Sidecut Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Your comments are extremely offensive, and you defame this chap:- nowhere in that article does it state he is illegal. he had legitimate employment which is only possible with leave to remain. Theories shot out of the water, much? He was illegal, how many safe countries did he cross to get to soft touch UK that can't look after its own pensioners without robbing them of their savings? What enouragment/incentive is it for young people to work when they see this common occurance like this guy along with the likes of Abu Hamza and the other piece of terrorist trash who is fighting extradition getting thousands in benefits that these young people are expected to work for to pay the taxes that provide these scroungers with our money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidecut Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Your comments are extremely offensive, and you defame this chap:- nowhere in that article does it state he is illegal. he had legitimate employment which is only possible with leave to remain. Theories shot out of the water, much? Some people can't stand the truth, wonder why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidecut Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 That's your solution? So you replace a small number of machines with hundreds of thousands of workers? Who does the admin that controls the hundreds of thousands of workers? Who insures them? Who tracks their activity? How is health and safety ensured? Who supervises them? How are they transported? Who pays for the transport? Who buys all the new equipment? Who maintains the equipment? How much does all this cost? If you said we invest in infrastructure and start training unemployed people to be the next generation of network engineers, power grid engineers, construction specialists etc... then I would agree. But ploughing all that money into inefficiently maintaining streets is a waste. And of course if we invest in infrastructure that leads to solid economic growth then we can have as many efficient mechanised street sweepers as we need. Couldn't have put it better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 That's your solution? So you replace a small number of machines with hundreds of thousands of workers? No, it’s one of many, you wouldn't employ all of them sweeping roads. Who does the admin that controls the hundreds of thousands of workers? Not all benefits claimants could do manual work, but many could do admin and use a computer. Who insures them? The state already insures everyone by supporting people that can't work. Who tracks their activity? How is health and safety ensured? Who supervises them? Not all claimants are thick, some have years of experience but find themselves but on the scrap heap when they get to 50ish. So whilst some are suitable for sweeping some are more suited to supervising, and other suited to admin. How are they transported? Who pays for the transport? Who buys all the new equipment? Who maintains the equipment? Most towns and village have unemployed so why would they need transporting; walking up to 5 miles wouldn’t do anyone any harm. The equipment is basic and cheap and would be maintained by others that has no work to do, and we already buy expensive equipment to cut grass and clean streets so it would be cheaper. If you said we invest in infrastructure and start training unemployed people to be the next generation of network engineers, power grid engineers, construction specialists etc... then I would agree. But ploughing all that money into inefficiently maintaining streets is a waste. And of course if we invest in infrastructure that leads to solid economic growth then we can have as many efficient mechanised street sweepers as we need. What infrastructure projects will cost very little and employ everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 He was illegal, how many safe countries did he cross to get to soft touch UK that can't look after its own pensioners without robbing them of their savings? What enouragment/incentive is it for young people to work when they see this common occurance like this guy along with the likes of Abu Hamza and the other piece of terrorist trash who is fighting extradition getting thousands in benefits that these young people are expected to work for to pay the taxes that provide these scroungers with our money? I'm typing this slowly, this time, so that you understand what I am writing. Man obtains "leave to remain". Therefore, man not illegal. Comprende? It's like talking to Father Dougal... "Small.. Far away..." "leave to remain... Man not illegal..." I've boiled the concept down to it's simplest form. Not illegal = right to be housed and right to take up employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidecut Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Once here they don't tend to claim asylum until they are caught but generally go undergo in their ethnic communities working in the family business for peanuts or find dodgy employment elsewhere. The truth is the Home Office/UKBA are massively understaffed and underfunded and that's even without the proposed 33% staffing cuts. What do you suggest, that the UK public should stop and interrogate everyone they find suspicious? Which is a bogus claim anyway, if it was a genuine claim they'd have gone to the nearest safe country/state or claimed on arrival. You're also implying that there is an awful lot of corruption in the ethnic communities Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidecut Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 I'm typing this slowly, this time, so that you understand what I am writing. Man obtains "leave to remain". Therefore, man not illegal. Comprende? It's like talking to Father Dougal... "Small.. Far away..." "leave to remain... Man not illegal..." I've boiled the concept down to it's simplest form. Not illegal = right to be housed and right to take up employment. Which part of 'HE PASSED OVER/THROUGH MANY SAFE COUNTRIES WELL BEFORE ARRIVING IN THE UK' therefore his claim was not legitimate. Or did he arrive by Concorde 1st class Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidecut Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 No, it’s one of many, you wouldn't employ all of them sweeping roads. Not all benefits claimants could do manual work, but many could do admin and use a computer. The state already insures everyone by supporting people that can't work. Not all claimants are thick, some have years of experience but find themselves but on the scrap heap when they get to 50ish. So whilst some are suitable for sweeping some are more suited to supervising, and other suited to admin. Most towns and village have unemployed so why would they need transporting; walking up to 5 miles wouldn’t do anyone any harm. The equipment is basic and cheap and would be maintained by others that has no work to do, and we already buy expensive equipment to cut grass and clean streets so it would be cheaper. What infrastructure projects will cost very little and employ everyone? There is already a worforce available sitting on their backsides in prisons with people already in charge of them, why don't you pick on them first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carolynqk Posted June 4, 2012 Share Posted June 4, 2012 Not full-time work then, I presume? could he not get working tax credit to make his wage up as hes under 25? ask at the tax office in town across the road from wickes. c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 4, 2012 Author Share Posted June 4, 2012 There is already a worforce available sitting on their backsides in prisons with people already in charge of them, why don't you pick on them first? I already did on a different topic about prisons and making prisoners work, but it isn’t about picking on anyone, it’s about getting people to take some responsibility for themselves and creating enough work for everyone, even if it means some have to pick up litter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.