We're All In This Together .....

[Flosshilde]

That's your reading. You have singled them out. I have placed them alongside bankers, tax avoiders, middle class dodgers, working class dodgers in my own family and all the others who would laugh while kicking the frail into the gutter.

No, you didn't. You posted a link to the first story, but the text of the second, without giving a source. That does give the second rather more weight.

Yes, on the first point, that's the Daily Mail's agenda. It isn't mine. I'm not very clannish. I would even be prepared to quote John Redwood if he ever said something with which I agreed and my gut instinct there is that he is mad, evil and always wrong.

& the Mail isn't? :erm:

I'm afraid I think some asylum seekers are cheats.

Asylum seekers cannot be 'cheats'. They are seeking asylum from violence & prejudice. We have legal obligations, under international treaties, to offer them asylum, & that comes with obligations to make sure they are not destitute. They are not trying to obtain something they are not entitled to.

I wouldn't be demanding a £2 million pound house in the equivalent place to Hampstead, knowing that others, some of them originally from my own country, were dying on the streets.

We don't need those kinds of attitudes here. We have more than enough of our own in that category already and, yes, officials are the bigger part of the problem with the Government ultimately culpable.

You have absolutely no idea what they 'demanded', nor if they 'demanded' anything at all. All you seem to know about them has been gleaned from an article in the Mail. If you think this would give you any dort of reliable information you are deluded.

The attitudes we don't need are those of the Daily Mail and the BNP - which you do seem to concur with.

(& there isn't anywhere 'equivelant' to Hampstead - Hampstead is unique)

[Lateralthinking1]

The text also came from the Daily Mail. It was text because it was in a box which had no separate link so I couldn't copy it.

I am afraid, flossie, that what you are saying doesn't represent me at all accurately. I am not arguing against asylum seekers and never have done. Appropriate support would enable us to help more.

Many of those working locally on behalf of the homeless are concerned about an inability to help those who are already homeless. We have Lunar House. A large number of people living on our streets are single East Europeans. They were given to understand that they would receive help but are not getting it. Some are turning to drink and in an awful situation.

I most certainly do not concur with the BNP and have a very strong record on race relations.

We need to use our money more wisely.

[ahinton]

Asylum seekers cannot be 'cheats'. They are seeking asylum from violence & prejudice. We have legal obligations, under international treaties, to offer them asylum, & that comes with obligations to make sure they are not destitute. They are not trying to obtain something they are not entitled to.

Oh yes they can! But they are not all cheats and should not be branded as such, especially by mere virtue of being asylum seekers. Asylum seeking is not in and of itself synonymous with cheating but the two are not by definition mutually exclusive; it's perfectly possible to be one or the other or both or neither. That said, asylum seekers - provided that it can be proved that they are genuine asylum seekers - do indeed have rights and entitlements, as indeed they should.

You have absolutely no idea what they 'demanded', nor if they 'demanded' anything at all. All you seem to know about them has been gleaned from an article in the Mail. If you think this would give you any dort of reliable information you are deluded.

Indeed - and, after all, with what power to exercise rights would or could they have issued any such "demands" per se with an expectation that they would be met?

[Flosshilde]

The text also came from the Daily Mail. It was text because it was in a box which had no separate link so I couldn't copy it.

When I found it (by accident) it was an article on its own page. However, even if you couldn't link to it, it might have been more honest & open to credit it.

I am afraid, flossie, that what you are saying doesn't represent me at all accurately. I am not arguing against asylum seekers and never have done. Appropriate support would enable us to help more.

I don't think you have enough information to decide what is & is not appropriate in that particular case. You have swallowed the Mail's distortions hook line & sinker.

Many of those working locally on behalf of the homeless are concerned about an inability to help those who are already homeless. We have Lunar House. A large number of people living on our streets are single East Europeans. They were given to understand that they would receive help but are not getting it. Some are turning to drink and in an awful situation.

It is not asylum seekers who are creating homelessness, nor problems in dealing with it.
Are single East Europeans, who could be classed as economic migrants, more entitled to help than asylum seekers, who are fleeing violence & prejudice? (but I don't want to start a discussion on who is more 'worth' helping)

I most certainly do not concur with the BNP and have a very strong record on race relations.

The language & intent of the DM article are very close to that of the BNP. You clearly endorsed what the article was saying.

[ahinton]

Sorry to question the thread topic, especially after so many contributons to the thread itself, but we're all in this "apart" rather than "together", are we not?...

[Lateralthinking1]

When I found it (by accident) it was an article on its own page. However, even if you couldn't link to it, it might have been more honest & open to credit it.

This is the article with the box. If you are able to provide a link just to the box, perhaps you might explain to me how you do it. I wasn't hiding that it was also from the Daily Mail. I thought that it was implied by the previous article from the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2089118/Benefits-Foreigners-paid-2bn-year-5-000-claiming-42m-illegal-handouts.html

The reason why I didn't provide a link to the entire article is that I don't share some of the concerns in the entire article.

The article is based on Government action. Any responsible Government should investigate fraud. You might think that it should only be tax evaders who are investigated. The Mail might think it should only be asylum seekers. I am in no doubt whatsoever that it should be all fraudsters and I would throw them all in jail but I am coming at it from common sense rather than a political agenda.

The language & intent of the DM article are very close to that of the BNP. You clearly endorsed what the article was saying.

I have explained my position clearly and I don't like being misrepresented in that way. You might think that placing people for free in a £2 million house for three years is entirely appropriate. I would be vehemently against it if it was proposed for me, large numbers of my family, a multi-millionaire or a group of white people from Britain who had worked for 20 years and had since spent 10 living in a cardboard box. What you are asking me to do is to exclude all asylum seekers from criticism and painting it as me having picked them out for special attention. I didn't and I'm not going to exclude any category. To do so would be wholly unreal.

(Your argument is "I'm British. If anyone criticises any of the British, that's a threat to me. Actually, if many criticised some of the British, the rest of us who are British would benefit, not suffer. There are major attitude differences in any category).

[Flosshilde]

This is the article with the box. If you are able to provide a link just to the box, perhaps you might explain to me how you do it. I wasn't hiding that it was also from the Daily Mail. I thought that it was implied by the previous article from the Daily Mail.

I googled 'asylum seekers west hampstead' (not the search I used when I originally found the article) & it was the third or fourth result - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-2m-house.html

The article is based on Government action. Any responsible Government should investigate fraud. You might think that it should only be tax evaders who are investigated. The Mail might think it should only be asylum seekers. I am in no doubt whatsoever that it should be all fraudsters and I would throw them all in jail but I am coming at it from common sense rather than a political agenda.

What evidence do you have that they were perpetrating any sort of fraud?

[Lateralthinking1]

I googled 'asylum seekers west hampstead' (not the search I used when I originally found the article) & it was the third or fourth result - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-2m-house.html

What evidence do you have that they were perpetrating any sort of fraud?

I didn't say they were. I said that the Government was investigating benefits fraudsters and that it was right to do so. The sooner the better. Let's make the penalties really severe so that a system designed to protect vulnerable people isn't smashed to smithereens by them. They are dangerous leeches. The more do gooders rush to their defence, the more I'd increase the penalty.

Turning to the people in the article, if they are genuine claimants, I would expect them to be housed in an adequate home in a cheap area. I see no reason whatsoever why they shouldn't be housed in mobile homes. However, you can find many properties made of brick for two parents and eight kids for a quarter or a third of the price in other areas of the country.

They don't need to live near people they know. The money they are being paid is sufficient for regular plane tickets from Carlisle to London. Perhaps they can dance on the graves of those who were genuinely vulnerable on the way. They are being encouraged to suck the life blood out of the system and need to learn the words 'you're very kind but you've done more than enough already'.

I really cannot understand how you would pay three times more than is necessary to one family when that means not helping two or more other families at all. And I don't know how you would explain the sheer waste involved to those who can't get the prosthetic limbs they need or even a tiny room in which to live. The entire situation is not charity. It's an abomination.

[amateur51]

Sorry to question the thread topic, especially after so many contributons to the thread itself, but we're all in this "apart" rather than "together", are we not?...

I've referred your query to the Prime Minister's staff at 10 Downing Street. You should receive a reply shortly. Thank you for writing. Your thoughts are important to us.

:laugh:

[ahinton]

I've referred your query to the Prime Minister's staff at 10 Downing Street. You should receive a reply shortly. Thank you for writing. Your thoughts are important to us.:laugh:

Thank you so much! At the risk of appearing to be burdensome, it crossed what's left of my mind to ask you if you'd mind, after a suitable interval, popping a second one across to that famous black door about the now-not-quite-so-big society, but I'll leave that to your discretion, naturellement...

That said, I do rather worry about where such letters might end up and the sheer blandness of the responses (if any) that they might generate, so do you think that it might prove more effective to send them to the ever delightful Samantha instead? - she was, after all, protrayed more than once in the lead-up to the last General Election as Dave's "secret weapon", although it seems to have been the secrecy rather than the weaponry that's been the more in evidence subsequently...

[amateur51]

Thank you so much! At the risk of appearing to be burdensome, it crossed what's left of my mind to ask you if you'd mind, after a suitable interval, popping a second one across to that famous black door about the now-not-quite-so-big society, but I'll leave that to your discretion, naturellement...

That said, I do rather worry about where such letters might end up and the sheer blandness of the responses (if any) that they might generate, so do you think that it might prove more effective to send them to the ever delightful Samantha instead? - she was, after all, protrayed more than once in the lead-up to the last General Election as Dave's "secret weapon", although it seems to have been the secrecy rather than the weaponry that's been the more in evidence subsequently...

Nay, nay SamCam has a regular column in t'Guardian, tha knows - Kitchen supper recipes galore :ok::laugh:

[ahinton]

Nay, nay SamCam has a regular column in t'Guardian, tha knows - Kitchen supper recipes galore :ok::laugh:

I didn't know that, actually; clearly I should give more thought to reading the correct newspapers. That said, however, I remain to be convinced that such a column in itself would stand much chance of endorsing her supposed credentials as the PM's "secret weapon".

[mangerton]

Nay, nay SamCam has a regular column in t'Guardian, tha knows - Kitchen supper recipes galore :ok::laugh:

Shurely you mean country supper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/9332009/Customs-of-the-country.html

[Flosshilde]

I'm glad she/he dismisses the possibility of it involving 'country matters' - or do they?

[mangerton]

I'm glad she/he dismisses the possibility of it involving 'country matters' - or do they?

There's nothing certain in this life, flossie, except of course death and taxes, so who can say?