by their own corrupt government.....well, it helps you see them as human beings rather than a drain on your finances I suppose.
There was some research released no thtta long ago that showed that many people coming to britain were unaware of the support available, and most illegal immigrants (a seperate issue to asylum) were brought here by people smugglers anyway, so they had no choice in where they went.
And the "human rights" stuff is an absolute load of rubbish as well. Have you got any figures on how majority of asylum seekers are suing the government for breaching their human rights and winning, when in fact the gov't hasn't done anything wrong? (I assume that's what you meant by "claiming human rights")0 -
I think if someone is in England illegally and they commmit a crime such as killing someone,the goverment should find out what his country of origin is then sentence him in the same way his country of origin would.
the goverment should take example on the french who doon't give immigrents any assistance whatsoeverI assume this is French petrol - be careful in reverse - the car will retreat rapidly at the least provocation.0 -
Lapierre t 400 wrote:I think if someone is in England illegally and they commmit a crime such as killing someone,the goverment should find out what his country of origin is then sentence him in the same way his country of origin would.
the goverment should take example on the french who doon't give immigrents any assistance whatsoever
Err....So if an Saudi man rapes your mum/sister/daughter he should get no punishment at all, but he should be allowed to stone the victim to death. Nice idea!
Also "if someone is in England illegally"..... If someone is here illegally then the gov't will be deporting them anyway. Or they won't even know they're here, in which case handing out 16th century punishments is a bit difficult.0 -
bails87 wrote:
Also "if someone is in England illegally"..... If someone is here illegally then the gov't will be deporting them anyway.
thats the official line but its no where near as cut and dry as that, by your own admision, most of these individuals are unknown to the government.
that said, as long as these fuckers arent committing crimes and whatnot other than being here, and as long as they arent costing me anything, i dont see the problem.
lets face it, my chinese food isnt going to cook itself and my car isnt going to wash itself and those hospital security isues arent going to resolve themselves either.
i hope my grandad isnt reading this in heaven, he would feel fighting all those muslims from world war 2 was a waste if his own grandson was advocating a load of johnnie foreigners be allowed human rights!0 -
I know the Nazis didn't like Jews but I don't think they were Muslims!
And yes, illegal immigrants tend to hide themselves from authority, but I was pointing out that if the government even knew they were here they'd be getting rid of them. So saying we should be handing out bizzare/non-existant/brutal punishments to people we don't know are here is a bit of an odd point.
What's with the name change btw? I once spent a night in Rhyl....0 -
-
yeah, it only takes a minute for the both of us though, no point taking any longer!0
-
bails87 wrote:Pudseyp wrote:Briggo wrote:£46 is a shower of benefits compared to what many other countries provide
Exactly......why do you think they travel thousands and thousands of miles and risk death for £46....because at the end of the day they don't..they go to court claim breach of human rights and get a hell of a lot more....all before there case is concluded....
I think you'll find in most cases they're leaving their country to avoid persecution and a very real threat of death.
I suppose when you only see people as money-grabbing leeches coming here for the (pretty meagre) handouts, it's easy to complain. If you see them as people trying to avoid being murdered by their own corrupt government.....well, it helps you see them as human beings rather than a drain on your finances I suppose.
There was some research released no thtta long ago that showed that many people coming to britain were unaware of the support available, and most illegal immigrants (a seperate issue to asylum) were brought here by people smugglers anyway, so they had no choice in where they went.
And the "human rights" stuff is an absolute load of rubbish as well. Have you got any figures on how majority of asylum seekers are suing the government for breaching their human rights and winning, when in fact the gov't hasn't done anything wrong? (I assume that's what you meant by "claiming human rights")
Bollockingtons...threat of death..so why don't they end up in another EU country many are easier to get to....why do some spend hundreds and even thousands to get to blighty....because they know the system that's why....the human rights bit comes in as they know the system...blah blah don't send me home....sob...I will be killed..sob...ok you can stay here's some money and a nice house, if it's not enough try crime..it often pays...
To be honest with you I don't as calous as it sounds, I don't give a shite if (if actually he would be) he risks persecution in his own country, we have enough poverty to deal with, rather than giving people handouts from other countries.....if we tightened the system and started deporting on mass (the ones we actually know of) word would get through and they would find somewhere else....lets look after our own, ensuring they have a good standard of living before handing money to these leeching cant's.....0 -
OK, I suppose I get why some people are uptight about european human rights laws. But I don't get why anyone would think they apply differently to the UK than to the rest of europe. Why would anyone travel across the EU to take advantage of our human rights laws when they're the same elsewhere? Makes no sense.
The UK does reject a lot of applications for asylum on the basis that the claimant has travelled knowingly through other safe countries, but often they don't have that much control on where they end up, if you travel through France in a box you can't really be blamed for not stopping there. Likewise if you've got one escape route you take it, you don't say "Hey, people trafficker, if you'll take me to the UK for £10000 will you take me to Spain for £5000 since it's closer?", you take what's offered.
The whole "nearest safe country" thing strikes me as balls anyway, why should the nearest country be stuck with them all and the second nearest gets none... Daft.Uncompromising extremist0 -
there's nothing daft about it at all.
if your sole reasons for seeking asylum are to prevent persecution, you would go to the nearest place you could to get away from it.
people travel through alot of countries to get to britain, an island.
again, the person i know who works in immigration tells me stories of people arriving with the labels cut out of their clothes which would have had a foreign language on it and could have given a clue as to where the immigrant has come from. these people will o anything to get away with staying no matter what.
be nder no illusion regardless of what reports say, the folk who come to britian know exactly what they are doing.
my friend told me loads of stories of peopl they happily recommended asylum to, women who had their hand cut off in foreign lands, men who had given evidence against the people who had killed their families and were in genuine fear for their lives.
as a decent god fearing compasionate and fortunate nation we definately have a rponibility to our fellow man.
how ever, for every good story there were a handful of "caught wanking at the cenotaph" stories too. plenty of people who had arrived in wagons from europe, on flights form africa which werent the nation they were fleeing.0 -
Northwind wrote:OK, I suppose I get why some people are uptight about european human rights laws. But I don't get why anyone would think they apply differently to the UK than to the rest of europe. Why would anyone travel across the EU to take advantage of our human rights laws when they're the same elsewhere? Makes no sense.
The UK does reject a lot of applications for asylum on the basis that the claimant has travelled knowingly through other safe countries, but often they don't have that much control on where they end up, if you travel through France in a box you can't really be blamed for not stopping there. Likewise if you've got one escape route you take it, you don't say "Hey, people trafficker, if you'll take me to the UK for £10000 will you take me to Spain for £5000 since it's closer?", you take what's offered.
The whole "nearest safe country" thing strikes me as balls anyway, why should the nearest country be stuck with them all and the second nearest gets none... Daft.
They are more pertinant in the UK overwise why would the feckers cling to axels of lorrys from France ?? the thing is this county bends over backwards and gets assfucked by the rest of Europe, we send them back to France what do they do...fack all knowing that they will be on the next truck to blighty...many of the feckers arrive take our cash but hate the western world, preach hate, settle in little click groups that become larger and then they don't want to intergrate so become secular...why should we get stuck with them when there is more than five plus countries thay have to cross....again money and we are soft touches...as soon as they arrive they have a right to health care and roof over there heads and food....I thought under UN law they should claim asylum in the next safest place....
Stick them in a house next door to you, and I bet you change your tune...0 -
Shock horror, the family living next door to me are from "abroad". They're lovely people. Quiet, polite, bring round xmas and birthday presents for us, help out the old folk who live next to them, look after our house while we're on holiday. This started out as an interesting discussion but a few of your comments seem to have a slightly sinister undertone to them.Pudseyp wrote:
Stick them in a house next door to you, and I bet you change your tune...
Oh, and I'll say it again, we don't have that many migrants here. France, Spain, Italy and Germany all have more in real and percentage terms. They are NOT "flooding" over here, for benefits, jobs or women. :roll:0 -
bails87 wrote:
Shock horror, the family living next door to me are from "abroad". They're lovely people. Quiet, polite, bring round xmas and birthday presents for us, help out the old folk who live next to them, look after our house while we're on holiday. This started out as an interesting discussion but a few of your comments seem to have a slightly sinister undertone to them.Pudseyp wrote:
Stick them in a house next door to you, and I bet you change your tune...
Oh, and I'll say it again, we don't have that many migrants here. France, Spain, Italy and Germany all have more in real and percentage terms. They are NOT "flooding" over here, for benefits, jobs or women. :roll:
So what the fook do they come here for then if it's not money, jobs or women ??
Whoopee do....there is an Asian family in our road, I don't throw eggs at their window...they have worked hard and have a nice house, pay there taxes and contribute to the state....and are British citizens (by birth)
Ok....in 2009 over 30,000 adult asylum seekers applied for applications to remain in the UK...so as you have told me £47 x30,000 =£1,141,000 per week = £73,320,000 per year....and that is just asylum seekers and does not include imigrants....so yes I am a bit pi$$sed of that I pay my taxes that I work hard for when the UK gives hundreds of millions away, and then if there application is accepted, benefits galore !!!0 -
Please don't think this is the only cost to the country as illegal or not they still make use of Health Service, Education System as well a further drain on the police and local council resources.
I have no problems with anyone coming from another country to this in order to make a better living for themselves and contribute to the system. Going back to the OP this person hasn't he has broken laws since arriving and killed someone. I and I'm sure 99.9% of the population including those from overseas don't want this person here either as he is an insult to those who have suffered and that require the protection and help of asylum.
Bails if it was black you'd argue it was white, I guess you're having a quite day.0 -
Princess Di would be proud...her and Jade Goody "UP WIV DA BABY ANGLES"Formally known as Coatbridgeguy0
-
If every one of them is on asylum seekers support for a year, then yes, but are they? I honestly don't know btw.Pudseyp wrote:Ok....in 2009 over 30,000 adult asylum seekers applied for applications to remain in the UK...so as you have told me £47 x30,000 =£1,141,000 per week = £73,320,000 per year....
Are these the immigrants who have to do 12 months work here before they're entitled to any out-of-work benefits?and that is just asylum seekers and does not include imigrants
Benefits galore? Fine that's your opinion. You keep giving me hyperbole when I'm using actual (real) numbers.....so yes I am a bit pi$$sed of that I pay my taxes that I work hard for when the UK gives hundreds of millions away, and then if there application is accepted, benefits galore !!!0 -
And my question STILL wasn't answered. What about all the horrible types born here that spend all their lives claiming benefits and commit crime? Bigger problem surely?Formally known as Coatbridgeguy0
-
CraigXXL wrote:Please don't think this is the only cost to the country as illegal or not they still make use of Health Service, Education System as well a further drain on the police and local council resources.
No, no, no, no, no! Overall, immigrants contribute MORE to the public purse than "born and bred" british citizens. There's only so many times I can keep repeating facts whilst being slapped in the face with tabloid/bloke-daan-the-pub-told-me nonsense. I *think* they're less likely to be in trouble with the police than us natives too, but I can't remember the source for that so I won't state it as fact.
Most immigrants, especially those due to the EU, are young men. They tend to be healthy (so no health spending) they don't have kids (no schools), they come here, work, pay a load of tax, then go home to have a family, get old etc.
As for the guy in the OP. Yep, he's a peice of sh*t. And he should be in jail. 4 months for killing someone is appallingly short.0 -
Dunno if I am a 'born and bred' Britiish citizen. In fact if you go far back enough, none of us are. I'm an Irish descendant who descended from Scandinavia!0
