Jump to content

Simply Fairness - or Utter Madness.


Recommended Posts

The peoples background IS relevant. Whether you like it or not, we are living in a world demarcated by borders and within those borders we support one another in differing ways. To cross a border by your own volition is to jump into the unsupported world and to expect people on the other side to support you without having contributed is simply unfair to those who by way of taxation have to provide.

 

Our borders should be under our control and we should be able to choose who we let in and who we eject. Just like the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.

 

I remember speaking with an American about this once and his opinion on it was, The UK is stupid, you let in the goat herders while making it difficult for the people with the skills you need. The USA does it the other way round. You have to be able to give a lot to the USA to get in.

 

I never suggested that the nationality of the family should have no bearing, I'm agreeing with the OP. So how do we deal with small number of big families that cannot support themselves?

 

The American seems to ignorant about their own immigration problems which it seems are as big as ours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never suggested that the nationality of the family should have no bearing, I'm agreeing with the OP. So how do we deal with small number of big families that cannot support themselves?

 

We send them back to their country of origin. No one should be able to hold the country ransom.

 

The American seems to ignorant about their own immigration problems which it seems are as big as ours.

 

They are not ignorant, they know there is a large issue in the south of the country due to their huge border with Mexico. What they are is, supportive of their governments rules and the idea of being an illegal alien is much more of a stigma in the USA than it is in the UK.

 

---------- Post added 18-02-2016 at 13:58 ----------

 

They are refugees from Somalia.

 

Are they? Where are you getting this information from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We send them back to their country of origin. No one should be able to hold the country ransom.

 

So we stop letting in refugees based upon their need, and he start judging them by the size of their family?

 

They are not ignorant, they know there is a large issue in the south of the country due to their huge border with Mexico. What they are is, supportive of their governments rules and the idea of being an illegal alien is much more of a stigma in the USA than it is in the UK.

 

If they knew they have a huge issue with unskilled immigration, why are they dismissive about a country that they perceive to have problem with unskilled immigration?

 

We should keep this thread on topic rather than arguing about the evils of foreigners.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This particular family moved to Britain in 2008,niether of the parents have ever worked.unfortunatly due to the government capping benefits they had to move out of their £2 million pound home and downsize to a £1.1 million pound home.But only after it had been totally renovated. A spokesman for the Camden council said,Our council houses are allocated on a needs basis in line with our policy and Goverment legislation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is the article

 

Turns out the council own this new property and they as the owners set the rent price which falls within the benefit cap. The family were moved because the private house they rented was above the benefit cap.

 

Extensive renovation has taken place at the house possibly because the family apparently have two disabled children which has also been taken into account when they were rehoused?

 

It seems the main feature of the 'piece' is that the neighbours are unhappy that private rents in that area are substantially higher than the capped council property.

 

I don't think they should have been relocated to London from Coventry in the first place unless a very good reason was put forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think they should have been relocated to London from Coventry in the first place unless a very good reason was put forward.

 

.

 

"But they caused anger when they decided they would rather live in London and were handed the keys to the huge house"

 

If the only reason they were moved is because they felt like a change then it's pure madness.To be honest I can't see a reason to move them to London at all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

"But they caused anger when they decided they would rather live in London and were handed the keys to the huge house"

 

If the only reason they were moved is because they felt like a change then it's pure madness.To be honest I can't see a reason to move them to London at all...

Yes the article said they preferred to live in the Capital so they were relocated to London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we stop letting in refugees based upon their need, and he start judging them by the size of their family?

 

No but there is no mention of the circumstances of this family. Until we know they are refugees, we can only assume based on the facts. 1. they are immigrants. 2 they do not work 3. they claim a large amount of benefits.

 

If they are legitimate refugees, the only issue here is why are they housed in such an expensive location. They could easily be moved to a less expensive area of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.