Pubs with good entertainment, Bulls Head and Sweet Soul, both in a row of restaurants and bars, street behind main shopping road, one with all the posh shops on it. Sort of level with Cleopatras hotel. Also Club Mystique is good swingers club.
J & S
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Geordiecpl2001
10 hours ago
Straight Male, 67
Bisexual Female, 63
0 miles · Tyne and Wear
Forum
Quote by starlightcouple
Don't worry though as they are all paying their taxes, in return for social housing and free use of the NHS. :doh:
True and the pictures of those sleeping under the M4..............well, according to Too Hot they will all be running successful Companies by now, employing us lazy Brits !!
John
Quote by Too Hot
UKIP's members are the same as the Tory members, but the thing which is so big for me is Europe and immigration. The other parties will do fuck all about that, and if UKIP can do anything then they are worth my vote for sure. I cannot be any clearer than that.
Can I remind you what you wrote in your opening post...
Quote by starlightcouple
.... Still am sure there will be plenty of Tory MP's who will be benefiting from the new higher rate tax cuts eh? No wonder they all kept silent when asked after the last budget and shifted uncomfortably on their chairs when they were all asked again and again, how many of them were going to be better off and by how much with the higher rate of tax dropping..
The poor have got shafted even more than usual....
Do you not see the idiotic irony of your post when UKIP are proposing a further tax cut of around 12% for the wealthy and what will actually be a tax increase for most who are currently low tax payers?
Let's also do some simple maths with you Star... Not something that any Politician would currently want to spell out but here it is anyway.
We mentioned in a previous thread that unemployment had remained fairly static at 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 for a number of years and you estimated that 5,000,000 migrants had arrived in that period. 5 million new people - static rate of unemployed. A reasonable inference would be that 5 million people have absorbed themselves into the workplace (migrant or native - it is irrelevant to the maths) and are now paying taxes and contributing to society.
As you know the problem at the moment is the country is spending more than it is earning and we need more tax revenue, not less. So the 5 million new arrivals - if they contributed just £1,000 each to the tax take every year - that is $5 billion a year collected. If you take a more realistic £5,000 to cover income tax, VAT, fuel duties etc - then suddenly this 5 million intake is contributed £25 billion to the UK treasury.Where would we be today without that? Let me tell you...
More cuts, more austerity, more pain, more suffering. Painful as it is - the country needs a bigger working population OR more savage cuts.
UKIP should get an award really for cleverly masking their extreme Tory policies by maintaining a populist focus on immigration and Europe. It is completely illogical for a natural Socialist to find appeal in UKIP policies and it unfortunately says a great deal about the UKIP supporter who has swallowed the bait and now believes that all our problems will be solved if we deal with the immigration issue.
The truth is that immigration is a sideshow, but just like Germany in the 30's the nasty foreigner is easy to blame for our self made problems. And just like in Germany there are plenty of bigoted activists who will happily ignore the real policies and focus on the populist agenda.
That paragraph is meaningless, because we don't KNOW what the Country would be like without MASS immegration which has occured. Note, I said MASS, no denying we need a small number of highly skilled people coming here, but it been the shear numbers over recent years which has had lots of established residents worried.
Maybe the UK would have gone towards greater automation in the factories, more R&D, less labour intensive processes. So perhaps the UK would have had a greater GDP tha way. Maybe you'll say it would not be possible, but the fact is as it wasn't tried its impossible to say.
The thing about UKIP is that all the established residents who have been saying for so long that MASS immegration is bad and being called racists for stating it, now have a chance, by voting for UKIP, to stick two fingers up at all the Politians who for so long ignored what the people were saying. Remember Gordon Brown calling that old woman from Rochdale a "bigot" for saying there were too many Eastern Europeans in her town?
John
Quote by Too Hot
If inward migration is such a good idea, why don't the Migrants who flock here go to, well lets say for example, Iraq, Mexico, India, China, Cambodia, South Africa etc? Or maybe North Korea, might be lots of ground-up opertunities there soon !
John
I am a 4th generation immigrant from another European country, my other half is first generation - she has been here 12 years. From our perspective the UK is a land of great opportunity where hard work and effort can be greatly rewarded.
I have nothing but pride for the guts it must have took my ancestors 200 years ago to cross the North Sea in search of a better life and my other half who transported her kids halfway across the world to give herself and her kids a better opportunity.
I realise that it is easy to make generalisations but people forget that to move yourself and your family to another country requires guts and determination and these just happen to be traits of successful people. Most migrants come here to work hard and to better themselves in life and broadly speaking they do that. This benefits our country and has done so since Roman times.
Ask yourself this... If you were long term unemployed getting £50 / week and you heard that the unemployed in Finland were getting £100 / week would you up sticks and move your family to Finland? My guess would be no. If you were a plumber and heard that there was a shortage of plumbers in Finland and you could earn a fortune - would you then go? An ambitious plumber would and a complacent one would not. It is this mentality that generally acts as a natural filter and so benefits the receiving nation.
Is it always going to work and be 100% correct - of course not. There was a great recent study of the Ugandan Asians who arrived in the 1970's and the overall benefit they have now seen to have made to British society.
So could you answer the question of why don't the Migrants who come here looking for work go to other Countries where there must also be great oportunities ?
After all you keep saying the rest of the World is full of people who are going to do much better than us, then surely we should see less people coming here, unless of course they are coming here for other reasons, like our healthcare or welfare state ?
John
Quote by Too Hot
Ordinary people suffer the most in times of crisis so if you don't want that for your children make sure they know that they have to be better educated, more highly skilled and totally self reliant.
For the jobs that will not be there TH?
Already we see over 2 million unemployed and nowhere near enough available jobs to fill those amounts of unemployed. Then later this year even more migrants being allowed to enter to suffocate the job market? Possibly a further to enter in the next five years and that intake will force lower wages and poorer housing.
And so what is the answer to a country swelling to over 70 million plus? The Governments seem to think this is not a problem, and when it gets to 80 million? What about 90 million? This country as much as I hate to say it, is finished as a great nation. When we have politicians and Chancellors FGS like Gordon Brown, who did not spot the banking collapse until it was to late, or sells our gold reserves at the lowest possible figure without giving it away, and you have to question if those people who make such huge mistakes have any more of a clue than the man on the street.
4) Whilst it is not good for the resident population rapid inward migration is economically beneficial for the country as it means that more taxes are paid. Balancing the fears of the resident population and still attracting talented migrants is the key.
If inward migration is such a good idea, why don't the Migrants who flock here go to, well lets say for example, Iraq, Mexico, India, China, Cambodia, South Africa etc? Or maybe North Korea, might be lots of ground-up opertunities there soon !
John
Quote by Too Hot
Remember that this guy is no more than a boy. His Dad may have been nuts but he was old enough and wise enough to understand the implications of his actions. This young boy has no understanding of the consequences of his actions and probably truly believes that he has the biggest and best arsenal of weaponry on the planet. He believes this because his Generals have told him so - to tell him anything else would be pretty foolish.
This boy is mad enough to push the buttons - I have no doubt about that. A precision strike is needed to take him out - for the longer term good of his people and the rest of the world.
Maybe we should merge this with the "Breadline" thread ? ie How will life be for the lowly Brits after the atomic dust has settled in the Far East ?
John
Quote by starlightcouple
Flipping heck people.
Yep and several Aegis destroyers have moved in to the area. News reports from America are shuffling their papers rather nervously and have stated the pentagon was a little hasty in its comments about NK...and the Pentagon thinks they it is their inflammatory comments that have stirred up this situation.
This is scary stuff Rogue.
China is Amassing troops on the borders.
That will be to prevent an inflow of N.K. refugees, rather than a plan to get involved in any war.
John
BUT BACK ON TOPIC.
I do think that Gov. Ministers of whichever party should get down and dirty with the ordinary folk for whichever Dept they represent.
We know that Parliment has long holidays. Why should the Minister for Health not push a trolley in his local hospital for a couple of weeks per year. Why not the Minister for Defence having to live in Service Housing for two weeks or be on board a Warship in a bunk for that time?
So if IDS is in charge of the Social Security Dept, I'd have no objections to him having to live on the amount that he says is fair for claimants. Personally I'd have him billeted in the home of someone who has to care for a disabled relative, who might be now having to pay extra for the "spare" bedroom. Then at least IDS could stand up in Parliment and say "yes, I've seen first hand that the amount of money provided is plenty for people to live on"..................or not.
John
I do think that Gov. Ministers of whichever party should get down and dirty with the ordinary folk for whichever Dept they represent.
We know that Parliment has long holidays. Why should the Minister for Health not push a trolley in his local hospital for a couple of weeks per year. Why not the Minister for Defence having to live in Service Housing for two weeks or be on board a Warship in a bunk for that time?
So if IDS is in charge of the Social Security Dept, I'd have no objections to him having to live on the amount that he says is fair for claimants. Personally I'd have him billeted in the home of someone who has to care for a disabled relative, who might be now having to pay extra for the "spare" bedroom. Then at least IDS could stand up in Parliment and say "yes, I've seen first hand that the amount of money provided is plenty for people to live on"..................or not.
John
Quote by flower411
Oh I see !!! It was simply a coincidence that the US flew these planes over North Korea at a time of high tension .....that`s ok then .
No they flew over SOUTH Korea, not the North. To fly over the North they would have needed their permission to enter their air space, which if they did not North Korea would have deemed that an act of war and shot it down.
You do know North is the opposite of south?
I love the idea of people actually believing that the US announce their flights over South Korea and believe that they didn`t fly over North Korea as well !
And can someone explain why it is that when a small insignificant country that never invaded anything makes threats they are called bullies but when a huge country with mega weapons and a history of invading anybody with a different culture,religion or political system they are called peacekeepers ?
Errr, which side was it that started the Korean War back in the 50s ???
And you assume that the B1s flew over North Korea, just because they can, maybe just to give the North Koreans an excuse to say the USA was invading them ??
John
Quote by flower411
We have all no doubt heard the stories posted daily coming from North Korea and the threats it seems to be making against America in particular.
Does anyone think these threats have any facts attached to them, or is it just Kim Jong Un playing a game for the benefit of his people? Is America taking them seriously and what if the worst happens and North Korea does strike an American base?
This seems to be North Korea flexing a few muscles but they do have the capabilities and the man power, but are they crazy enough?
Not sure who is being crazy. Why is it common knowledge that the US flew two stealth bombers over North Korea yesterday ?
Seems to me to defeat the whole point of having stealth bommbers if you are simply going to use them to try to stir up trouble with a nation that is just looking for an excuse to have go !
The B1 Spirts in fact only flew over South Korea as part of the joint USA South Korea military exercises.
John
Quote by Cubes
Seriously though, surely it really is a matter of averages. Some people weigh less than the optimal, others weigh more. Perhaps a better place to start would be a person's overall allowance. i.e. charge a set price to cover the person and their baggage. If you weigh less you get more allowance, if you weigh more you get less. Well, if I ran the world it would work that way. ;)
This idea I like !! Surely an encouragement for people to slim down.
John
Quote by MidsCouple24
From living near to Konigslutter, where many "homes" were set up for German Nationals that did not fit his "plan" mostly for the mental insane as he labelled the mentally disabled but also for aged citizens that had nobody to look after them, these homes are still there to this day and still occupied by the mentally disabled though all the older people sent there have since died.
The sub-humans of the east could be used as slaves but the older sub-humans were of no use to him so after the Jews were done with these were on the list with the Gypsies and Homosexuals.
's_main_goals_and_objectives
And for those who want the simpler copy and paste of extracts from that link
What were Hitler's main goals and objectives?
Answer:
Aldof Hitler wanted to 'exterminate' everyone who didn't fit his perfect model of the arian super-race (tall, fair skin/hair, blue eyes and christian) and he started with the followers of the jewish religion because he blamed them for the death of Jesus Christ. After the Jews Hitler planned to 'exterminate' every one who was crippled, disabled, ugly, of a different race/nationality and generally anyone who didn't fit his model.
I've never seen any documentories or read anything about a Nazi plan to wipe out the old. I'd believe that if you were old and Polish or Russian or similar defeated people, you may well starve to death due to German indiffernce, but I don't think old people would have been rounded up in the same way as the other groups mentioned were.
The reasons the Hitler used to give about his hatred of the Jews was that they had caused Germany to lose the first world war. International Jewry, financiers and bankers had conspired to defeat the German army of WW1 according to Adolf, not the Allied armies.
In fact a Canadian General of WW1 (forgot who) said that if the Allies accepted the Armistice the Germans will not believe they had been defeated in the field, he wanted to keep chasing the German Army right to Berlin.
John
Quote by MidsCouple24
OK, so WW2, if Britain had not declared war on Germany over Poland or arranged a peacedeal after Dunkirk, could we have co-existed with Germany ? Assuming Hitler didn't want a lump of the Empire.
And if we had co-existed with Nazi Germany would Germany have helped us in any war with Japan? IE helped fellow Europeans (were the British classed as Aryan by Hitler?) against Asians?
AH believed we fell within his ideal of the Arian race, our Jews would have been killed off but had we agreed peace terms after Dunkirk I believe we would have co-existed as long as we towed the Reich line in the same way he accepted Italy.
I think that as he was assisting Japan with some supplies and a lot of technology we would have had to end our war with them as part of any agreement we made.
We weren't the prize that France and Russia was, few natural resources at that time, divided by the Channel, with no real desire to own europe and without the rest of the world no threat to Germany especially a Germany that controlled all that they would have.
As the Japanese did not attack Pearl harbour until Dec 1941, we would not have been at war with them in 1939 or 1940, the dates I suggested that we may have made a pact with Germany. So if Hitler had the British Empire, not as allies as such, but "sleeping partners" for want of a better term, would he not have fought to preserve the British Empire colonies such as Burma from the Japanese who were hardly Aryans and had no real claim to any goodwill from Hitler.
So to go on with this flight of fancy, (nearly typed flight of fanny, where was my mind!) if Hitler did not become an ally of Japan, but Japan still launched its expansionist Pacific attacks, could we have seen the USA, Britain and Germany fighting on the same side against Japan? After all, the USA probably would not have got involved in a war in Europe if Britain was sidelined and Germany had already conqured France ect and was involved in attacking the USSR which was hardly a friend of the USA.
Yes, I admit to an over-active imagination !! But ain't it fun !
John
Quote by MidsCouple24
This one has to take us back to the "if's n but's" situation.
Morally speaking we have to believe the right side won.
The plan to murder every Jew, Gypsy, Mentaly disabled, Old person, Homosexual in the world is a very good argument for the moral stance. Who would have been next on the list ?
IF, AH had won, he would have been on the list above, his mental state was deteriorating quickly, he had many enemies within the German Nation, without him his henchman would have been on very shaky ground and probably deposed very easily.
His possible replacements were a little bit nicer, Dernitz who did suceed him for a very short time, Rommel was immensely popular especially with the Wermacht and it's Generals.
So, with a more caring leader, control of Europe, the Soviet Union, Scandanavia, support from South America and the United Kingdom (because to win we did prove he needed us to agree peace terms at the start) allies in Japan who would probably of controlled the far east, USA, Australia, India, Burma etc then it is possible the world could be a better place for many and hell for some.
The question is what would have happened if the USA had been forced to face Japan alone whilst Japan got massive German support instead of the small amount they did get and without having a base in Europe to take on Germany who would have been able to put their full military might against them instead of fighting on 4 fronts.
Got to take issue with one point Jed, where did you get knowledge of a plan of Hitler's to murder "old people"? The other groups are well documented as being victims of the Nazi, but never heard of old people outside of the groups mentioned being targeted by the Nazis.
John
Quote by Rogue_Trader
I accept without reservation that I was wrong about the Irish SS Battalion I was simply trying to show how I got confused, had there been no documentary about Irish involvement at all there would be no reason for my mistake and confusion so I wanted to explain about the other documentary.
I dont think anyone could have thought I was trying to defend being wrong when I so obviously was wrong.
Perhaps now we can all get back to the topic of WWII
So...did the right side win???
OK, so WW2, if Britain had not declared war on Germany over Poland or arranged a peacedeal after Dunkirk, could we have co-existed with Germany ? Assuming Hitler didn't want a lump of the Empire.
And if we had co-existed with Nazi Germany would Germany have helped us in any war with Japan? IE helped fellow Europeans (were the British classed as Aryan by Hitler?) against Asians?
John
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Saw all the mayhem on the news about the Southerners getting stuck in the snow !!!!
What snow? There was less than 1" on the roads on the reports I saw.
In the North, we wouldn't break out a 4x4 unless there was about 4" on the roads, 1" isn't a snowfall to us, it's a light dusting !!
Apocalypse (S)now !!!
Ok, I'm standing by for the abuse.
John
Well I'm a southerner and I live in Whickham... Geordies and Mackems can't really point their finger, not with what I see on my way in to work everyday!
Proved my point, you drove to work, obviously the Northern driving skills are passing onto you, the Southerners sat in the snow and whinged !!
John
Saw all the mayhem on the news about the Southerners getting stuck in the snow !!!!
What snow? There was less than 1" on the roads on the reports I saw.
In the North, we wouldn't break out a 4x4 unless there was about 4" on the roads, 1" isn't a snowfall to us, it's a light dusting !!
Apocalypse (S)now !!!
Ok, I'm standing by for the abuse.
John
What snow? There was less than 1" on the roads on the reports I saw.
In the North, we wouldn't break out a 4x4 unless there was about 4" on the roads, 1" isn't a snowfall to us, it's a light dusting !!
Apocalypse (S)now !!!
Ok, I'm standing by for the abuse.
John
Quote by MidsCouple24
Russia would have fallen to the German Blitzkreig had it not been for two important factors.
Adolf Hitler made catestrophic mistakes in his tactics.
Attacking too late in the Summer of 1941 which meant that his troops were in danger of having to fight a campaign in the coldest areas of Russia during the winter, he did believe it would be all over before the winter and his successes in Poland and France gave credit to that thinking. When operation Barbarossa started the German army advanced in stifling hot temperatures.
Adolf Hitler then made two more big mistakes, his decision to win Leningrad by seige instead of taking the City as they could have in 1941 meant that troops were again tied up instead of moving forward on Moscow, although 1.5 million soviets died in Leningrad the Germans could not afford the delay. the same happened in Stalingrad, Hitler had stopped using the excellent and at that time unstoppable tactics of Blitzkreig which could have had Russia beaten within a month or two.
And secondly Britain was still fighting, resources much needed in the East were being deployed on the Atlantic Wall and in Africa, the African campaign swallowed up vast amounts of men, munitions, armour and more importantly fuel, something Germany had too little of.
In Norway the threat of a British attack kept hundreds of thousands of German soldiers and equipment tied up for almost all the war.
The danger of a British Invasion of Scicilly and Italy threatening the German rear meant another waste of valuable men and equipment as well as hampering the supply chain to the Africa Korps.
Because of the British the Germans were fighting on 3 fronts (Britain, Africa and Russia) whislt having to maintain a huge occupation force in France, Holland, Belgium, Norway and Poland.
Alone we could not have defeated the Germans and thier allies (Finland, Italy, SS Battalions from Ireland, Ukrane and Yugoslavia we did provide the means for the rest of the world to unite to defeat them. Our fight in the far east, mainly Burma also assisted the Americans in what they believe was their own war against Japan.
Trying to consider all the mistakes and "what ifs" which happened to both sides during any war is probably any infinite exercise, but I could add about Hitlers Russia Campaign;
If he had ordered leaflet drops to split the Ukraine population from the Russian, by promising giving back the land which had been collectivised by Stalin.
If he had let his Generals make decisions based on operational requirements instead of interfering all the time.
If the Germans had concentrated on capturing the Russian oilfields, (no T34 runs without fuel).
If the Germans had produced long range heavy bombers to reach to the Russian factories east of the Urals.
The list could go on and on.
If anybody likes books, I'd recommend;
What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been
by Robert Cowley
There is also a second book, strangely enough called "What if2" by the same guy.
They go though "what ifs" from before the Romans to the present day, riviting stuff.
John
Quote by Rogue_Trader
I dare say a lot of Nazi sympathizers enlisted with the enemy, but don't make out that battalions of SS were crewed by the Irish. You made out that the Irish were providing support to the Nazi war machine!
IFS is the Irish Free State, you might know it as the Republic. It was a neutral country in the War having elected to stay out of it. Though it did support the allies by allowing flight across its airspace and it also helped the Atlantic convoys.
Actually Eire did not help the Atlantic Convoys at all. Prior to WW2 the Royal Navy had use of two Irish ports (I forget which, but they were on the Altantic side of Eire), also prior to the war, as a cost cutting measure and because of pressure from the Eire Gov these bases were closed. Come WW2 and because the British Destroyers & Frigates had to sail from Home ports which were further from America they did not have enough fuel to cover the whole crossing, which lead to the so-called "destroyer gap" where the convoys had no destoryer screen and hence were at more risk from U-boats. The Eire Gov at no time considered reopening these ports for the use of the Royal Navy.
John
Regarding the Falklands referendum tho. How could the Islanders voted for anything else? They were not given a viable alternative.
It was like asking a Newcastle United supporter;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you prefer to support Sunderland?" None would vote to change support !
But if the question was;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you be prepared to support Sunderland if we give you £10,000,000 to change?"
Then maybe you'd see how strong the support for the Toon was.
John
It was like asking a Newcastle United supporter;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you prefer to support Sunderland?" None would vote to change support !
But if the question was;
"Would you like to keep supporting Newcastle or would you be prepared to support Sunderland if we give you £10,000,000 to change?"
Then maybe you'd see how strong the support for the Toon was.
John
Well, sorry to do this chaps, but re the French / English debaters;
A little known fact, but easily verified by reading Churchills "History of the Second World War"
In May 1940 when the Germans were speeding into France and the British were falling back towards Dunkirk, the French Gov was totally in disarray, trying to organise defance as best it could, in temporary HQ, wondering if they could stop the Germans.
Churchill could see that it was unlikely the French could prevail and at that point offered the French Gov any "Act of Union with the UK". In other words for the two Countries to become one. France and Great Britain as one Country, don't know what the flag would have looked like tho !!
It would have allowed the French overseas colonies to fight on, would have put the French Fleet into Allied Control (we all know what happened to that later on) and prevented the Vichey Gov running most of France for the Germans.
The French Gov was in too much disarray to agree to the deal even if they had wanted to, but IF they had.................History might have been very different !!
John
A little known fact, but easily verified by reading Churchills "History of the Second World War"
In May 1940 when the Germans were speeding into France and the British were falling back towards Dunkirk, the French Gov was totally in disarray, trying to organise defance as best it could, in temporary HQ, wondering if they could stop the Germans.
Churchill could see that it was unlikely the French could prevail and at that point offered the French Gov any "Act of Union with the UK". In other words for the two Countries to become one. France and Great Britain as one Country, don't know what the flag would have looked like tho !!
It would have allowed the French overseas colonies to fight on, would have put the French Fleet into Allied Control (we all know what happened to that later on) and prevented the Vichey Gov running most of France for the Germans.
The French Gov was in too much disarray to agree to the deal even if they had wanted to, but IF they had.................History might have been very different !!
John
We've booked our hotel room for the Sunday night and we've also booked in for Sat 18th as some friends of ours (not on this site) want to go to Xtasia for the first time. Think there is a Uniform Party on the 18th and our female friend is a rather fetching schoolgirl.
So all we need now is some fun for Sunday daytime !!
John & Shel
So all we need now is some fun for Sunday daytime !!
John & Shel
Following a discussion with friends today, turns out that some people are happy to go to various types of events alone, but need to be with a friend to go to others.
Stuff I'm happy to do alone would be for instance, go see a band or a play, a football match or the pictures. I'd certainly want to go to a museum or picture gallery alone, then I could wander round at my own pace.
I could not go camping or holidaying on my own as I'd find that boring.
And I certainly would not go to a swingers club alone unless it was as part of a group meet.
Others feel the same way, or am I just different?
John
Stuff I'm happy to do alone would be for instance, go see a band or a play, a football match or the pictures. I'd certainly want to go to a museum or picture gallery alone, then I could wander round at my own pace.
I could not go camping or holidaying on my own as I'd find that boring.
And I certainly would not go to a swingers club alone unless it was as part of a group meet.
Others feel the same way, or am I just different?
John
Quote by MidsCouple24
From what I understand of the system, one of our biggest problems/costs in the benefit system comes via the EU laws.
This says that an EU member working or residing in the UK is entitled to all benefits available to UK citizens and vice versa for UK citizens living or working abroad.
The problem for us is that UK citizens are entitled to a lot more benefits than many of our counterparts from othe EU states, ie 40,000 polish children living in Poland recieve child benefit from the UK because at least one parent is residing/working in the UK, now I don't know for fact but I doubt that 40,000 UK children living here are recieving any child benefit from Poland. Other benefits paid to immigrants and migrant workers fall under the same rule.
I do know that many benefits paid to UK State citizens are stopped if the benefits office know you are living abroad, one example of that is War Pensions which may be stopped if you decide to reside abroad.
It seems to be another of those EU rules that is of greater benefit to people choosing to come to the UK than it is for UK migrants going abroad.
At a time when the government is looking to reduce the amount paid in child benefit it might be a good idea for them to bring this up in EU meetings.
Many EU countries pay no or very little in benefits making Britain the popular place it is for immigrants and migrant workers.
People waiting for asylum with no valid reason are another drain on our funds, I firmly believe that it is our duty to provide asylum for those in fear of thier lives, torture or imprisonment without a fair trial in thier own country or the even the country they reside in, but feel that someone arriving from (let's say Nigeria) via France has no case for asylum since they have already found safe (but perhaps not desirable) refuge in France, they should not even be considered for asylum but be treated as an immigrant wishing to reside in the UK, and as an immigrant we should be asking ourselves "what can they bring to the benefit of the UK" ie qualified doctors, nurses, investment, an ability to finance themselves or tradespersons in short supply.
Many countries such as the USA, New Zealand and australia have strict immigration criteria, we could learn a lot from them.
There were many asylum applicants who came to the UK to compete in the Olympics, they are all still awaiting descisons including the man whose asylum claim is based on the fact that returning to his country would result in him having to do National Service.
There are many "scroungers" in the UK who are not immigrants or asylum seekers but there are also many long term unemployed who are genuinly seeking work but simply cannot find a job that pays enough (without being greedy).
Perhaps a policy of "child benefit only for the first two children could be debated".
Perhaps a system whereby people taking lower paid jobs have thier wages "topped up" with benefits so that they would get the same amount of money each week that they currently recieve in benefits encouraging people to find meaningfull jobs whilst lowering the amount they currently get in benefits without taking it all away (now we have a minimum wage Companies should not be able to take advantage of that too much).
And on the subject of minimum wage perhaps we could look at having varying minimums, ie those in certain professions should have higher minimum wages than say unskilled jobs, offering the minimum wage to a law graduate would seem a bit wrong.
I have long supported a new form of National Service whereby the long term unemployed be required to train for other jobs as part of a National Emergency organisation that could assist with dissaters, floods, extreme weather conditions, trained to operate de-commissioned fire engines to pump water out of flooded areas, trained as medics, or simply to erect tents for evacuees, cook food for evacuees etc. This would provide a much needed UK wide service, whilst giving people a chance to earn thier benefits whilst assisting the nation.
We have many disused army camps that could be used as bases for the National Emergency Force. We could train people and have them available when needed run in Military style without the need to train them in any form of combat duties.
Welcome back Jed, and I agree with all of the above.
John
