Asylum Seeker family get £2m pad to live in.

[silverhibee]

A £2m pad for him and his family to stay in and £2000 p/w to live on for benefits.

This is a piss take.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293730/Somali-asylum-seeker-family-given-2m-house--complaining-5-bed-London-home-poor-area.html

[Scouse Hibee]

A £2m pad for him and his family to stay in and £2000 p/w to live on for benefits.

This is a piss take.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293730/Somali-asylum-seeker-family-given-2m-house--complaining-5-bed-London-home-poor-area.html


WTF you just couldn't make it up could you? Meanwhile somewhere in the UK Joe Bloggs has his house reposessed for failing to meet mortgage payments due to recent redundancy and subsequent unemployment.

[hibsbollah]

It is indeed a pisstake. Private landlords in London are scamming councils by charging exorbitant rents for people we are legally entitled to look after. In the old days they could be housed in decent quality local authority housing but we sold all that off, didnt we?

There is a massive housing crisis in London and the southeast, building new affordable houses would stimulate the construction industry and regenerate urban areas. Something i wish the Daily Mail would focus more energy on.

[Beefster]

It is indeed a pisstake. Private landlords in London are scamming councils by charging exorbitant rents for people we are legally entitled to look after.

I don't think £2k per week for a house valued at £2m is that bad.

[silverhibee]

WTF you just couldn't make it up could you? Meanwhile somewhere in the UK Joe Bloggs has his house reposessed for failing to meet mortgage payments due to recent redundancy and subsequent unemployment.


I got this story from facebook.

British old age pensioner total yearly benefit £6000.
Illegal imigrants/refugees living in Britain total yearly benefit £29,900.
The average pensioner has paid taxes and contributed to the growth of this country for the last 40 to 60 years.
Sad isn't it.

[wpj]

Story is from 2010, not sure why its gone viral on Facebook now, not enough current news to be p'd off at?

[lyonhibs]

I am literally astounded to see this story appear in the Daily Mail.

Not.

[One Day Soon]

I don't think £2k per week for a house valued at £2m is that bad.

Ah Beefster, you are THE best.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Move along, nothing to see here. A bit galling the duty on cider is going up tho. Grow yourself a claw for a limb and get yourself a right few quid whilst supporting a terror campaign against the folk that pay your way in this country full of infidels!

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Maybe i just made that up, who knows?

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Stranger things have happened!

[Mibbes Aye]

I got this story from facebook.

British old age pensioner total yearly benefit £6000.
Illegal imigrants/refugees living in Britain total yearly benefit £29,900.
The average pensioner has paid taxes and contributed to the growth of this country for the last 40 to 60 years.
Sad isn't it.

What's sad is that there is so much wrong with that post it's hard to know where to start.

Maybe just one thing though - you can't be an illegal immigrant and claim benefits. It's that simple.

I wouldn't put too much faith in stories from Facebook SH.......

[hibby rae]

I am literally astounded to see this story appear in the Daily Mail.

Not.

To quote The Daily Mash:

"The Daily Mail, it's like spending twenty minutes in a mental ward."

[RyeSloan]

Pretty sure recent benefit changes will make such scenarios much less likely these days. There is also a max benefit cap as well.

The planned state pension of £144 pw or £7,500k (equivalent to a private pension pot of well in excess of 100k) a year doesn't seem too bad to me. Add in free healthcare and personal care (in Scotland at least) plus free travel plus the winter fuel allowance then I'm not sure Uk pensioners are that hard done by to be honest.

[HKhibby]

It is indeed a pisstake. Private landlords in London are scamming councils by charging exorbitant rents for people we are legally entitled to look after. In the old days they could be housed in decent quality local authority housing but we sold all that off, didnt we?

There is a massive housing crisis in London and the southeast, building new affordable houses would stimulate the construction industry and regenerate urban areas. Something i wish the Daily Mail would focus more energy on.

It irrelevant if it is private housing or public housing, if they are illegal immigrants...deport them! that will stop them having to be funded out of the public purse in the uk!, but they cant can they, because the uk has a thing called the human rights act...all they have to do is cry discrimination or racism or they will be tortured back where they come from...and they are covered!

[yeezus.]

It irrelevant if it is private housing or public housing, if they are illegal immigrants...deport them! that will stop them having to be funded out of the public purse in the uk!, but they cant can they, because the uk has a thing called the human rights act...all they have to do is cry discrimination or racism or they will be tortured back where they come from...and they are covered!

Spoken like a true hun, stick to reading the Daily Mail and maybe we can deport you.

[McSwanky]

It irrelevant if it is private housing or public housing, if they are illegal immigrants...deport them! that will stop them having to be funded out of the public purse in the uk!, but they cant can they, because the uk has a thing called the human rights act...all they have to do is cry discrimination or racism or they will be tortured back where they come from...and they are covered!

FACT :rolleyes:

[CropleyWasGod]

It irrelevant if it is private housing or public housing, if they are illegal immigrants...deport them! that will stop them having to be funded out of the public purse in the uk!, but they cant can they, because the uk has a thing called the human rights act...all they have to do is cry discrimination or racism or they will be tortured back where they come from...and they are covered!

You're mellowing in your old age. Only 3 exclamation marks?

[bigwheel]

There are so many stories around Facebook and other sites pretending to be about fairness and "Britishness " that are simply peddling hate and racism in another form ....

[lyonhibs]

It irrelevant if it is private housing or public housing, if they are illegal immigrants...deport them! that will stop them having to be funded out of the public purse in the uk!, but they cant can they, because the uk has a thing called the human rights act...all they have to do is cry discrimination or racism or they will be tortured back where they come from...and they are covered!

These treads are always so dull without your input.

[Hibrandenburg]

There are so many stories around Facebook and other sites pretending to be about fairness and "Britishness " that are simply peddling hate and racism in another form ....

This too gets on my wick. I've managed to trim my face book friends list by quite a few simply by deleting FRIENDS who repost this pish.

[The_Todd]

To quote The Daily Mash:

"The Daily Mail, it's like spending twenty minutes in a mental ward."

I prefer the Uncyclopedia entry:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Daily_mail


Often referred to as "Fascism with Oven Gloves on" The Daily Wail, also known variously as The Daily Hate, The Daily Heil, The Daily Bile, The Daily Hate Mail, The Fascist Manifesto, Loose Women on a Period, The Daily Maul and The Daily Fail is a hugely popular British (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/United_Kingdom) comic for those who believe themselves (usually mistakenly) to be members of the middle classes (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Middle_classes).

In 2010 it was also the UK's best selling brand of toilet paper. It is owned by Associated Newspapers, the same media group responsible for the Fail on Sunday and The Metro (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/The_Metro?action=edit&redlink=1). A pair of rose-tinted spectacles must be worn to read articles in the Daily Mail, which describe how everything was great in the 1950s (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/1950) before the Islamic Conquest and the introduction of drugs (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Drugs), fat women (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/You), asylum seekers (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/You), paedophiles (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/You), Jonathan Ross (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Lisp), Russell Brand (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Hair), the homeless (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/You), Brown people (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Brown_people) and the invention of sex (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Sex) made daily life intolerable for the conservative middle-class Chelsea tractor (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Tank) driving mums and retired army colonels (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Colonel) that inhabit these sceptred isles (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Jersey).

[Holmesdale Hibs]

This story is an absolute pisstake and I seriously hope benefit changes stop things like this happening in the future.

The first house sounded absolutely fine to me. Brent is hardly a ****hole. Anyone on here pay £900 per week in rent? The guys complaint should have been swiftly thrown in the bin.

So now someone who has paid no tax in the uk has a house that the vast magority of working Brits will not ever be able to afford. WTF?

Just because the story is published in the Daily Mail doesn't mean we should dismiss it. The fact that this is allowed to happen is an absolute joke. End of.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I wish people would stop going on about Asylum seekers, and start to focus on the number of people fiddling disability. The **** that play the sick role for money need to be flushed out.

[yeezus.]

I wish people would stop going on about Asylum seekers, and start to focus on the number of people fiddling disability. The **** that play the sick role for money need to be flushed out.

It is extremely difficult to "fiddle" disability. In fact, unless you are physically disabled, the chances are you will be told you are fit to work. I know a few people with severe alcohol problems who are going through the process of an appeal at the moment because they are deemed "fit" to work. The way we have started to treat disabled people in this country is disgusting and it is egged on by rubbish papers like the Daily Mail.

[RyeSloan]

It is extremely difficult to "fiddle" disability. In fact, unless you are physically disabled, the chances are you will be told you are fit to work. I know a few people with severe alcohol problems who are going through the process of an appeal at the moment because they are deemed "fit" to work. The way we have started to treat disabled people in this country is disgusting and it is egged on by rubbish papers like the Daily Mail.

From my experience the pendulum has swung too far the other way I agree.

The fit to work test seems to comprise of very basic physical tests and that's about it. Little or no consideration of mental health or indeed physical problems that don't directly impact your ability to move your limbs.

Always tough creating a system that will work when assessing individuals who will all be different but the new tests seem overly simplistic to me....

[Beefster]

I wish people would stop going on about Asylum seekers, and start to focus on the number of people fiddling disability. The **** that play the sick role for money need to be flushed out.

There is widespread misuse of disabled parking badges but I don't think it's particularly easy to get DLA.

[hibs0666]

It irrelevant if it is private housing or public housing, if they are illegal immigrants...deport them! that will stop them having to be funded out of the public purse in the uk!, but they cant can they, because the uk has a thing called the human rights act...all they have to do is cry discrimination or racism or they will be tortured back where they come from...and they are covered!

Hope you're not keeping some Chinese bloke out of a job.

[yeezus.]

From my experience the pendulum has swung too far the other way I agree.

The fit to work test seems to comprise of very basic physical tests and that's about it. Little or no consideration of mental health or indeed physical problems that don't directly impact your ability to move your limbs.

Always tough creating a system that will work when assessing individuals who will all be different but the new tests seem overly simplistic to me....

:agree: I've actually just been released from Midpark hospital in Dumfries after being admitted over a week ago due to my mental illness. When in there, I was chatting to other patients who said that the nurses they saw made them walk a bit - see if they could lift something heavy and told them they were fit for work.

The job centre told my mum to get me to apply for ESA. I just couldn't face a 13 week assessment along with several interviews and tests as well as a massive form so I turned it down. For the sake of £20 more a week I'd rather stay on JSA ... if they will allow me.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It is extremely difficult to "fiddle" disability. In fact, unless you are physically disabled, the chances are you will be told you are fit to work. I know a few people with severe alcohol problems who are going through the process of an appeal at the moment because they are deemed "fit" to work. The way we have started to treat disabled people in this country is disgusting and it is egged on by rubbish papers like the Daily Mail.

Is alcoholism a disability or a choice of the individual? I'm inclined to think that giving alcoholics benefits dosn't really encourage them to fin a reason to make the choice to change their lives.

I do agree that a lot of people who can't work are sufering. I think this is a clumsy response to the way that every aspect of human behaviour is becoming medicalised.


From my experience the pendulum has swung too far the other way I agree.

The fit to work test seems to comprise of very basic physical tests and that's about it. Little or no consideration of mental health or indeed physical problems that don't directly impact your ability to move your limbs.

Always tough creating a system that will work when assessing individuals who will all be different but the new tests seem overly simplistic to me....

I think it is the process of using medical tests, based on science, to assess problems such as "mental health" that has created this problem. Too many people are looking to the state to sort out their personal problems.


There is widespread misuse of disabled parking badges but I don't think it's particularly easy to get DLA.

I also see a lot of abuse of the disability car system.

[Phil D. Rolls]

It irrelevant if it is private housing or public housing, if they are illegal immigrants...deport them! that will stop them having to be funded out of the public purse in the uk!, but they cant can they, because the uk has a thing called the human rights act...all they have to do is cry discrimination or racism or they will be tortured back where they come from...and they are covered!

I''d go for compulsory repatriation of any immigrant. It's their own country's problem.........oh wait.

[yeezus.]

Is alcoholism a disability or a choice of the individual? I'm inclined to think that giving alcoholics benefits dosn't really encourage them to fin a reason to make the choice to change their lives.

I do agree that a lot of people who can't work are sufering. I think this is a clumsy response to the way that every aspect of human behaviour is becoming medicalised.



I think it is the process of using medical tests, based on science, to assess problems such as "mental health" that has created this problem. Too many people are looking to the state to sort out their personal problems.



I also see a lot of abuse of the disability car system.

I know what you mean - one alcoholic did actually boast about the amount of money he received each week. I still think we have a duty to look after those with such problems and an addiction really negates choice.

[Betty Boop]

I''d go for compulsory repatriation of any immigrant. It's their own country's problem.........oh wait.

:tee hee:

[hibsbollah]

I''d go for compulsory repatriation of any immigrant. It's their own country's problem.........oh wait.

:hilarious

[RyeSloan]

Is alcoholism a disability or a choice of the individual? I'm inclined to think that giving alcoholics benefits dosn't really encourage them to fin a reason to make the choice to change their lives.

I do agree that a lot of people who can't work are sufering. I think this is a clumsy response to the way that every aspect of human behaviour is becoming medicalised.



I think it is the process of using medical tests, based on science, to assess problems such as "mental health" that has created this problem. Too many people are looking to the state to sort out their personal problems.



I also see a lot of abuse of the disability car system.

Surely metal health is just as important as physical health when deeming if anyone is 'fit to work'?

[Phil D. Rolls]

I know what you mean - one alcoholic did actually boast about the amount of money he received each week. I still think we have a duty to look after those with such problems and an addiction really negates choice.

It's a debatable area. How come so many people are able to drink responsibly and don't sucumb to addiction? The variable has to be the individual. So do we have a duty to protect every individual who is lacking the ability to control drink.

Do we start to give benefits to those addicted to chocolate, or pornography? I know this might sound like I am trivialising the problem, I think we need to be able to put a limit on how much support we give people as a society.

Real choices have to be made. The fact of the matter is that every penny spent on supporting an "illness" where the only cure can come from the individual, is a penny that might have been spent on improving - say - care for dementia sufferers.


Surely metal health is just as important as physical health when deeming if anyone is 'fit to work'?

I agree that people have problems that mean they cannot function at a high enough level to work. It's the classification of these things as "illness" that I have a problem with.

By classing them as illness, the illusion exists that they can be assessed in the same objective manner, as say leukaemia. Lists of "symptoms" are created and if you can demonstrate enough of them then you can have a diagnosis.

The offshoot of this, is that people learn how they have to behave to be diagnosed as "mentally ill" - making cheating the system easier. As well as that, a lot of what is now classed as mental illness, would previously been seen as behaviour.

I'm really following the arguments put forward by Thomas Sasz (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThomas_ Szasz&ei=hy1QUYmBEKa50QX53IB4&usg=AFQjCNEWcRVYmV85CbxbS2mz8LW32HLPug&bvm=bv.44158598,d.d2k) 50 years ago here. I have to say, I agree with a lot of what he said. A lot of the money we waste on treating mental "illness", and by extension supporting "sufferers" through benefits, is as much about social control as it is about medicine.



I feel we really have to take a look at where we are headed as a society. Our good intentions about supporting the weak are being abused by an increasing number of career claimants, that are able to play the system to their own ends. They are aided and abetted by the medical profession, who have a vested interest in keeping people sick, and who legitamise people's behaviour by creating an expanding list of new "illnesses" every year.

[yeezus.]

It's a debatable area. How come so many people are able to drink responsibly and don't sucumb to addiction? The variable has to be the individual. So do we have a duty to protect every individual who is lacking the ability to control drink.

Do we start to give benefits to those addicted to chocolate, or pornography? I know this might sound like I am trivialising the problem, I think we need to be able to put a limit on how much support we give people as a society.

Real choices have to be made. The fact of the matter is that every penny spent on supporting an "illness" where the only cure can come from the individual, is a penny that might have been spent on improving - say - care for dementia sufferers.



I agree that people have problems that mean they cannot function at a high enough level to work. It's the classification of these things as "illness" that I have a problem with.

By classing them as illness, the illusion exists that they can be assessed in the same objective manner, as say leukaemia. Lists of "symptoms" are created and if you can demonstrate enough of them then you can have a diagnosis.

The offshoot of this, is that people learn how they have to behave to be diagnosed as "mentally ill" - making cheating the system easier. As well as that, a lot of what is now classed as mental illness, would previously been seen as behaviour.

I'm really following the arguments put forward by Thomas Sasz (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FThomas_ Szasz&ei=hy1QUYmBEKa50QX53IB4&usg=AFQjCNEWcRVYmV85CbxbS2mz8LW32HLPug&bvm=bv.44158598,d.d2k) 50 years ago here. I have to say, I agree with a lot of what he said. A lot of the money we waste on treating mental "illness", and by extension supporting "sufferers" through benefits, is as much about social control as it is about medicine.



I feel we really have to take a look at where we are headed as a society. Our good intentions about supporting the weak are being abused by an increasing number of career claimants, that are able to play the system to their own ends. They are aided and abetted by the medical profession, who have a vested interest in keeping people sick, and who legitamise people's behaviour by creating an expanding list of new "illnesses" every year.

I would argue that most health care professionals recognise alcoholism as a true disability / illness. I don't think a porn addict is going to damage his liver and increase his chances of almost every form of cancer as a result of his addiction...

[Phil D. Rolls]

I would argue that most health care professionals recognise alcoholism as a true disability / illness. I don't think a porn addict is going to damage his liver and increase his chances of almost every form of cancer as a result of his addiction...

It's a fair point, but any addiction can affect our ability to support ourselves. Besides, it goes back to my original point, is there any logic in giving someone money to feed their addiction?

Can I also say that the opinions of health professionals on alcoholism as a disability are varied? In the absence of scientific proof of an organic cause for addiction, many would argue that it is behavioural. I am not saying it isn't a problem, but just that the scientific arguments to support it being illness and, as such, a health problem don't stack up.

Sure continuing to abuse booze can make people more susceptible to illness. So can other lifestyle choices such as diet, participating in dangerous sports, or gambling. If we accept the need to protect alcoholics from themselves, we have to accept the need to protect others as well. What it ultimately leads to is the removal of free will from our lives.

It seems to me with alcoholics what we are really doing is giving them money so that they will keep out of the way and not trouble us with their problems. Giving them benefits does nothing to address the problem - namely their inability to live a life that does them less harm.

Does our duty of care to people really extend to protecting people from themselves? That flies in the face of people's right to self determination IMO. Which brings us back to the opening post in the thread.

Asylum seekers are fleeing from a danger that is external to them. The risk to their lives comes from other people, not their own actions. Many receiving DLA for "psychiatric disorders" are only threatened by themselves and their own actions.

I would argue that it is more humanitarian to offer protection to those threatened by others, than those threatened by themselves. So my point has been we should really question some of the support and protection we give to "vulnerable" groups in our society at the same time we question whether we should be giving protection to vulnerable people from other countries.

It seems to me that DLA - in particular "enhanced" DLA is giving many people an incentive to be sick.

[lapsedhibee]

It's a fair point, but any addiction can affect our ability to support ourselves. Besides, it goes back to my original point, is there any logic in giving someone money to feed their addiction?

Can I also say that the opinions of health professionals on alcoholism as a disability are varied? In the absence of scientific proof of an organic cause for addiction, many would argue that it is behavioural. I am not saying it isn't a problem, but just that the scientific arguments to support it being illness and, as such, a health problem don't stack up.

Sure continuing to abuse booze can make people more susceptible to illness. So can other lifestyle choices such as diet, participating in dangerous sports, or gambling. If we accept the need to protect alcoholics from themselves, we have to accept the need to protect others as well. What it ultimately leads to is the removal of free will from our lives.

It seems to me with alcoholics what we are really doing is giving them money so that they will keep out of the way and not trouble us with their problems. Giving them benefits does nothing to address the problem - namely their inability to live a life that does them less harm.

Does our duty of care to people really extend to protecting people from themselves? That flies in the face of people's right to self determination IMO. Which brings us back to the opening post in the thread.

Asylum seekers are fleeing from a danger that is external to them. The risk to their lives comes from other people, not their own actions. Many receiving DLA for "psychiatric disorders" are only threatened by themselves and their own actions.

I would argue that it is more humanitarian to offer protection to those threatened by others, than those threatened by themselves. So my point has been we should really question some of the support and protection we give to "vulnerable" groups in our society at the same time we question whether we should be giving protection to vulnerable people from other countries.

It seems to me that DLA - in particular "enhanced" DLA is giving many people an incentive to be sick.

Good points FR though you may be overestimating the attractions of Szasz's work. From memory his analysis doesn't really satisfactorily account for very severe forms of schizophrenia and the like. Once you've accepted that there are manifestations of mental illness which are not - to paraphrase - socially defined, then it's a matter of where you draw the line between those and less severe forms which may well have a social component and be susceptible to a good spell of National Service.


Surely metal health is just as important as physical health when deeming if anyone is 'fit to work'?

They should just, er, steel themselves to go and work, however unfit they may seem. :wink:

[yeezus.]

It's a fair point, but any addiction can affect our ability to support ourselves. Besides, it goes back to my original point, is there any logic in giving someone money to feed their addiction?

Can I also say that the opinions of health professionals on alcoholism as a disability are varied? In the absence of scientific proof of an organic cause for addiction, many would argue that it is behavioural. I am not saying it isn't a problem, but just that the scientific arguments to support it being illness and, as such, a health problem don't stack up.

Sure continuing to abuse booze can make people more susceptible to illness. So can other lifestyle choices such as diet, participating in dangerous sports, or gambling. If we accept the need to protect alcoholics from themselves, we have to accept the need to protect others as well. What it ultimately leads to is the removal of free will from our lives.

It seems to me with alcoholics what we are really doing is giving them money so that they will keep out of the way and not trouble us with their problems. Giving them benefits does nothing to address the problem - namely their inability to live a life that does them less harm.

Does our duty of care to people really extend to protecting people from themselves? That flies in the face of people's right to self determination IMO. Which brings us back to the opening post in the thread.

Asylum seekers are fleeing from a danger that is external to them. The risk to their lives comes from other people, not their own actions. Many receiving DLA for "psychiatric disorders" are only threatened by themselves and their own actions.

I would argue that it is more humanitarian to offer protection to those threatened by others, than those threatened by themselves. So my point has been we should really question some of the support and protection we give to "vulnerable" groups in our society at the same time we question whether we should be giving protection to vulnerable people from other countries.

It seems to me that DLA - in particular "enhanced" DLA is giving many people an incentive to be sick.

I'm not sure that alcoholics are given money to "feed" their addiction. I mean, some of the money they get might go towards drink but as far as I'm aware they have to embark on rehabilitation programmes and prove that they are trying to change their lifestyle. A couple of guys I met down in Dumfries said that they get Breathalised everytime they return to the ward. If they fail the test I think they are kicked out.

As for the "psychiatric disorders" - that's what I was admitted for last week. I was basically given an incentive to commit suicide. Having been on anti-depressants for years and tried CBT/self-help, counselling and anti-anxiety tablets I just gave up. I wrote a suicide note, started self-harming and the mental health nurse said "Yeah but you haven't actually attemtped suicide recently...." So I went to my GP and told her of my plans.

I was a danger to myself but then psychiatric patients can also be a dangers to others. I have little or no control over my mental health but turned down ESA on the grounds that I didn't want to put myself through the 13 week assessment.

Trust me, living on benefits is the pits.

[RyeSloan]

It's a fair point, but any addiction can affect our ability to support ourselves. Besides, it goes back to my original point, is there any logic in giving someone money to feed their addiction?

Can I also say that the opinions of health professionals on alcoholism as a disability are varied? In the absence of scientific proof of an organic cause for addiction, many would argue that it is behavioural. I am not saying it isn't a problem, but just that the scientific arguments to support it being illness and, as such, a health problem don't stack up.

Sure continuing to abuse booze can make people more susceptible to illness. So can other lifestyle choices such as diet, participating in dangerous sports, or gambling. If we accept the need to protect alcoholics from themselves, we have to accept the need to protect others as well. What it ultimately leads to is the removal of free will from our lives.

It seems to me with alcoholics what we are really doing is giving them money so that they will keep out of the way and not trouble us with their problems. Giving them benefits does nothing to address the problem - namely their inability to live a life that does them less harm.

Does our duty of care to people really extend to protecting people from themselves? That flies in the face of people's right to self determination IMO. Which brings us back to the opening post in the thread.

Asylum seekers are fleeing from a danger that is external to them. The risk to their lives comes from other people, not their own actions. Many receiving DLA for "psychiatric disorders" are only threatened by themselves and their own actions.

I would argue that it is more humanitarian to offer protection to those threatened by others, than those threatened by themselves. So my point has been we should really question some of the support and protection we give to "vulnerable" groups in our society at the same time we question whether we should be giving protection to vulnerable people from other countries.

It seems to me that DLA - in particular "enhanced" DLA is giving many people an incentive to be sick.


There is no simple answer to the questions posed thats for sure.

However you seem to suggest that people suffering from severe addictions or psychiatric disorders should simply man up and sort it out without any help or support from the state, or at the very least be behind others in the queue. I'm not so sure.

I have some exposure to having to manage a mental health issue in the work place..I would suggest someone suffering from severe depression or anxiety is frequently unable to work effectively and needs signficant support to help them through their issues. In my experience these people often desperately want to work however are not able to do so. To my mind this is not just negative or harmful behaviours but is the result of an unwell mind.

I go back to my original point. If someone loses a leg its easy for all to see and understand how that may prevent them from working for a period. If someone loses the ability to face the world and suffers frequent and repeated panic attacks then it's not so easy for others to see or understand...Again using my (limited but hopefully still relevant experience) it can often be easier for the physically disabled to come to terms with their condition and modify their life accordingly than those that suffer mental illness, it's certainly easier to diagnose and treat.

Finally I agree that the diagnosis of 'mental illness' has maybe gone too far but paradoxically the flip side could also be true...what were thought of as simply behaviours can now be understoood to be the result of an underlying mental issue. With human understanding of the brain still so limited that's maybe no surprise.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I'm not sure that alcoholics are given money to "feed" their addiction. I mean, some of the money they get might go towards drink but as far as I'm aware they have to embark on rehabilitation programmes and prove that they are trying to change their lifestyle. A couple of guys I met down in Dumfries said that they get Breathalised everytime they return to the ward. If they fail the test I think they are kicked out.

As for the "psychiatric disorders" - that's what I was admitted for last week. I was basically given an incentive to commit suicide. Having been on anti-depressants for years and tried CBT/self-help, counselling and anti-anxiety tablets I just gave up. I wrote a suicide note, started self-harming and the mental health nurse said "Yeah but you haven't actually attemtped suicide recently...." So I went to my GP and told her of my plans.

I was a danger to myself but then psychiatric patients can also be a dangers to others. I have little or no control over my mental health but turned down ESA on the grounds that I didn't want to put myself through the 13 week assessment.

Trust me, living on benefits is the pits.

I wouldn't want to live on benefits. I bet you have met some people who do though.


There is no simple answer to the questions posed thats for sure.

However you seem to suggest that people suffering from severe addictions or psychiatric disorders should simply man up and sort it out without any help or support from the state, or at the very least be behind others in the queue. I'm not so sure.

I have some exposure to having to manage a mental health issue in the work place..I would suggest someone suffering from severe depression or anxiety is frequently unable to work effectively and needs signficant support to help them through their issues. In my experience these people often desperately want to work however are not able to do so. To my mind this is not just negative or harmful behaviours but is the result of an unwell mind.

I go back to my original point. If someone loses a leg its easy for all to see and understand how that may prevent them from working for a period. If someone loses the ability to face the world and suffers frequent and repeated panic attacks then it's not so easy for others to see or understand...Again using my (limited but hopefully still relevant experience) it can often be easier for the physically disabled to come to terms with their condition and modify their life accordingly than those that suffer mental illness, it's certainly easier to diagnose and treat.

Finally I agree that the diagnosis of 'mental illness' has maybe gone too far but paradoxically the flip side could also be true...what were thought of as simply behaviours can now be understoood to be the result of an underlying mental issue. With human understanding of the brain still so limited that's maybe no surprise.

I am not arguing that people don't have problems in living their lives. It's more that the current medicalised system is doing very little to address their issues. I would say that a big reason for that is linking problems of living to medicine.

You make a good point about human understanding of the brain being limited. However that hasn't stopped psychiatrists saying that "mental illness is a disease of the brain".

Normally you have to show the physical affect on the body before you can make a diagnosis of illness - psychiatrists have been putting the cart before the horse. They come up with an illness like Bi-Polar disorder then search for a physical cause.

It is this pseudo-scientific approach that has led to a situation where people can be diagnosed as ill, with no proof other than the subjective opinions of people who observe them.

I am not saying for one minute that Schizophrenai or depression don't have a real impact on people's lives. I am saying that we are addressing them the wrong way.

Addiction - I'll put my cards on the table. I don't believe it is an illness, and people with addictions need to take the same responsibilities as everyone else. I think it's time we called a halt to the removal of individual choice from people. That goes for what drugs they can take, their right to end their lives, and their right to take the same consequences as everyone else.

[yeezus.]

I wouldn't want to live on benefits. I bet you have met some people who do though.



I am not arguing that people don't have problems in living their lives. It's more that the current medicalised system is doing very little to address their issues. I would say that a big reason for that is linking problems of living to medicine.

You make a good point about human understanding of the brain being limited. However that hasn't stopped psychiatrists saying that "mental illness is a disease of the brain".

Normally you have to show the physical affect on the body before you can make a diagnosis of illness - psychiatrists have been putting the cart before the horse. They come up with an illness like Bi-Polar disorder then search for a physical cause.

It is this pseudo-scientific approach that has led to a situation where people can be diagnosed as ill, with no proof other than the subjective opinions of people who observe them.

I am not saying for one minute that Schizophrenai or depression don't have a real impact on people's lives. I am saying that we are addressing them the wrong way.

Addiction - I'll put my cards on the table. I don't believe it is an illness, and people with addictions need to take the same responsibilities as everyone else. I think it's time we called a halt to the removal of individual choice from people. That goes for what drugs they can take, their right to end their lives, and their right to take the same consequences as everyone else.

I may have met some people who are happy to live on benefits but it is a hard thing to do. I have a 4 week sanction on my JSA because I was in hospital...

[Phil D. Rolls]

I may have met some people who are happy to live on benefits but it is a hard thing to do. I have a 4 week sanction on my JSA because I was in hospital...

Why do the sanction your benefits whilst you were in hospital?

[yeezus.]

Why do the sanction your benefits whilst you were in hospital?

Probably because I didn't make it to sign on on the Thursday as I was being admitted..

[Phil D. Rolls]

Probably because I didn't make it to sign on on the Thursday as I was being admitted..

Sounds rough, did the hospital not inform them you were in? They are supposed to.

[yeezus.]

Sounds rough, did the hospital not inform them you were in? They are supposed to.

Yeah I filled in a little yellow slip and stuff but I think it might be because I wasn't "actively seeking work" while being treated.. I'll be in at the centre tomorrow.

[LeighLoyal]

I honestly believe there is a conspiracy to destroy this country, UK as it still is for now, from within. From my point of view the villains are: 1. Bankers, **** of the earth and no better than Mafia. 2. Self serving political classes, Lab, Lib and Con, and their loony agendas that are completely at odds with this countries interests. 3. Immigrants, mostly the illegals and system abusers, hostile culturally and taking benefits, attacking this country for want of a better phrase, and being helped by #1 and #2. That's my Daily Mail approved, grumpy old sod view and it ain't changing.

[Steve-O]

There are so many stories around Facebook and other sites pretending to be about fairness and "Britishness " that are simply peddling hate and racism in another form ....

I HATE all this pish that floats around Facebook and via forwarded emails. The people that blindly believe such things and pass them on are complete and utter numbskulls. :agree:

[Twa Cairpets]

I honestly believe there is a conspiracy to destroy this country, UK as it still is for now, from within. From my point of view the villains are: 1. Bankers, **** of the earth and no better than Mafia. 2. Self serving political classes, Lab, Lib and Con, and their loony agendas that are completely at odds with this countries interests. 3. Immigrants, mostly the illegals and system abusers, hostile culturally and taking benefits, attacking this country for want of a better phrase, and being helped by #1 and #2. That's my Daily Mail approved, grumpy old sod view and it ain't changing.

I like a nice conspiracy.
Now, help me understand your thinking.
1) Who are the beneficiaries of the this dastardly plot?
2) What exactly are they seeking to gain?
3) What precisely are they doing to "destroy this country as it still is for now"?
4) How precisely are bankers assisting illegal immigrants to attack the country?

[LeighLoyal]

I like a nice conspiracy.
Now, help me understand your thinking.
1) Who are the beneficiaries of the this dastardly plot?

Bankers, big corporate institutions, nefarious money lenders, and the political classes who want to turn Britain into something unrecognisable because they can.

2) What exactly are they seeking to gain?

Profit and career advancement.

3) What precisely are they doing to "destroy this country as it still is for now"?


Undermining the financial system both here and internationally. 500k a year influx of migrants average since 03, ably assisted via a cabal between Blair and big business. This is a net migration figure, so is in reality much higher and those natives leaving are taking with them their tax contributions to places like Canada and Australia. This is a big part of why we have a 120bn deficit: replacing skilled high earners with low wage rubbish.

4) How precisely are bankers assisting illegal immigrants to attack the country?


I said bankers with their damaging bonus culture/short term profit seeking were part of the major problem of UK decline, not just immigration, which is one issue albeit a very significant one. But cheap labour assists them driving down wages and increasing profitability, offshoring also assists them stoking up bonuses. Migrants in and jobs out.
I

[wpj]

I like a nice conspiracy.
Now, help me understand your thinking.
1) Who are the beneficiaries of the this dastardly plot?
2) What exactly are they seeking to gain?
3) What precisely are they doing to "destroy this country as it still is for now"?
4) How precisely are bankers assisting illegal immigrants to attack the country?


9550

[Twa Cairpets]

I like a nice conspiracy.
Now, help me understand your thinking.
1) Who are the beneficiaries of the this dastardly plot?

Bankers, big corporate institutions, nefarious money lenders, and the political classes who want to turn Britain into something unrecognisable because they can.
Good use of the word "nefarious". Nice Victorian sound to it.
"Because they can" doesn't wash. What precisely is it they ant to change it to. If they're milking it in a kind of dripping roast way, why would they want to change it. Conservative is both a noun and a verb for a reason.



2) What exactly are they seeking to gain?

Profit and career advancement.

By destroying the framework within which this would have any value?
Also, you say this as if the a key motivation for the ruling class has ever been not been, at root, power?



3) What precisely are they doing to "destroy this country as it still is for now"?

Undermining the financial system both here and internationally. 500k a year influx of migrants average since 03, ably assisted via a cabal between Blair and big business. This is a net migration figure, so is in reality much higher and those natives leaving are taking with them their tax contributions to places like Canada and Australia. This is a big part of why we have a 120bn deficit: replacing skilled high earners with low wage rubbish.

I bet you were chomping at the bit to type "Illuminati" weren't you?

Can you give some facts?
Of this 500K net, can you give figures for how many are net contributors to the state through tax and how much, and how many are net takers, and how much. how many emigrees could have been expected to leave without immigration? What is the actual value of those who have departed?
You do also understand that a lot of those who are high wage and high tax are the very bankers and finance guys who you accuse of running the country into the ground.



4) How precisely are bankers assisting illegal immigrants to attack the country?

I said bankers with their damaging bonus culture/short term profit seeking were part of the major problem of UK decline, not just immigration, which is one issue albeit a very significant one. But cheap labour assists them driving down wages and increasing profitability, offshoring also assists them stoking up bonuses. Migrants in and jobs out.

I'm not saying for a moment that living in a capitalist society doesn't drive greed. Its how its set up.
But to put all, or most, of this on immigration is a stupendously narrow-minded view. In a global economy, where people don't want to spend in their high street electronics shop because they can buy it cheaper on line from anywhere in the world, high wages and manufacturing/production jobs will always move to those willing to accept lower wages.
An isolationist policy in the UK will only serve to drive up inflation, as cost of production would go up for pretty much everything.

[lyonhibs]

Good use of the word "nefarious". Nice Victorian sound to it.
"Because they can" doesn't wash. What precisely is it they ant to change it to. If they're milking it in a kind of dripping roast way, why would they want to change it. Conservative is both a noun and a verb for a reason.



By destroying the framework within which this would have any value?
Also, you say this as if the a key motivation for the ruling class has ever been not been, at root, power?



I bet you were chomping at the bit to type "Illuminati" weren't you?

Can you give some facts?
Of this 500K net, can you give figures for how many are net contributors to the state through tax and how much, and how many are net takers, and how much. how many emigrees could have been expected to leave without immigration? What is the actual value of those who have departed?
You do also understand that a lot of those who are high wage and high tax are the very bankers and finance guys who you accuse of running the country into the ground.



I'm not saying for a moment that living in a capitalist society doesn't drive greed. Its how its set up.
But to put all, or most, of this on immigration is a stupendously narrow-minded view. In a global economy, where people don't want to spend in their high street electronics shop because they can buy it cheaper on line from anywhere in the world, high wages and manufacturing/production jobs will always move to those willing to accept lower wages.
An isolationist policy in the UK will only serve to drive up inflation, as cost of production would go up for pretty much everything.

Yes, but we'd be rid the EU with it's barmy regulations on the curvature of bananas and its pesky Human Rights act. And that would be great.

Wouldn't it???

[hibs0666]

Never had bankers down as the agents of anarchy. Unfortunately it completely overlooks the fact that banker make more money when the economy is vibrant. Utter bonkers. :thumbsup:

[Twa Cairpets]

Yes, but we'd be rid the EU with it's barmy regulations on the curvature of bananas and its pesky Human Rights act. And that would be great.

Wouldn't it???

I think there is no price to great that isn't worth paying for the right to indentured service and traditionally curved plants of the genus Musa

Its those immigrant bankers that insist it is otherwise.

I think.

[LeighLoyal]

I see one of the biggest, unwanted and welcome immigrant benefit scroungers is confirmed staying here in the UK thanks to nice Mr Blair's Human Rights sign up. Can't deport a wanted terrorist because the evidence against him 'might' have been obtained by torture. "Thank you, Britain for the £400k free house, 24 hour security and cradle to grave benefits for me, wife and five children while I plot jihad. May Allah send blessings." said Mr Qatada. :confused: 'Thank you also for making my free lawyers rich.'

[LeighLoyal]

Good use of the word "nefarious". Nice Victorian sound to it.
"Because they can" doesn't wash. What precisely is it they ant to change it to. If they're milking it in a kind of dripping roast way, why would they want to change it. Conservative is both a noun and a verb for a reason.



By destroying the framework within which this would have any value?
Also, you say this as if the a key motivation for the ruling class has ever been not been, at root, power?



I bet you were chomping at the bit to type "Illuminati" weren't you?

Can you give some facts?
Of this 500K net, can you give figures for how many are net contributors to the state through tax and how much, and how many are net takers, and how much. how many emigrees could have been expected to leave without immigration? What is the actual value of those who have departed?
You do also understand that a lot of those who are high wage and high tax are the very bankers and finance guys who you accuse of running the country into the ground.



I'm not saying for a moment that living in a capitalist society doesn't drive greed. Its how its set up.
But to put all, or most, of this on immigration is a stupendously narrow-minded view. In a global economy, where people don't want to spend in their high street electronics shop because they can buy it cheaper on line from anywhere in the world, high wages and manufacturing/production jobs will always move to those willing to accept lower wages.
An isolationist policy in the UK will only serve to drive up inflation, as cost of production would go up for pretty much everything.



What patronising waffle. You asked for detail and were given them. There is no argument or debate that bankers have run the economy into the ground, aided by incompetent political classes. Fred Goodwin's disastrous bonus driven acquisition of toxic laden AMB Amro alone cost the country £46 billion, never mind all the other bail outs and attempts at quantitative easing to kickstart a system wrecked by irresponsible corporate greed. I think the total cost to the world economy so far is $12 trillon, but so far no arrests or jail time, just fat pension pay offs and share bonuses while our old folk freeze and more economic migrants pile in.

[Betty Boop]

I see one of the biggest, unwanted and welcome immigrant benefit scroungers is confirmed staying here in the UK thanks to nice Mr Blair's Human Rights sign up. Can't deport a wanted terrorist because the evidence against him 'might' have been obtained by torture. "Thank you, Britain for the £400k free house, 24 hour security and cradle to grave benefits for me, wife and five children while I plot jihad. May Allah send blessings." said Mr Qatada. :confused: 'Thank you also for making my free lawyers rich.'

If as Theresa May claims, Abu Qatada is an active member of Al Qaeda, then surely the simple solution would be to produce the evidence in court, and put him on trial.

[Beefster]

If as Theresa May claims, Abu Qatada is an active member of Al Qaeda, then surely the simple solution would be to produce the evidence in court, and put him on trial.

If someone in the UK is accused of a serious crime in a foreign country, we normally extradite them to that country and don't prosecute them ourselves. If Jordan suspect Abu Qatada of a crime, it's reasonable to look to extradite him.

[RyeSloan]

What patronising waffle. You asked for detail and were given them. There is no argument or debate that bankers have run the economy into the ground, aided by incompetent political classes. Fred Goodwin's disastrous bonus driven acquisition of toxic laden AMB Amro alone cost the country £46 billion, never mind all the other bail outs and attempts at quantitative easing to kickstart a system wrecked by irresponsible corporate greed. I think the total cost to the world economy so far is $12 trillon, but so far no arrests or jail time, just fat pension pay offs and share bonuses while our old folk freeze and more economic migrants pile in.

But why would Britain have so many economic migrants if our economy is as bad as you say? Anyway you seem pretty good at chucking about the reasons why everything is so wrong and pointing fingers at those responsible...what actions do you think are needed to correct this?

[LeighLoyal]

If as Theresa May claims, Abu Qatada is an active member of Al Qaeda, then surely the simple solution would be to produce the evidence in court, and put him on trial.


Wouldn't a simpler solution be to deport this malignant undesirable that is bleeding the country dry with his dependents? He has no right at all to be here, just like so many, but they can't be deported even if they commit serious criminal offence because their so called Human Rights override the national interest. And heaven forbid they are wanted by any state not viewed as a liberal democracy for any crime including terrorism.

[LeighLoyal]

But why would Britain have so many economic migrants if our economy is as bad as you say? Anyway you seem pretty good at chucking about the reasons why everything is so wrong and pointing fingers at those responsible...what actions do you think are needed to correct this?



Why would the state of the economy deter economic migrants? They're coming here for the health, housing, education and generous benefits, and a system geared towards discriminating in their favour when they report as homeless to the first local council. It's why we have a £120 billion a year deficit, and why our own cities Royal Infirmary has no hospital beds. There is also easy picking regards fraud, theft and proceeds of organised crime to be had here.


Don't vote Con, Lib, Lab would be a start. Or SNP as they just want to be Brussel's bitches.

[Twa Cairpets]

What patronising waffle. You asked for detail and were given them. There is no argument or debate that bankers have run the economy into the ground, aided by incompetent political classes. Fred Goodwin's disastrous bonus driven acquisition of toxic laden AMB Amro alone cost the country £46 billion, never mind all the other bail outs and attempts at quantitative easing to kickstart a system wrecked by irresponsible corporate greed. I think the total cost to the world economy so far is $12 trillon, but so far no arrests or jail time, just fat pension pay offs and share bonuses while our old folk freeze and more economic migrants pile in.

There was only one wee patronising bit, about the illuminati
Other than that, having re-read it, I think it fair comment. You didnt anser in detail, you threw around a few headline figures without any apparent evidence ot back it up. It may be there, I dont know, but you infer that all the 500,000 net immigrants are costing the country money, and that its almost a "good guy out, possible terrorist in" system.

The economy is in a bad way, and part of it has been caused by the uk banking system, but it is a global issue, nbt just a uk one.

To pigeionhole our troubles as being at the hands of immigrants is ludicrous - there is an element of the problems that are down to that, I agree, but your extreme view, like that of many isolationists and the bigoted (not saying you are necessarily, but you hold many of the same views about "preserving our way") doesn't make for useful debate.

As for Qutada, I think. morally, he should go. However, if you think evidence gained by torture is a bad thing - and I personally do - then the second you make an exception on the rules for evens uch a loathsome individual as he is then you tacitly condone it. Not pleasant, but a price to pay for living in a democratic, liberal country.

[Twa Cairpets]

Why would the state of the economy deter economic migrants? They're coming here for the health, housing, education and generous benefits, and a system geared towards discriminating in their favour when they report as homeless to the first local council. It's why we have a £120 billion a year deficit, and why our own cities Royal Infirmary has no hospital beds. There is also easy picking regards fraud, theft and proceeds of organised crime to be had here.


Don't vote Con, Lib, Lab would be a start. Or SNP as they just want to be Brussel's bitches.


I take it you're suggesting we should go UKIP?

[RyeSloan]

Why would the state of the economy deter economic migrants? They're coming here for the health, housing, education and generous benefits, and a system geared towards discriminating in their favour when they report as homeless to the first local council. It's why we have a £120 billion a year deficit, and why our own cities Royal Infirmary has no hospital beds. There is also easy picking regards fraud, theft and proceeds of organised crime to be had here.

Don't vote Con, Lib, Lab would be a start. Or SNP as they just want to be Brussel's bitches.


Ok so no established political parties are to be voted for. Got that. By extension then I assume you disagree with the majority of their policies.

I also assume you are not an anarchist so what policies do you think Britain needs?

Are you also staying the reason we have a massive deficit is due to immigration? Looks like it and if so I would be interested to see what makes you think this.

As for the ERI issues. You again blame thus on immigrants. Is that immigrants from elsewhere in Scotland or what? Lothians has a growing population do you know what percentage if that is the result of cross border immigration or are you just assuming? Is also a fact that even in the late 90's when the ERI was bring planned there was warnings about its ultimate capacity, is it not more likely that the ERI Project simply underestimated peak demand rather than it being swamped with immigrants?

[Killiehibbie]

Why would the state of the economy deter economic migrants? They're coming here for the health, housing, education and generous benefits, and a system geared towards discriminating in their favour when they report as homeless to the first local council. It's why we have a £120 billion a year deficit, and why our own cities Royal Infirmary has no hospital beds. There is also easy picking regards fraud, theft and proceeds of organised crime to be had here.


Don't vote Con, Lib, Lab would be a start. Or SNP as they just want to be Brussel's bitches.

I think you might find an ageing population, better healthcare, lack of convalescent homes or families willing to look after elderly relatives no longer able to look after themselves place a greater burden on hospital beds than immigrants.

[marinello59]

The story in the opening post is best read with the superfluous words ''asylum seeker'' removed. No need for them to be there other than to fuel some rather dodgy agendas.

[LeighLoyal]

I take it you're suggesting we should go UKIP?



UKIP seem the only alternative just now. I'm not voting for a party, Conservative, that think it's prudent to spend £12bn on foreign aid a year when borrowing £120bn to cut even. Labour and LibDem are beyond a joke. Bear in mind, Labour are the people in Scotland that put out a £50m contract to build a parliament that cost £500m, and an Edinburgh tram project that will come in £750m over budget. As for Alex Salmond, I doubt he has the first idea about what being a national leader really means. I wouldn't trust him as PM of an independent Scotland. So unless you want to be a turkey voting for Christmas, UKIP is the only answer.

[LeighLoyal]

I think you might find an ageing population, better healthcare, lack of convalescent homes or families willing to look after elderly relatives no longer able to look after themselves place a greater burden on hospital beds than immigrants.



My mother was in the ERI last year for over a week and that wasn't my experience on visits, or hers as a patient. We're treating half of Eastern Europe in there, or we were last year. Ungrateful, noisy people they are too.

[marinello59]

My mother was in the ERI last year for over a week and that wasn't my experience on visits, or hers as a patient. We're treating half of Eastern Europe in there, or we were last year. Ungrateful, noisy people they are too.

:rolleyes:

[Twa Cairpets]

UKIP seem the only alternative just now. I'm not voting for a party, Conservative, that think it's prudent to spend £12bn on foreign aid a year when borrowing £120bn to cut even. Labour and LibDem are beyond a joke. Bear in mind, Labour are the people in Scotland that put out a £50m contract to build a parliament that cost £500m, and an Edinburgh tram project that will come in £750m over budget. As for Alex Salmond, I doubt he has the first idea about what being a national leader really means. I wouldn't trust him as PM of an independent Scotland. So unless you want to be a turkey voting for Christmas, UKIP is the only answer.

Yes, because Nigel Farage is such an incredible politician, blessed with economic foresight and the diplomacy required to lead a nation.

I dont think I have ever come across someone as narrowly small minded as you when it comes to immigration and foreign aid. You are clearly of the belief that Johnny Foreignerski and Abdul Terrorist are the reason behind everything that is bad in the country, and we as a nation should reclaim our cultural heritage and return to the halcyon days when these people damn well knew their place.

It is astonishingly small minded, and, to me, a fairly repugnant position to take.

Yes, there are bad immigrants and illegal immigrants and I'm with you that they should be prosecuted or deported, but your underlying desire to basically build a big wall to keep those brushed with the tar or with lots of consonants in their surnames out is as stupid as it is bigoted. We live in small world now, and it is simply not possible to do what you want, unless you're a fan of the North Korean model, of course.

[Beefster]

My mother was in the ERI last year for over a week and that wasn't my experience on visits, or hers as a patient. We're treating half of Eastern Europe in there, or we were last year. Ungrateful, noisy people they are too.

It's amazing how many bigots manage to experience the NHS/council/schools/job market at the exact moment that immigrants are swamping it while the rest of the population only use it at the times that a small minority of users might be from another country.

[LeighLoyal]

It's amazing how many bigots manage to experience the NHS/council/schools/job market at the exact moment that immigrants are swamping it while the rest of the population only use it at the times that a small minority of users might be from another country.

so any complaint about such things make somebody a bigot? I just spoke to my mum about her experience last year and was told the polish or whoever they were drove her mental with constant noise between them and refusal to do what the nurses asked, no doubt a bigot for objecting to this enrichment.

[hibsbollah]

We're treating half of Eastern Europe in there, or we were last year. Ungrateful, noisy people they are too.

If you'd started off with that statement, you could have saved a lot of time and effort by leaving out all the pretence you were making an economic argument. You're evidently just a bigot.

[allmodcons]

UKIP seem the only alternative just now. I'm not voting for a party, Conservative, that think it's prudent to spend £12bn on foreign aid a year when borrowing £120bn to cut even. Labour and LibDem are beyond a joke. Bear in mind, Labour are the people in Scotland that put out a £50m contract to build a parliament that cost £500m, and an Edinburgh tram project that will come in £750m over budget. As for Alex Salmond, I doubt he has the first idea about what being a national leader really means. I wouldn't trust him as PM of an independent Scotland. So unless you want to be a turkey voting for Christmas, UKIP is the only answer.
I'm genuinely pleased that this is your personal view of Alex Salmond.

[Big Ed]

My mother was in the ERI last year for over a week and that wasn't my experience on visits, or hers as a patient. We're treating half of Eastern Europe in there, or we were last year. Ungrateful, noisy people they are too.

They also smell bad and put milk in their cups before they pour their tea.

[RyeSloan]

put milk in their cups before they pour their tea.

Now that's just rude. :agree: :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

If someone in the UK is accused of a serious crime in a foreign country, we normally extradite them to that country and don't prosecute them ourselves. If Jordan suspect Abu Qatada of a crime, it's reasonable to look to extradite him.

Its hardly reasonable to extradite him to a country that has an appalling human rights record, and is well known for its widespread use of torture.

[Sir David Gray]

Its hardly reasonable to extradite him to a country that has an appalling human rights record, and is well known for its widespread use of torture.

Why?

Why should Britain be forced, against the will of its own government, to keep a man who is wanted by another country on charges as serious as terrorism?

Abu Qatada came here nearly 20 years ago, after claiming asylum in the 90s after claiming that he was facing "religious persecution" in Jordan. I think we might be closer to the truth by saying that he was wanted by Jordan because he was actively plotting to overthrow the regime in Jordan at that time and then fled to Britain and fed us a lot of nonsense about persecution, which we bought hook, line and sinker but then that's another story.

There's been a small fortune spent on this man and his family over the past 20 years, all at the expense of the British taxpayer, and it's about time that it came to an end.

I totally accept and agree that Britain should not be extraditing people when they face charges in a country that are highly dubious or are charges that are at odds with standards that we set in this country.

However, Abu Qatada faces extremely serious charges in Jordan, charges that I would expect any nation in the world to deal with in the most serious terms. He's charged with conspiracy to carry out terror attacks and with involvement in a plot to carry out a bomb attack on a tourist location in 2000, during the Millennium celebrations.

We're not talking about minor indiscretions here, he should be flown back on the next plane to Jordan to face those charges. He's just been returned to prison over an alleged breach of his bail conditions relating to an investigation into extremist material on the internet. This man is a danger to our safety and our security and has no business being here. All I hear in relation to this case is that it's against his human rights to be sent back to Jordan. What about our human rights not to be threatened by people like this or by people who are influenced by individuals such as Qatada? Or does that not matter?

We took him in 20 years ago because he claimed he was facing persecution. Now another country wants him to face criminal charges and I don't see any reason for why he's still here.

Jordan's given assurances on many occasions by saying that, if he was extradited, he would not face torture at the hands of their authorities. Now, I'm personally not going to lose any sleep over the thought of him possibly being tortured by Jordan but those assurances are good enough for me.

He should be on the next plane out of here and on his way to Jordan and the fact that that's not the case is an absolute disgrace.

[Beefster]

so any complaint about such things make somebody a bigot? I just spoke to my mum about her experience last year and was told the polish or whoever they were drove her mental with constant noise between them and refusal to do what the nurses asked, no doubt a bigot for objecting to this enrichment.

You just answered your own question.

[Beefster]

Its hardly reasonable to extradite him to a country that has an appalling human rights record, and is well known for its widespread use of torture.

A country that has satisfied most legal requirements to state that he won't be tortured, no?

[hibby rae]

A country that has satisfied most legal requirements to state that he won't be tortured, no?

http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/jordan/report-2012

According to Amnesty International they still receive reports of torture despite a change in the Jordanian constitution.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I would argue that most health care professionals recognise alcoholism as a true disability / illness. I don't think a porn addict is going to damage his liver and increase his chances of almost every form of cancer as a result of his addiction...

Probably get signed off with an RSI though.

[lapsedhibee]

Conservative is both a noun and a verb for a reason.


Jeez, when I was at school it was a noun and an adjective. These ****** Roumanians, coming over here and stealing our grammar, etc etc etc.

[Betty Boop]

Why?

Why should Britain be forced, against the will of its own government, to keep a man who is wanted by another country on charges as serious as terrorism?

Abu Qatada came here nearly 20 years ago, after claiming asylum in the 90s after claiming that he was facing "religious persecution" in Jordan. I think we might be closer to the truth by saying that he was wanted by Jordan because he was actively plotting to overthrow the regime in Jordan at that time and then fled to Britain and fed us a lot of nonsense about persecution, which we bought hook, line and sinker but then that's another story.

There's been a small fortune spent on this man and his family over the past 20 years, all at the expense of the British taxpayer, and it's about time that it came to an end.

I totally accept and agree that Britain should not be extraditing people when they face charges in a country that are highly dubious or are charges that are at odds with standards that we set in this country.

However, Abu Qatada faces extremely serious charges in Jordan, charges that I would expect any nation in the world to deal with in the most serious terms. He's charged with conspiracy to carry out terror attacks and with involvement in a plot to carry out a bomb attack on a tourist location in 2000, during the Millennium celebrations.

We're not talking about minor indiscretions here, he should be flown back on the next plane to Jordan to face those charges. He's just been returned to prison over an alleged breach of his bail conditions relating to an investigation into extremist material on the internet. This man is a danger to our safety and our security and has no business being here. All I hear in relation to this case is that it's against his human rights to be sent back to Jordan. What about our human rights not to be threatened by people like this or by people who are influenced by individuals such as Qatada? Or does that not matter?

We took him in 20 years ago because he claimed he was facing persecution. Now another country wants him to face criminal charges and I don't see any reason for why he's still here.

Jordan's given assurances on many occasions by saying that, if he was extradited, he would not face torture at the hands of their authorities. Now, I'm personally not going to lose any sleep over the thought of him possibly being tortured by Jordan but those assurances are good enough for me.

He should be on the next plane out of here and on his way to Jordan and the fact that that's not the case is an absolute disgrace.

I'll say it again, if he is as you put it such a danger to our safety and security, why doesn't the government produce the evidence and take him to trial. They obviously don't have any. However unpleasant you may find Qatada, if we want to live in a society that believes in an independent judiciary, and justice, we must accept the court's decision.

[Twa Cairpets]

Jeez, when I was at school it was a noun and an adjective. These ****** Roumanians, coming over here and stealing our grammar, etc etc etc.

:top marks
A deserved collar by the grammar police.

[lord bunberry]

I'll say it again, if he is as you put it such a danger to our safety and security, why doesn't the government produce the evidence and take him to trial. They obviously don't have any. However unpleasant you may find Qatada, if we want to live in a society that believes in an independent judiciary, and justice, we must accept the court's decision.

Maybe the evidence we have was obtained by tapping his phone

[Betty Boop]

[QUOTE=lord bunberry;3548930]Maybe the evidence we have was obtained by tapping his phone[/QUOTE

Maybe they just don't have any.

[lord bunberry]

[QUOTE=lord bunberry;3548930]Maybe the evidence we have was obtained by tapping his phone[/QUOTE

Maybe they just don't have any.

I find that hard to believe

[Skanko79]

[QUOTE=lord bunberry;3548930]Maybe the evidence we have was obtained by tapping his phone[/QUOTE

Maybe they just don't have any.

is a bundle of cash in an envelope addressed to the mujahideen in chechnya no enough evidence like?

not to mention the oxygen thief had over 110k in cash in his house. how can a man with no job and sponging benefits have that kind of cash sitting about?

get him on a plane. im sure the punishments waiting for him in jordan are worthy after he has blatantly lived here since the 90's courtesy of the tax payer.

the mans vile.

[Twa Cairpets]

is a bundle of cash in an envelope addressed to the mujahideen in chechnya no enough evidence like?

not to mention the oxygen thief had over 110k in cash in his house. how can a man with no job and sponging benefits have that kind of cash sitting about?

get him on a plane. im sure the punishments waiting for him in jordan are worthy after he has blatantly lived here since the 90's courtesy of the tax payer.

the mans vile.

He is vile. I abhor pretty much everything I know about him.

But, if you set the precedent that he can be extradited as things stand, the minute its used as a legal precedent and some other less appalling, totally innocent punter gets tortured or killed, you then have to ask is that a good thing or a bad thing, on balance?

[Phil D. Rolls]

He is vile. I abhor pretty much everything I know about him.

But, if you set the precedent that he can be extradited as things stand, the minute its used as a legal precedent and some other less appalling, totally innocent punter gets tortured or killed, you then have to ask is that a good thing or a bad thing, on balance?

At this point in the thread it is only right that the Nazis get a mention. Say, instead of going to jail, Hitler had taken asylum in the UK. Would we have let him stay - or were the Daily Mail as interested in house prices then as they are now?

[RyeSloan]

He is vile. I abhor pretty much everything I know about him.

But, if you set the precedent that he can be extradited as things stand, the minute its used as a legal precedent and some other less appalling, totally innocent punter gets tortured or killed, you then have to ask is that a good thing or a bad thing, on balance?

As I read it there is no suggestion he is to tortured but that he will be tried with evidence that was obtained by torture.

Ergo as such evidence can only be considered extremely suspect there is therefore significant doubt that he would receive a fair trial.

On that basis the laws that the UK has willingly signed up to state it would not be correct to deport him for trial.

Possibly a good example of an inconvenient truth.

[RyeSloan]

Or maybe we could deploy some extraordinary rendition to get round the problem....