• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
One percent

Government in trouble for dealing with rough sleepers

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44093868

The government is to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds to European rough sleepers who were illegally detained and deported.

Figures obtained by the So-Called BBC reveal that in the year to May 2017, 698 homeless EU nationals were targeted and removed from the country.

The Home Office said no further action was being taken against European citizens for rough sleeping. 

Law firms told the So-Called BBC that at least 45 clients were currently pursuing claims.

Each claim is worth thousands of pounds, and varies according to the length of time spent in detention as well as other aggravating factors.

 

It seems the government is powless to stop our streets turning into shitholes. When are we leaving the EU?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dgul said:

If the EU want to know what's driven Brexit they could look at this sort of thing.

They wanted free movement of people.  I could accept that argument, perhaps.  Sounds like a good thing.  But then they go and spoil it:  Free movement means entitlement to everything.  But hold on -- that isn't what free movement means!  Tough.  But we've got advanced health and welfare systems that people could take advantage of.  Tough.  Surely it can't mean having to accept rough sleepers?  Yes it does.  Criminals?  Yup.

We could so easily have had Free movement but maintained a need for a proper job when coming over.  Had non eligibility for certain welfare payments until eligibility had been earnt.  Had the right to refuse based on a list of disqualifying factors (sex predator, say).

The system wasn't Free Movement but rather poor people move to the country with the best welfare for poor people.  

They could so well have just said that citizens maintain a link to their country of citizenship and that maintains welfare and other social provisions even if the individual works in a different country for a while.  That you'd have to change nationality to get the benefits of citizenship of a given country.  That makes just as much logical sense as what we got -- actually, more so, as it would have stopped 'benefit migration'.  But they didn't do that and the consequences have followed.

FWIW, it’s deliberate. The way you have laid it out here makes me think that the reason behind it is equalisation across the eurozone. Get poor people to move to rich areas, it brings them down and they achieve equalisation much quicker.  

Then, the one currency right across Europe makes more sense.  It is no use factories moving as all Europeans get paid the same for the same work.  Taxes are equalised and it just becomes a massive amorphous single entity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, One percent said:

FWIW, it’s deliberate. The way you have laid it out here makes me think that the reason behind it is equalisation across the eurozone. Get poor people to move to rich areas, it brings them down and they achieve equalisation much quicker.

Maybe not even equalization of wealth (after all, we have had free movement of people, together with large, persistent wealth imbalances in England, for decades). I'm wondering whether it's more the policy of an empire to break the ties of its citizens with their local roots. It's been an overt policy many times in the past (starting with the Assyrian empire), and I am sure has been pursued covertly by all multinational commercial organizations (of which empires are one example, and multinational companies another) ever since.

On the specific topic of the thread, there was an annoying woman on R4 this morning saying roughly (sorry, hazy recollection, as it was too early for me) that many of the homeless people had jobs, so this would cost Britain in terms of losing their economic contribution, too. Oddly enough, she was a bit light on details, and nobody from our dear institution challenged her to give statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BurntBread said:

Maybe not even equalization of wealth (after all, we have had free movement of people, together with large, persistent wealth imbalances in England, for decades). I'm wondering whether it's more the policy of an empire to break the ties of its citizens with their local roots. It's been an overt policy many times in the past (starting with the Assyrian empire), and I am sure has been pursued covertly by all multinational commercial organizations (of which empires are one example, and multinational companies another) ever since.

On the specific topic of the thread, there was an annoying woman on R4 this morning saying roughly (sorry, hazy recollection, as it was too early for me) that many of the homeless people had jobs, so this would cost Britain in terms of losing their economic contribution, too. Oddly enough, she was a bit light on details, and nobody from our dear institution challenged her to give statistics.

Interesting perspective. 

Re the they have jobs argument, the So-Called BBC is also saying similar. They have clearly all been comparing notes. 

The response should be, so in a civilised society a job does not earn enough to provide a roof over your head?  Right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BurntBread said:

 

On the specific topic of the thread, there was an annoying woman on R4 this morning saying roughly (sorry, hazy recollection, as it was too early for me) that many of the homeless people had jobs, so this would cost Britain in terms of losing their economic contribution, too. Oddly enough, she was a bit light on details, and nobody from our dear institution challenged her to give statistics.

Sounds like the usual half-arsed BBC reporting really. 'They have jobs therefore all is ok!'

I can't remember off the top of my head what the amount is that you have to earn to be a net contributor to British society - I think it's in the region of 30k - but I'm willing to bet that a homeless bloke with a job ain't hitting that mark. 

That's what irritates me about the So-Called BBC, it's always the 'nice' answer that trumps all. Anything that requires a bit of pragmatism or a modicum of thought is studiously ignored.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, One percent said:

Then, the one currency right across Europe makes more sense.  It is no use factories moving as all Europeans get paid the same for the same work.  Taxes are equalised and it just becomes a massive amorphous single entity. 

What they should have done is mandated a 'EU welfare system'.  All countries pay at least this amount (in Euro) to their citizens.  If they want to pay more, that's their problem, but the important thing would be that EU migrants would only be entitled to the EU welfare system in the country that they ended up in.

It would have to have been agreed by all parties, so practically it would have meant that the poorer countries would have had to have had some subsidy by the richer countries.  Okay, not ideal, but that way the poorer countries would have had a boost, and the richer countries would have had a little more in sales to the poorer countries.

Anyway, this way it would have had the double benefit of making staying put more attractive from a welfare point of view, and discouraging benefits migration.  And migration due to getting a much nicer job would have remained as a positive thing to do.

The fact that they didn't do this speaks volumes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dgul said:

What they should have done is mandated a 'EU welfare system'.  All countries pay at least this amount (in Euro) to their citizens.  If they want to pay more, that's their problem, but the important thing would be that EU migrants would only be entitled to the EU welfare system in the country that they ended up in.

It would have to have been agreed by all parties, so practically it would have meant that the poorer countries would have had to have had some subsidy by the richer countries.  Okay, not ideal, but that way the poorer countries would have had a boost, and the richer countries would have had a little more in sales to the poorer countries.

Anyway, this way it would have had the double benefit of making staying put more attractive from a welfare point of view, and discouraging benefits migration.  And migration due to getting a much nicer job would have remained as a positive thing to do.

The fact that they didn't do this speaks volumes.

👍

they could have done a lot of things differently and so much better. I’m wondering whether they think a bit of upheaval will get them to their end goal a little quicker 

they didn’t factor in though the U.K. voting leave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Southmartin said:

Yup, that was me. I actually used that in a public debate against a Labour and Green MEP. (Me on one side with a Tory MP against those two non-entities). At the end we had the entire audience laughing at them and mocking them openly. When I used that line it got thunderous applause.

Happy days ;-)

You are Boris Johnson and I claim my five pounds  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Southmartin said:

Yup, that was me. I actually used that in a public debate against a Labour and Green MEP. (Me on one side with a Tory MP against those two non-entities). At the end we had the entire audience laughing at them and mocking them openly. When I used that line it got thunderous applause.

Happy days ;-)

Superb. Got any more like that that you used in that debate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inflation rates differ all over the Eurozone, but there is no ability to vary interest rates on a regional basis. The only remedy is to allow people to move from the slowing parts to the booming parts where there is a shortage of workers: free movement of people.  That free movement was necessary was known from the outset. I've no idea why we have had to put up with free movement when we still have Sterling.

Incidentally, I was watching stuff on YT about the US's hidden 1980s plan to break up Yugoslavia, which the US found embarrassing because it was a prosperous state following communist principles. They achieved it through fomenting unrest through Albanian migration. It seemed to work. John Craven's newsround never mentioned any of this at the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Everentt said:

Inflation rates differ all over the Eurozone, but there is no ability to vary interest rates on a regional basis. The only remedy is to allow people to move from the slowing parts to the booming parts where there is a shortage of workers: free movement of people.  That free movement was necessary was known from the outset. I've no idea why we have had to put up with free movement when we still have Sterling.

Incidentally, I was watching stuff on YT about the US's hidden 1980s plan to break up Yugoslavia, which the US found embarrassing because it was a prosperous state following communist principles. They achieved it through fomenting unrest through Albanian migration. It seemed to work. John Craven's newsround never mentioned any of this at the time.

Always knew that John Craven was a 5th columnist bastard. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BurntBread said:

 it's more the policy of an empire to break the ties of its citizens with their local roots.

Interesting idea. Somewhere and Anywhere types of people. I think it is some form of Marxism to want to destroy all  natural forms of support, like relatives and neighbours, and to make people seek the teat of the state for succour. We've seen it in the UK with extended families destroyed because you are painted as a loser if you don't leave the village for the big smoke, and globalisation means there won't be any jobs in your village, and then the nuclear family is destroyed because men are beasts and the state will be your daddy,  and even well-paid people are now benefits claimants. Homeschooling is illegal in several European countries because the state needs to control what is put in people's heads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Everentt said:

Interesting idea. Somewhere and Anywhere types of people. I think it is some form of Marxism to want to destroy all  natural forms of support, like relatives and neighbours, and to make people seek the teat of the state for succour. We've seen it in the UK with extended families destroyed because you are painted as a loser if you don't leave the village for the big smoke, and globalisation means there won't be any jobs in your village, and then the nuclear family is destroyed because men are beasts and the state will be your daddy,  and even well-paid people are now benefits claimants. Homeschooling is illegal in several European countries because the state needs to control what is put in people's heads.

I would rather the state was responsible for education than a benefit seeker parent. I think. 

Transient workers. Been going on since the industrial revolution, if not before. Things got a bit more stable for the great unwashed post wwii. We are reverting to norm, with profit for the few being out above considerations of all else. 

It  isn’t Marxism. Pure unadulterated greed and raw capitalism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Southmartin said:

Actually yes.

In the closing statements the dippy Lab MEP said that we should stay in the EU "to help stop corporate tax avoidance"

I stepped up and asked the audience if anyone knew where the largest CTA scheme in the EU was run from... One guy shouted "Luxembourg" - Correct. I then asked if anyone knew the name of the man who set it up? No one knew, but the audience roared when I said his name was Jean Claude Junker - who is now head of the EC. So the MEPs idea to stop corporate tax avoidance was to put the person responsible for the largest corporate tax avoidance scheme in charge.

Before the laughter died down, I asked if anyone kept chickens, as I had a Fox who was really good at guarding them. They were toast after that.

You can't imagine the daggers she shot at me ;-) oops!

Brilliant! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, dgul said:

If the EU want to know what's driven Brexit they could look at this sort of thing.

They wanted free movement of people.  I could accept that argument, perhaps.  Sounds like a good thing.  But then they go and spoil it:  Free movement means entitlement to everything.  But hold on -- that isn't what free movement means!  Tough.  But we've got advanced health and welfare systems that people could take advantage of.  Tough.  Surely it can't mean having to accept rough sleepers?  Yes it does.  Criminals?  Yup.

We could so easily have had Free movement but maintained a need for a proper job when coming over.  Had non eligibility for certain welfare payments until eligibility had been earnt.  Had the right to refuse based on a list of disqualifying factors (sex predator, say).

The system wasn't Free Movement but rather poor people move to the country with the best welfare for poor people.  

They could so well have just said that citizens maintain a link to their country of citizenship and that maintains welfare and other social provisions even if the individual works in a different country for a while.  That you'd have to change nationality to get the benefits of citizenship of a given country.  That makes just as much logical sense as what we got -- actually, more so, as it would have stopped 'benefit migration'.  But they didn't do that and the consequences have followed.

That's effectively what triggered the Brexit vote, Cameron went to the EU to ask effectively to an exemption on benefit payments to anybody coming to the UK. As we all know was told, no chance as an EU member is entitled to what ever is on offer to a native, a reasonable position but cripples the UK as a relative wealthy nation with a decent social welfare system.

Very simple solution to that, change the benefit rules to be that you need 16 years continuous residency in the UK to receive any benefits whatsoever. Anybody born in the UK will automatically be entitled on their 16th birthday so no issue there, prior to that access to services such as the NHS is via your parents benefit entitlement (assuming they have met the 16 year criteria). 

I'm not sure why more wasn't made of Camerons visit to the EU during the Brexit debate or since, perfectly summed up their attitude and was as good an example of the UK's inability to have influence despite being one of the biggest contributor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gilf said:

That's effectively what triggered the Brexit vote, Cameron went to the EU to ask effectively to an exemption on benefit payments to anybody coming to the UK. As we all know was told, no chance as an EU member is entitled to what ever is on offer to a native, a reasonable position but cripples the UK as a relative wealthy nation with a decent social welfare system.

Very simple solution to that, change the benefit rules to be that you need 16 years continuous residency in the UK to receive any benefits whatsoever. Anybody born in the UK will automatically be entitled on their 16th birthday so no issue there, prior to that access to services such as the NHS is via your parents benefit entitlement (assuming they have met the 16 year criteria). 

I'm not sure why more wasn't made of Camerons visit to the EU during the Brexit debate or since, perfectly summed up their attitude and was as good an example of the UK's inability to have influence despite being one of the biggest contributor.

That's what made me vote for Brexit - the sheer arrogance of the EU of giving us the square root of fuck all and then Cameron pretending it was a great deal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, gilf said:

That's effectively what triggered the Brexit vote, Cameron went to the EU to ask effectively to an exemption on benefit payments to anybody coming to the UK. As we all know was told, no chance as an EU member is entitled to what ever is on offer to a native, a reasonable position but cripples the UK as a relative wealthy nation with a decent social welfare system.

Very simple solution to that, change the benefit rules to be that you need 16 years continuous residency in the UK to receive any benefits whatsoever. Anybody born in the UK will automatically be entitled on their 16th birthday so no issue there, prior to that access to services such as the NHS is via your parents benefit entitlement (assuming they have met the 16 year criteria). 

I'm not sure why more wasn't made of Camerons visit to the EU during the Brexit debate or since, perfectly summed up their attitude and was as good an example of the UK's inability to have influence despite being one of the biggest contributor.

Well, yes, but that goes against the ethos of the EU, so the next thing would be ECHR saying that that approach isn't fair.  No matter that it would be similar to welfare systems elsewhere; it would be the change that was racist, to the EU.

The answer would have been for the EU to declare a minimum standard of welfare to apply across the EU; that makes more sense given the megalomaniac characteristics of the EU -- they want to do this for everything else so why not welfare.  That way, the minimum standard would be set in stone, but as it would be achievable anywhere there wouldn't be any motivation for benefits migration.  Countries could offer more, but making it only for the countries citizens wouldn't then be a problem -- because the minimum standard would be available, and that would be enough to satisfy ECHR.

But the EU doesn't get involved in welfare.  It is very odd; as I say, they want to interfere in all other aspects of government -- it can only (IMO) be explained by welfare inequality driving migration being a key part of the EU's long term plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By JackieO
      Roper's and leftists feel the love for a somali criminal

    • By sarahbell
      Oldham Council
      https://www.uk.coop/COTY_Shortlist

      In Oldham, we began our co-operative journey in 2011, and it has been exciting and challenging in equal measure.Our whole-system approach has seen us actively encouraging residents to take part in decision-making, using our spending power to secure added social value for residents, as well as scaling even greater heights in terms of our partnership working – all of which are helping us towards our joint ambition for a co-operative future.
      We recognise the most effective way to design services and deliver the outcomes that matter to residents is to do it with them; or even better, to create the right conditions for them to do it for themselves. Our approach has seen us support the creation of the Oldham Food Network, a community-led network driving Oldham’s co-operative approach to food and growing. We also invested £400k in our Green Dividend programme, allowing residents to bid for up to £5k to make their local area greener and more pleasant place to live. This has funded 46 projects helping over 2000 households to create accessible green space in their local area.
      In Oldham co-operation is about creating the environment for others to act. We are building co-operation into the fabric of the town, building a place that is forward thinking and ambitious, where everyone has a choice, and every voice is represented. We use a simple formula: #ourbit #yourbit #result to describe our approach, where everybody does their bit and everybody benefits.
    • By One percent
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5418129/Muslims-burn-Pampers-nappies-cartoon-cat.html
      Muslim protests in India are calling for a boycott of Pampers products after claiming to have seen the word 'Mohammed' in the face of a cartoon cat which appears on its nappies.
      The lines illustrating the whiskers, nose, mouth and left eye of the smiley feline allegedly bear a close resemblance to the Prophet's name when written in Arabic or Urdu.
      The image on thew hygiene product has been branded an 'insult' to Islam by critics, and protesters have staged 'Pampers burnings'. 

       
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.