Listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 on the drive into work, I heard discussion on suggested financial penalties for benefit claimants who refuse to learn English.

It does make sense – some immigrants (or in some cases English-born ethnic minorities) who are long-term unemployed and justify their lack of job prospects on being discriminated against because they don’t speak English. Well, that’s not surprising. It’s pretty hard for somebody to direct, manage and hold duty of care for an employee who doesn’t understand the national language.

With 40,000 non-English speaking claimants, and £4,500,000 each year spent on providing interpreters in the dole offices, the suggestion is that from April they be penalised by losing benefits unless they can demonstrate that they are actively seeking to learn English.

The money currently spent on interpreters would be diverted to providing training for non-English speakers.

Just testing the water on SF, does everyone think that this makes sense and is probably overdue, or are there any posters who find it to be a deplorable abuse of these claimants’ rights? (I fear that the latter will not be a nil return).

It depends how long they've been here. If it's more than a year and they can't speak basic English: deport them.

Listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 on the drive into work, I heard discussion on suggested financial penalties for benefit claimants who refuse to learn English.

It does make sense – some immigrants (or in some cases English-born ethnic minorities) who are long-term unemployed and justify their lack of job prospects on being discriminated against because they don’t speak English. Well, that’s not surprising. It’s pretty hard for somebody to direct, manage and hold duty of care for an employee who doesn’t understand the national language.

With 40,000 non-English speaking claimants, and £4,500,000 each year spent on providing interpreters in the dole offices, the suggestion is that from April they be penalised by losing benefits unless they can demonstrate that they are actively seeking to learn English.
The money currently spent on interpreters would be diverted to providing training for non-English speakers.

Just testing the water on SF, does everyone think that this makes sense and is probably overdue, or are there any posters who find it to be a deplorable abuse of these claimants’ rights? (I fear that the latter will not be a nil return).
It's to be hoped that this is enforced a little more stingently than the 'actively seeking work' fiasco presently in force.

It's to be hoped that this is enforced a little more stingently than the 'actively seeking work' fiasco presently in force.Hopefully it will mean turning up to official classes and being recorded as having attended.

Hopefully it will mean turning up to official classes and being recorded as having attended.
And hopefully progress monitored and tests carried out at intervals. Benefits lowered if progress not made.:thumbsup:

I reckon this is the kick up the backside that most need. It should be compulsory to speak the language of your adopted country and if you show no willingness to learn then bye bye. I think it's very ignorant to expect to go to a country to live and not expect to use the native language. This isn't only about immigrants here it also applies to the thousands of ex-pats sunning it up on the costas.

DWP and other gov dept spend a fortune on interpreters and appointment rescheduling due to language barriers. i sympathise with those who are geniune refugees, but have no sympathy for 'immigrants' or 'migrant workers' who cannot speak english, amazingly they can ask when they are going to get any money.

My other half used to work in a place where an indian woman was employed. This woman, who had been in England for about fifteen years had an actual interpreter sitting next to her so she could communicate with her co-workers.
The firm had to pay the employee PLUS the interpreter, who was on about two quid per hour more than the worker.
My other halfs memory of the interpreter was of a woman, sitting next to the employee, looking bored out of her skull.

I recently discovered too that the NHS spend over a million pounds each year on interpreters. Thats a million that could go to helping people.

If a they no speaka da lingo, senda dem home.

surely if they cant understand english they dont know what benefits are so they dont know their missing them:confused:

they have ways and means, those who have come before them who know the system, especially the interpreters who we pay a fortune for, explain how to get all the benefites etc

I reckon this is the kick up the backside that most need. It should be compulsory to speak the language of your adopted country and if you show no willingness to learn then bye bye. I think it's very ignorant to expect to go to a country to live and not expect to use the native language. This isn't only about immigrants here it also applies to the thousands of ex-pats sunning it up on the costas.

Can you imagine what the headlines in the Daily Mail would be like though? Elderly couples being escorted out of Majorca and losing their homes because they have failed to learn Spanish?

I agree, it's ignorant not to learn the language of the country you go to live in, but just imagine what the papers would say if the boot was on the other foot! Imagine English people going to live in Anglesey being forced to learn Welsh! I'd be all for it, but the Daily Mail and the Sun etc would be frothing at the mouth.

Think where this stems from is the Govt is shelling out millions every year to provide free English classes to non-speakers and take-up is declining rapidly, so they need a stick to make people learn.

About time too and hopefully it will be policed and you wont just have to say you are attending, but have some proof.

Mathom, I doubt the little old couple in Spain would be claiming off the state.

Can you imagine what the headlines in the Daily Mail would be like though? Elderly couples being escorted out of Majorca and losing their homes because they have failed to learn Spanish?

I agree, it's ignorant not to learn the language of the country you go to live in, but just imagine what the papers would say if the boot was on the other foot! Imagine English people going to live in Anglesey being forced to learn Welsh! I'd be all for it, but the Daily Mail and the Sun etc would be frothing at the mouth.

Think where this stems from is the Govt is shelling out millions every year to provide free English classes to non-speakers and take-up is declining rapidly, so they need a stick to make people learn.

Imagine the headline................' Non Welsh speakers booted out of Wales for not speaking Welsh'..................that would account for 80% of the population of Wales..............:hihi:

Back in the 70s when the Sons of Glendwr were torching English owned holiday cottages you could have imagined something like this being brought in by local councils in North Wales! Or if not councils then groups of villagers marching (like something from Royston Vesey) and forcing the English incomers to learn the lingo... ;)

Back in the 70s when the Sons of Glendwr were torching English owned holiday cottages you could have imagined something like this being brought in by local councils in North Wales! Or if not councils then groups of villagers marching (like something from Royston Vesey) and forcing the English incomers to learn the lingo... ;)
Don't you have to suffer from Irritable Vowel Syndrome to be able to speak Welsh?

Or if not councils then groups of villagers marching (like something from Royston Vesey) and forcing the English incomers to learn the lingo... ;)

Are you Locaaaaal?

Think it should be across the board just not jobless. It is a heck of a job trying to deal with those who have poor english on the phone

Same thing with the Call centres. You get through to the ceter which is in India, they charge you a quid a minute and you end up talking to someone who can barely speak english.

A friend of mine was sitting in on an interview when the person applying for the job brought an interpreter. Half way through the interview something was translated by the interpreter. My friend stopped the interview and told them both to leave. When they asked why my friend said because what you don't know is that I speak fluent Urdu and half what you interpreted bore no resemblance to what was said.

DWP and other gov dept spend a fortune on interpreters and appointment rescheduling due to language barriers. i sympathise with those who are geniune refugees, but have no sympathy for 'immigrants' or 'migrant workers' who cannot speak english, amazingly they can ask when they are going to get any money.


I agree, I used to work for a jobcentre in town and it was amazing how many times I got asked if this was the "free bank"!

I agree, I used to work for a jobcentre in town and it was amazing how many times I got asked if this was the "free bank"!That's why supposed asylum seekers cross dozens of safe borders to end up in England.

I`m actually amazed and to be honest, quite dissapointed that no one has said its a bloody disgrace and we`re all goose stepping nazi monsters, hell bent on world domination yet.

Some years ago I was coming out of Sheffield Library,and women were stopping people and asking them if they would be willing to go into foreign womens homes, to teach them how to write and read English. When I asked how much we would be paid, they told me it was "voluntary work" !!!

I`m actually amazed and to be honest, quite dissapointed that no one has said its a bloody disgrace and we`re all goose stepping nazi monsters, hell bent on world domination yet.
Give him a minute, he's can't be online at the moment.

Some years ago I was coming out of Sheffield Library,and women were stopping people and asking them if they would be willing to go into foreign womens homes, to teach them how to write and read English. When I asked how much we would be paid, they told me it was "voluntary work" !!!
The only odd thing about that is that they were stopping people in the street to ask people about their interest in voluntary work. There are lots of voluntary groups all over the country that are involved in similar projects. For those who have the skills and are interested in doing some voluntary work, I think it's a great idea.

Give him a minute, he's can't be online at the moment.

You arent a mind reader by any chance are you? :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

You arent a mind reader by any chance are you? :hihi: :hihi: :hihi: :hihi:Not exactly, but I think we're in tune, so to speak, on this one!

Listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 on the drive into work, I heard discussion on suggested financial penalties for benefit claimants who refuse to learn English.

It does make sense – some immigrants (or in some cases English-born ethnic minorities) who are long-term unemployed and justify their lack of job prospects on being discriminated against because they don’t speak English. Well, that’s not surprising. It’s pretty hard for somebody to direct, manage and hold duty of care for an employee who doesn’t understand the national language.

Right. Let's get a few things sorted out here. Not ALL 'British' people (even if not ill) are expected to look for 'full time' work. People who are ill, or injured, single parents (of either gender), people over 50 (rules are relaxed), etc.

With 40,000 non-English speaking claimants, and £4,500,000 each year spent on providing interpreters in the dole offices, the suggestion is that from April they be penalised by losing benefits unless they can demonstrate that they are actively seeking to learn English.

Provide some statistics. You would also need to change legislation regarding other people who currently aren't required to look for work. For a start to change the legislation regarding a woman who had sufferred Christ(TM) alone knows what in Rwanda, to be the same as a chav from the Cross. The amount spent on interpreters is also only for those where an interpreter is required.

The money currently spent on interpreters would be diverted to providing training for non-English speakers.

Interpreters are only required when the person in question hasn't sufficient skills in English. Should that be a problem, they will be immediately referred to the correct learning procedure, and/or their English skills established. This is normal practice in a Jobcentre.

Just testing the water on SF, does everyone think that this makes sense and is probably overdue, or are there any posters who find it to be a deplorable abuse of these claimants’ rights? (I fear that the latter will not be a nil return).

Should the same apply to British people who aren't compelled to seek employment?

Right. Let's get a few things sorted out here. Not ALL 'British' people (even if not ill) are expected to look for 'full time' work. People who are ill, or injured, single parents (of either gender), people over 50 (rules are relaxed), etc.







What relaxed rules for those over 50 do you refer to exactly ?

What relaxed rules for those over 50 do you refer to exactly ?

I think he's referring to the "relaxed attitude" that governments have taken to people over 50 claiming incapacity benefit (or its forerunner) for the last 20 years or so.

What relaxed rules for those over 50 do you refer to exactly ?

The New Deal isn't compulsory for customers over 50. Sorry for not being clearer - my fault!

they have ways and means, those who have come before them who know the system, especially the interpreters who we pay a fortune for, explain how to get all the benefites etc

very true they know to the penny what they are entitled to

When in Rome do as the Romans do.That's good advice for anyone going to another country.I've had to learn Japanese in order to live my life here and people going to live in the UK should learn English, at their own expense, or take along their own interpreter,once again,at their own expense.If they don't want to pay for an interpreter then they should find a volunteer.Maybe the do-gooders could organise groups of voluntary interpreters;certainly no government in the world should be obliged to supply interpreters for people who don't know the local language.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.That's good advice for anyone going to another country.I've had to learn Japanese in order to live my life here and people going to live in the UK should learn English, at their own expense, or take along their own interpreter,once again,at their own expense.If they don't want to pay for an interpreter then they should find a volunteer.Maybe the do-gooders could organise groups of voluntary interpreters;certainly no government in the world should be obliged to supply interpreters for people who don't know the local language.

Did you decide to go and live in Japan to take up work, or were you fleeing persecution and torture in your own country? I think there is a real need to look further than just the language. Anyone who needs to earn money to live in a country should learn the language - but the rules can't be the same for everyone.

My view would be that everyone who comes here as an economic migrant should have to speak passable English. There should be no JSA for non-English speakers, JSA suggests they are actively seeking work, that can't be possible if they don't speak the language. The only non English speakers would then be people who are out of the job market, ie pensioners, people with adequate support (eg partners of workers) and people on disability benefits. These could include some asylum seekers/refugees suffering from physical and mental trauma.

Another idea would be that all children should speak English at school, any non English speaking children would have intensive teaching before joining a main stream school. This would be much less disruptive for both them and their classmates, and the specialist language schools could be used for children and adults as a fast track system. I'm all for volunteers getting involved, especially if they are from existing immigrant communities who have integrated into the British way of life. They surely would be the best possible example for newcomers to follow?

I do have difficulty in accepting that people can stay in a country for years and not learn any of the language or the culture, and wonder why they so choose. I suppose some of our pensioners in Spain could answer that as well as anyone?

Did you decide to go and live in Japan to take up work, or were you fleeing persecution and torture in your own country? I think there is a real need to look further than just the language. Anyone who needs to earn money to live in a country should learn the language - but the rules can't be the same for everyone.

My view would be that everyone who comes here as an economic migrant should have to speak passable English. There should be no JSA for non-English speakers, JSA suggests they are actively seeking work, that can't be possible if they don't speak the language. The only non English speakers would then be people who are out of the job market, ie pensioners, people with adequate support (eg partners of workers) and people on disability benefits. These could include some asylum seekers/refugees suffering from physical and mental trauma.

This would require a drastic change in legislation, or indeed new legislation. You accept that the language situation for refugees is different from that of an economic migrant, and this is plain. In the following paragraph, however, you state that JSA shouldn't be payable to some refugees (asylum seekers cannot claim benefits as their status has not been decided.).

If someone who doesn't speak English, or has little English, doesn't qualify for Income Support (on disability grounds), and of course has recourse to public funds, then they have to claim JSA if they aren't working. It is at this point that they should be referred to ESOL (English as a Second or Other Language). Moreover, the fact that they are compelled to look for work, and/or learn English is more inclusive, and a greater help to integration than otherwise.

Another idea would be that all children should speak English at school, any non English speaking children would have intensive teaching before joining a main stream school. This would be much less disruptive for both them and their classmates, and the specialist language schools could be used for children and adults as a fast track system. I'm all for volunteers getting involved, especially if they are from existing immigrant communities who have integrated into the British way of life. They surely would be the best possible example for newcomers to follow?

This is the status quo. With regard to volunteers interpreting, I have two issues with this. Firstly, if they are doing a 'job for which they could reasonably expect to be paid'*, why shouldn't they be paid? Secondly, I always used a paid interpreter for interviews instead of friends or family for reasons of professional integrity.

*should they be claiming a benefit, especially JSA, this could be taken as 'notional income', and would affect their benefit.

I do have difficulty in accepting that people can stay in a country for years and not learn any of the language or the culture, and wonder why they so choose. I suppose some of our pensioners in Spain could answer that as well as anyone?

Good point, so I'll try and address this from my own professional point of view. I don't want to turn this into a debate on international domestic culture, but I have often had to interview women who are middle aged, and whose husbands have died, or left. Some cultures are more 'patriarchal' than others and women are often left with members of their own community. As a result, their English skills were often very poor. Clearly, this isn't the case for all poor English speakers, but you'd be surprised as to how many people are in this situation.

For a start to change the legislation regarding a woman who had sufferred Christ(TM) alone knows what in Rwanda, to be the same as a chav from the Cross.
She should either still be in Rwanda, or have taken GENUINE refuge in the first safe country she could make it to. She should not be in the UK and should not be our problem. And if she has made it this far, she should have less rights, not more, than a British citizen, however much of a low-life that citizen may be.

We have no genuine asylum seekers or refugees making it to England unless they are French, Scottish or Welsh. A truly desperate person fleeing persecution will embrace the first safe country they can reach, and in Africa that means neighbouring states which not only have UN support but will, usually, have plenty of people speaking the same tribal languages.

Any Africans who come to the UK for ‘asylum’ are not doing that at all – they are coming here to take advantage of our ridiculous welfare state and the bird-brained hand-wringing do-gooders who give them money for nothing rather than the immediate deportation that they would face in sensible western countries.

She should either still be in Rwanda, or have taken GENUINE refuge in the first safe country she could make it to. She should not be in the UK and should not be our problem. And if she has made it this far, she should have less rights, not more, than a British citizen, however much of a low-life that citizen may be.

Such a staggeringly obtuse rant shouldn't deserve a response, but I'll do it. As is plainly known, asylum seekers do have fewer rights than British citizens, and have the same if refugee status is granted.

At no stage do they have more rights.

We have no genuine asylum seekers or refugees making it to England unless they are French, Scottish or Welsh. A truly desperate person fleeing persecution will embrace the first safe country they can reach, and in Africa that means neighbouring states which not only have UN support but will, usually, have plenty of people speaking the same tribal languages.

This beggars belief. Aside from the ridiculous notion of people seeking asylum within the UK, have a quick glance at a map, and see the countries near to Rwanda (which was chosen at random to illustrate a point). Most people in Rwanda speak French as well as Bantu related languages, and we are talking about vast distances to reach any safe country; to be sure, all the surrounding countries are dangerous and (Burundi aside) vast.

Any Africans who come to the UK for ‘asylum’ are not doing that at all – they are coming here to take advantage of our ridiculous welfare state and the bird-brained hand-wringing do-gooders who give them money for nothing rather than the immediate deportation that they would face in sensible western countries.

Because while women suffer gang rape and torture, and then are forced to watch their children be mutilated, they're actually thinking 'Never mind, I'll get Income Support in the UK.'

Get a grip.

[QUOTE=Mathom;1945779]Can you imagine what the headlines in the Daily Mail would be like though? Elderly couples being escorted out of Majorca and losing their homes because they have failed to learn Spanish?

I agree, it's ignorant not to learn the language of the country you go to live in, but just imagine what the papers would say if the boot was on the other foot! Imagine English people going to live in Anglesey being forced to learn Welsh! I'd be all for it, but the Daily Mail and the Sun etc would be frothing at the mouth.



Ah! but are our elderly couples claiming benefits from the Spanish Government, and expecting interpreters, I doubt it.

This would require a drastic change in legislation, or indeed new legislation. You accept that the language situation for refugees is different from that of an economic migrant, and this is plain. In the following paragraph, however, you state that JSA shouldn't be payable to some refugees (asylum seekers cannot claim benefits as their status has not been decided.). Sorry, I actually know that asylum seekers don't get JSA, until they get refugee status. I'm also aware that there is a great deal of confusion around this so I should have made it clearer.

If someone who doesn't speak English, or has little English, doesn't qualify for Income Support (on disability grounds), and of course has recourse to public funds, then they have to claim JSA if they aren't working. It is at this point that they should be referred to ESOL (English as a Second or Other Language). Moreover, the fact that they are compelled to look for work, and/or learn English is more inclusive, and a greater help to integration than otherwise. I perhaps didn't make it clear - but I realise there has to be some time allowed to learn English, although, as some asylum seekers' cases take a while to sort out, the language problems could be addressed even before status is decided? JSA could continue for a given time as well.

This is the status quo. With regard to volunteers interpreting, I have two issues with this. Firstly, if they are doing a 'job for which they could reasonably expect to be paid'*, why shouldn't they be paid? Secondly, I always used a paid interpreter for interviews instead of friends or family for reasons of professional integrity. In previous employment we made it a rule to use professional, paid interpreters to conduct interviews. However, I don't see why there can't also be voluntary help for people learning the language - these methods don't have to be mutually exclusive?

*should they be claiming a benefit, especially JSA, this could be taken as 'notional income', and would affect their benefit. There are often people who don't claim benefits who volunteer - I've done it myself, although not as a language teacher. I've met working, retired, disabled people who have been volunteers in different ways, so I don't accept that there isn't a place for them.

Good point, so I'll try and address this from my own professional point of view. I don't want to turn this into a debate on international domestic culture, but I have often had to interview women who are middle aged, and whose husbands have died, or left. Some cultures are more 'patriarchal' than others and women are often left with members of their own community. As a result, their English skills were often very poor. Clearly, this isn't the case for all poor English speakers, but you'd be surprised as to how many people are in this situation.

I wouldn't, when my kids were little in the 1970s there were mothers who brought their children to the baby clinics to interpret - and for some families, that hasn't changed. I do know some Asian women have now learnt English for no reason other than to communicate better with their own children, and with neighbours who only speak English. I'd like to see everyone living in a country being encouraged to learn the language.

I perhaps didn't make it clear - but I realise there has to be some time allowed to learn English, although, as some asylum seekers' cases take a while to sort out, the language problems could be addressed even before status is decided? JSA could continue for a given time as well.

Agreed. However funding to do that is an issue. JSA would continue once status is granted, and that the refugee is attending on a regular basis.

In previous employment we made it a rule to use professional, paid interpreters to conduct interviews. However, I don't see why there can't also be voluntary help for people learning the language - these methods don't have to be mutually exclusive?

I rather think it depends on the type of interview. During the work focused interviews which I and my colleagues conducted, also often relating to personal financial matters, we decided for integrity, that paid interpreters should be used. If there is an interview which is booked in advance, and is part of the procedure for the claim, I think it should be a paid interpreter; for general enquiries, then I don't think it matters.

There are often people who don't claim benefits who volunteer - I've done it myself, although not as a language teacher. I've met working, retired, disabled people who have been volunteers in different ways, so I don't accept that there isn't a place for them.

I was just pointing out a possible pitfall. As I said before, official interviews should be conducted in an official manner.

I do know some Asian women have now learnt English for no reason other than to communicate better with their own children, and with neighbours who only speak English. I'd like to see everyone living in a country being encouraged to learn the language.

Agreed.

I think we're in agreement then - cos I would never use a family member or friend for formal interview purposes. Professional interpreters, whether face to face or on the phone are the only way to ensure that the conversation is carried out effectively. I would suggest voluntary help more along the lines of conversation clubs, where people who are learning a language can practice using what they have learnt. :thumbsup:

I think we're in agreement then - cos I would never use a family member or friend for formal interview purposes. Professional interpreters, whether face to face or on the phone are the only way to ensure that the conversation is carried out effectively. I would suggest voluntary help more along the lines of conversation clubs, where people who are learning a language can practice using what they have learnt. :thumbsup:

Pretty much, aye!

Ah! but are our elderly couples claiming benefits from the Spanish Government, and expecting interpreters, I doubt it.


In fact, they British expats on the costas do expect the Spanish health system to provide for them, and as such a high proportion of the expats are retired, and so have more complex, frequent and serious health problems, that burden is considerable. And yes they do largely expect interpreters. And I read a few months ago that the Spanish are becoming increasingly restive about the situation, and health workers are pressing for something to be done. :)

[QUOTE=happyhippy;1962550]

This is the status quo. With regard to volunteers interpreting, I have two issues with this. Firstly, if they are doing a 'job for which they could reasonably expect to be paid'*, why shouldn't they be paid? Secondly, I always used a paid interpreter for interviews instead of friends or family for reasons of professional integrity.QUOTE]

Your english seams fine here, are you pulling some kind of scam on the tax payer, or are you one of those whose pockets get lined out of the non English speakers (both the same)

She should either still be in Rwanda, or have taken GENUINE refuge in the first safe country she could make it to. She should not be in the UK and should not be our problem. And if she has made it this far, she should have less rights, not more, than a British citizen, however much of a low-life that citizen may be.

We have no genuine asylum seekers or refugees making it to England unless they are French, Scottish or Welsh. A truly desperate person fleeing persecution will embrace the first safe country they can reach, and in Africa that means neighbouring states which not only have UN support but will, usually, have plenty of people speaking the same tribal languages.

Any Africans who come to the UK for ‘asylum’ are not doing that at all – they are coming here to take advantage of our ridiculous welfare state and the bird-brained hand-wringing do-gooders who give them money for nothing rather than the immediate deportation that they would face in sensible western countries.


Talk like that will put HappyHippy out of a job, and a pass time of defending the weak and non English

Your english seams fine here, are you pulling some kind of scam on the tax payer, or are you one of those whose pockets get lined out of the non English speakers (both the same)

Deeply amusing. Indeed, had you been bothered to read through the thread to notice that my first language is English, and that I did interview people of different backgrounds, and that I can give facts as oppposed to fatuous remarks, that last post may not have occurred.

As it happens, as a fluent French speaker, I probably saved the Government a bloody fortune in interpreting fees, by conducting the interviews, in French, myself.

Talk like that will put HappyHippy out of a job, and a pass time of defending the weak and non English

I'll defend those whom I feel need defending, whether Irish, English, Scottish, Welsh, Rwandan or from anywhere else for that matter, of any creed, or colour. The simple fact of the matter is that there are people in this country who for umpteen reasons need to have an interpreter for formal interviews.

its disgusting !!!!!!!!! i speak to non english speaking people on a daily basis . some of these people have lived here for 20 30 years and stil refuse to learn to speak english. it is amazing how quickly they learn when it comes to benefits, money and such like . i am not racist before anyone says anything i am just very angry at this country making allowances for their lazyness and arrogance towards us , if they cant speak english they should either learn pdq or go to their own country to live. i would not dream of going to another country to live and not bothering to learn their language and have interpretators following me around paid for by the country i live in ........

its disgusting !!!!!!!!! i speak to non english speaking people on a daily basis . some of these people have lived here for 20 30 years and stil refuse to learn to speak english. it is amazing how quickly they learn when it comes to benefits, money and such like . i am not racist before anyone says anything i am just very angry at this country making allowances for their lazyness and arrogance towards us , if they cant speak english they should either learn pdq or go to their own country to live. i would not dream of going to another country to live and not bothering to learn their language and have interpretators following me around paid for by the country i live in ........

They don't know; they are told, and helped. Do you honestly think that people have a detailed knowledge of the benefit system here? If you want to know, it's all available on the internet or in free leaflets ........ you can see just how 'easy' it is for people to claim ...........

With regard to those who 'come here to live', lots don't have the faintest where they're going to end up. That's often the point missed by people who say, "Why do they cross so many borders?"

The reason is that there are no request stops when you're in the back of a truck. Where the traffickers take you is where you'll go.

Surely it's clear that if you choose where you're going to go, you wouldn't risk your life to get there? Do you think that traffickers hand out brochures?

=happyhippy;1964845]

With regard to those who 'come here to live', lots don't have the faintest where they're going to end up. That's often the point missed by people who say, "Why do they cross so many borders?"

The reason is that there are no request stops when you're in the back of a truck. Where the traffickers take you is where you'll go.

Surely it's clear that if you choose where you're going to go, you wouldn't risk your life to get there? Do you think that traffickers hand out brochures

Who are you talking about here?

I haven't met all that many illegals/asylum seekers, but all those that I have met knew where they were heading. They had intentionally come to England and all had contacts here that they could phone and get assistance.:)

You would know a lot more about what help exists for benefit claimants to learn English than I do: but it seems that if they're living on the dole then they have ample time to learn the language. How can they avoid doing so for years without it being simple willfulness?

Who are you talking about here?

I haven't met all that many illegals/asylum seekers, but all those that I have met knew where they were heading. They had intentionally come to England and all had contacts here that they could phone and get assistance.:)

While not doubting your integrity, but do you not think that other people might just have been told the same about Germany, Sweden, Belgium, France, oh the list could go on ......... all you have done is to compound my point. They may know where they're going, but it won't be their choice.

You would know a lot more about what help exists for benefit claimants to learn English than I do: but it seems that if they're living on the dole then they have ample time to learn the language. How can they avoid doing so for years without it being simple willfulness?

I refer you to the responses earlier.

You don't know how hard it is for benefit seekers coming to UK. The promised land of milk and honey is not always what it seems to be.

You don't know how hard it is for benefit seekers coming to UK. The promised land of milk and honey is not always what it seems to be.

Well I wouldn't know if they were 'benefit seekers' or not.

Being quite cynical though: that's what I always said to them, but they seemed happy enough to have arrived.

While not doubting your integrity, but do you not think that other people might just have been told the same about Germany, Sweden, Belgium, France, oh the list could go on ......... all you have done is to compound my point. They may know where they're going, but it won't be their choice.

I think we're talking about different sets of people.

I worked in Kent and there was a continuous stream of arrivals, wandering on the motorway, who had somehow got over the channel. They could have stopped at France but elected to come here.

Whether or not they have become 'claimants' in any way I obviously don't know.

The police were always utterly incurious about them; which I found odd as many claimed to be Iraqis and we were, at the time, invading Iraq. :confused:

I think we're talking about different sets of people.

Clearly not.

I worked in Kent and there was a continuous stream of arrivals, wandering on the motorway, who had somehow got over the channel. They could have stopped at France but elected to come here.

Whether or not they have become 'claimants' in any way I obviously don't know.

The police were always utterly incurious about them; which I found odd as many claimed to be Iraqis and we were, at the time, invading Iraq. :confused:

By your own admission, there were 'arrivals' who were here. You have no idea how they got here. This clearly is not in doubt. The various arguments about the war(s) in Iraq may have something to do with their arrival. All of which is rather off topic, however you intimate they could have stopped in France. Did they get the chance to do so? Have you any idea?

As you don't know about the people you saw, and the follow up, what is your argument? Moreover, all of the people you saw may well be working, and enjoying fruitful lives.

Clearly not.



By your own admission, there were 'arrivals' who were here. You have no idea how they got here. This clearly is not in doubt. The various arguments about the war(s) in Iraq may have something to do with their arrival. All of which is rather off topic, however you intimate they could have stopped in France. Did they get the chance to do so? Have you any idea?

As you don't know about the people you saw, and the follow up, what is your argument? Moreover, all of the people you saw may well be working, and enjoying fruitful lives.

If they are 'working, and enjoying fruitful lives', which appeared to be their intention, why would you ever meet them?: therefore, presumably, not people you are talking about.

I asked them why they didn't stop in France, which to me seems a more attractive place(better weather and nicer food), and they would say 'England is better'.

Explain this: these people, almost entirely young men, don't possess work permits, or national insurance numbers, or any checkable history. What work can they be doing; for whom; and under what circumstances of pay/work conditions/living arrangements?

Does it seem likely that these will be meeting the minimum criteria required in law?

I haven't questioned your integrity or judgement: if you say everyone you met is a sort of inadvertent immigrant- fine.

However: all those that I've met have indicated that they arrived here deliberately, as was their intention, and have been in possession of contact phone numbers of people from their own social group who could advise and assist them. I know this from talking to them, lending them my phone, and talking to their contacts myself.

If they are 'working, and enjoying fruitful lives', which appeared to be their intention, why would you ever meet them?: therefore, presumably, not people you are talking about.

Utterly incorrect. People who could have, and in most cases, had been working, having been granted status. Usually as cleaners.

I asked them why they didn't stop in France, which to me seems a more attractive place(better weather and nicer food), and they would say 'England is better'.

Presumably you speak Soorani, or Kinyarwanda, or Swahili, or Turkish, or Pashto ........

Explain this: these people, almost entirely young men, don't possess work permits, or national insurance numbers, or any checkable history. What work can they be doing; for whom; and under what circumstances of pay/work conditions/living arrangements?

What the hell has the arrival status of asylum seekers got to do with interpreters being required at formal interviews? Stay on topic.

However: all those that I've met have indicated that they arrived here deliberately, as was their intention, and have been in possession of contact phone numbers of people from their own social group who could advise and assist them. I know this from talking to them, lending them my phone, and talking to their contacts myself.

In which case you have effectively admitted to helping illegal immigrants enter the country, or at the very least stay here. As you appear to object to it so much, why help?

In my extensive professional experience, NO asylum seeker, and then refugee, has even the vaguest possibility of choosing a 'safe' destination, save for a former colonial power, if they have money to pay for safe passage, and even then, that isn't guaranteed.

=happyhippy;1965215]Utterly incorrect. People who could have, and in most cases, had been working, having been granted status. Usually as cleaners

Well I don't know whether my lot ended up claiming asylum or not. Possibly they weren't from an appropriate country. Can Kurds claim asylum; Afghans?; Albanians? What happens to those who get here and can't? They appear to just disappear into the hinterland.

Presumably you speak Soorani, or Kinyarwanda, or Swahili, or Turkish, or Pashto ........

This is just you insinuating that I am a liar. Most of these people that I have met have been in small groups and at least one has been able to drag up sufficient English to hold some sort of conversation, usually aided by drawing on a notepad.


What the hell has the arrival status of asylum seekers got to do with interpreters being required at formal interviews? Stay on topic.

It relates to your statement about fruitful lives. Without documentation, or any official existence: how?


In which case you have effectively admitted to helping illegal immigrants enter the country, or at the very least stay here.

No: as I always, sometimes at their request, call the police and report them: that's my duty done. If the coppers can't be bothered, I can hardly be expected to imprison them as an alternative.


As you appear to object to it so much, why help?

Where have I said I object to 'it'? I was living in a caravan at the side of the motorway. When I'm met with cold and hungry people I don't consider it anything other than reasonable to offer temporary shelter and a meal.
After a couple of hours of pointless waiting: why shouldn't they sort themselves out? If there are laws against 'apparent illegal immigrants' being allowed to talk on the phone: I don't know of them. Nor laws against talking to people who share their language and can speak English.


In my extensive professional experience, NO asylum seeker, and then refugee, has even the vaguest possibility of choosing a 'safe' destination, save for a former colonial power, if they have money to pay for safe passage, and even then, that isn't guaranteed

I would consider those I met as economic migrants. They sometimes wanted to turn themselves in, which I thought strange, but when no-one turned up they would change their minds and go off about their business. As above: perhaps they thought they could claim asylum and then were advised by their contacts that it wasn't so.


You seem overly combative and hostile to me: why?

Well I don't know whether my lot ended up claiming asylum or not. Possibly they weren't from an appropriate country. Can Kurds claim asylum; Afghans?; Albanians? What happens to those who get here and can't? They appear to just disappear into the hinterland.

Of course they can; there are no countries from which people can't seek asylum. Those who can't gain leave to remain either stay illegally, or are deported.

This is just you insinuating that I am a liar. Most of these people that I have met have been in small groups and at least one has been able to drag up sufficient English to hold some sort of conversation, usually aided by drawing on a notepad.

Not at all. What it demonstrates is that you have formed an opinion from stilted conversations with people with little English. I have formed mine either using interpreters who are fluent in English and my interviewee's language, or by speaking to them directly in languages in which we both were fluent. I think there is a world of difference.

It relates to your statement about fruitful lives. Without documentation, or any official existence: how?

You must have misread my posts. Anybody claiming benefit (which is what the thread is about) must have leave to remain and recourse to public funds. So, during the interviews I conducted, they would have been claiming a benefit. This obviously also means that they are allowed to work in the UK too. I hope that clears that up.

No: as I always, sometimes at their request, call the police and report them: that's my duty done. If the coppers can't be bothered, I can hardly be expected to imprison them as an alternative.

So allowing illegal immigrants the use of your phone to talk to their 'contacts' doesn't amount to helping illegal immigrants then?

My husband has 2 brothers and their partners are being taught english at home.. no expense to anyone! In the hope that they can seek employment! Both could speak english as it is taught in what many see as third world/developing countries.. they just want to be FLUENT in english.

Can you imagine what the headlines in the Daily Mail would be like though? Elderly couples being escorted out of Majorca and losing their homes because they have failed to learn Spanish?

Except that pensioners are NOT a burden on Spanish communities in the same way as the immigrants being discussed here. Infact, ex-pats in Spain contribute significantly to the economy.

I agree, it's ignorant not to learn the language of the country you go to live in, but just imagine what the papers would say if the boot was on the other foot!

*IF* UK residents moved to another country and sponged off the state while refusing to learn the languare, then I would expect the papers to be rightly outraged. If they're not sponging off the state, why would they say anything, why would they even care?

Imagine English people going to live in Anglesey being forced to learn Welsh! I'd be all for it, but the Daily Mail and the Sun etc would be frothing at the mouth.

You have failed to understand the issue! It is not whether people can or cannot speak English/Welsh/Martian, it is whether people "who want to claim benefits" can speak english/welsh/martian. If you're wealthy enough, you can wander around shouting gibberish for all anyone will care.

Think where this stems from is the Govt is shelling out millions every year to provide free English classes to non-speakers and take-up is declining rapidly, so they need a stick to make people learn.

Nonsense.

You have failed to understand the issue! It is not whether people can or cannot speak English/Welsh/Martian, it is whether people "who want to claim benefits" can speak english/welsh/martian. If you're wealthy enough, you can wander around shouting gibberish for all anyone will care.

True, but it's slightly more involved than that. It's not whether they "want" to, but if they "need" to.

As I've pointed out, people who are claiming JSA, and are therefore compelled to look for work, should be referred to ESOL at the start of a claim. This doesn't always happen due to operational pressure <fx:awaits flak>. After 13 weeks, there will be a general review of the conditions applied on their Jobseeker's Agreement, when a referral to ESOL will happen, if one hasn't been done already.

If they don't attend, they lose money. In exactly the same way, if an English speaker doesn't attend a mandatory course, their money is stopped.

If someone who doesn't speak English is claiming a benefit which doesn't compel them to look for work, or is the partner of someone who isn't compelled to look for work, then it follows that they're not compelled by law to learn English.

Should that happen, there would be an anomaly in legislation in that certain people (English speakers) who aren't compelled to 'do an activity' while others in the same position (non-English speakers) are. Clearly this is incongruous.

I really didn't want to have to go all the way into this, but I've had to just to demonstrate that this really is a non-story.

The way I understand it, is that when someone goes to claim a benefit that will ensure they can survive until they find employment then an assessment is made of the things they need to do in order to help them secure employment. If someone has little or no English language skills then in the majority of cases it would be considered that learning English will put them in a better position to secure employment. It may be for someone else that they attend some other form of training. If the training is considered necessary for the claimant to undertake in order to ensure they are doing everything they can to secure employment and is made a condition for receipt of benefit then so be it. Surely that's exactly what should be happening to make sure people are in the best position they can be in, in order to get a job - after all, that's what they want isn't it?

Listening to the Today programme on Radio 4 on the drive into work, I heard discussion on suggested financial penalties for benefit claimants who refuse to learn English.

It does make sense – some immigrants (or in some cases English-born ethnic minorities) who are long-term unemployed and justify their lack of job prospects on being discriminated against because they don’t speak English. Well, that’s not surprising. It’s pretty hard for somebody to direct, manage and hold duty of care for an employee who doesn’t understand the national language.

With 40,000 non-English speaking claimants, and £4,500,000 each year spent on providing interpreters in the dole offices, the suggestion is that from April they be penalised by losing benefits unless they can demonstrate that they are actively seeking to learn English.

The money currently spent on interpreters would be diverted to providing training for non-English speakers.

Just testing the water on SF, does everyone think that this makes sense and is probably overdue, or are there any posters who find it to be a deplorable abuse of these claimants’ rights? (I fear that the latter will not be a nil return).


Yes they should lose benefits. What use are you to the country if you cannot speak the language

Yes they should lose benefits. What use are you to the country if you cannot speak the language

Tell that to all the strawberry pickers, potato pickers, hop pickers, cocklers and those assembling electronic parts in the north of England.

Not to mention all the nannies in London, the Polish building workers .....

The list is endless and they are all of use to the country.

They don't know; they are told, and helped. Do you honestly think that people have a detailed knowledge of the benefit system here? If you want to know, it's all available on the internet or in free leaflets ........ you can see just how 'easy' it is for people to claim ...........

With regard to those who 'come here to live', lots don't have the faintest where they're going to end up. That's often the point missed by people who say, "Why do they cross so many borders?"

The reason is that there are no request stops when you're in the back of a truck. Where the traffickers take you is where you'll go.

Surely it's clear that if you choose where you're going to go, you wouldn't risk your life to get there? Do you think that traffickers hand out brochures?

NO they have friends and family that walk them through it all, or the interpreter arranged by the ******** Welfare group will say what needs saying, or even the best to come, one of there family pretends to be them and goes and makes the claim.

NO they have friends and family that walk them through it all, or the interpreter arranged by the ******** Welfare group will say what needs saying, or even the best to come, one of there family pretends to be them and goes and makes the claim.

It's very clear that you have no practical experience of this at all. For a start, the interpreter is arranged by the Jobcentre, and is totally impartial. Go back and read my posts which fully explain what actually happens; I'm not explaining it again.

With regard to new claims being made by others, I can only recall one instance where suspicion arose from documentation provided to support someone's identity.

That person was English.