sambum

So, you are saying that I falsified my figures? Calling me a liar? OK - here is the Header page and date of the UK Government Hansard, and all text up to the relevant figures that I quoted previously from the statement. (I have underlined the figures in question.) If you have any trouble in reconciling them, I suggest you take it up with the Minister for Immigration, Mr Robert Jenrick the MP responsible for the statement:-. Hansard UK Parliament Hansard Commons Chamber Illegal Migration Bill: Economic Impact Assessment Illegal Migration Bill: Economic Impact Assessment Volume 735: debated on Tuesday 27 June 2023 JUN 27 2023 Download text Back to top Previous debate Next debate Column 149is located here 12.38pm Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab) Sharethis specific contribution (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the publication of the impact assessment on the Illegal Migration Bill. The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick) Sharethis specific contribution The Illegal Migration Bill is critical to stopping the boats. Its intent is clear: if someone comes to the UK illegally, they should be detained and swiftly returned to their home country if safe, or relocated to a safe third country such as Rwanda. The impact assessment published yesterday makes clear that inaction is simply not an option. The volumes and costs associated with illegal migration have risen exponentially, driven by small boat arrivals. Unless we act decisively to stop the boats, the cost to the taxpayer and the damage to society will continue to grow. The asylum system currently costs £3.6 billion a year and £6 million a day in hotel accommodation, but that is not the true cost of doing nothing. As this impact assessment shows, the cost of accommodating illegal migrants has increased dramatically since 2020. If these trends continued, the Home Office would be spending over £11 billion a year, or £32 million a day, on asylum support by the end of 2026. In such a scenario, the Bill would only need to deliver a 2% deterrence in arrivals to enable cost savings.

Erm? They haven't implemented it yet! :- "Thailand's Customs Department will start charging Value-Added Tax (VAT) on all imported postal goods next month."

Oh,give over trolling!!!

Irrelevant.

From a UK Parliament Hansard article regarding The Illegal Migration Bill - essentially not taking into account the legal migrants:- "The Illegal Migration Bill is critical to stopping the boats. ...........................The asylum system currently costs £3.6 billion a year and £6 million a day in hotel accommodation, but that is not the true cost of doing nothing. As this impact assessment shows, the cost of accommodating illegal migrants has increased dramatically since 2020. If these trends continued, the Home Office would be spending over £11 billion a year, or £32 million a day, on asylum support by the end of 2026. In such a scenario, the Bill would only need to deliver a 2% deterrence in arrivals to enable cost savings."

I think you should have gone to Specsavers - "Dinsdale" made the point you are referring to - NOT ME!

Then why are they coming to the UK in their boatloads for "a better way of life"? :- "Thousands of migrants rescued in Channel, crossings to UK at second-highest on record By Emma Wallis Published on : 2023/12/04 Latest update : 2023/12/05 Thousands of migrants have arrived in Britain after crossing the Channel in small boats in the last seven days. Over the weekend, French authorities also rescued over 200 migrants off the coast of Calais. Crossings have hit the second-highest level on record. Migrant crossings in the Channel over the last few days have increased once more. According to data from the British government, 1,264 migrants reached the English coast after crossing the Channel in small boats between November 26 and December 2."

I think that "back then", in the days before the internet and "hand held computers", most pensioners would probably get their information "passed down" by the guy sitting at the next seat in the bar/working mans club! I can just see John Smith getting an envelope full of what he would consider "gobbledegook", showing it to a mate, and asking "What do you think this lot means?" And his mate replying, "Oh, nowt to worry about - it's just them telling you when your pension starts - everybody gets one of them!"

In some parts, bikes have got to be parked closely together otherwise you wouldn't be able to get parked in the same town that you were visiting!

"You could be making a turn, be delayed in clearing the opposite lane,....." If you were delayed in clearing the opposite lane, surely you shouldn't be turning anyway? The car is at fault for not indicating his intention to turn. If he had indicated, the motor bike rider may have slowed down, or at the least, have been aware of the car drivers intentions.

Luxury car - no signal to indicate that he was turning. Motorbike appeared to be going fast, but the rider wasn't thrown very far, and didn't appear to be seriously injured. However, the thing that is apparent from the clip is that the couple seemed more concerned about their car than the motorcyclist! Didn't even give him a glance!

I'm not saying that at all, (I did say it was a conspiracy theory!) but IF (and I stress the word IF) she was a bar girl who was bought out of a bar, the surely sexual favors were part of the deal, and if suddenly she reneged on the deal (possibly after she'd been paid, because some of these girls ask for money up front) then maybe the "punter" got aggrieved and wanted to get what he'd paid for? And "rape AND sexually assault"? She didn't claim rape - just sexual assault, which could mean a myriad of things), but to be honest, the reason why the police took the case so seriously, was because she mentioned there were firearms involved, and as it turns out they were correct. But let's test another conspiracy theory. As I said in one of my previous posts, if she was indeed his girlfriend, and he decided to call it a day, then as it says in the proverb, 'hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", so she decided to inflict some kind of revenge on him? However, there is also the strong possibility that he was guy who like bossing his girlfriend around - he had guns, a luxury BMW sedan, a Ducati motorcycle, and a pickup truck, so maybe she thought that she was entitled to a bit more than he was paying her, and he refused to pay any more? All of the above is pure conjecture, and it is only her word against his regarding the sexual assault, and if they were in a long term realtionship (boyfriend/girlfriend scenario) I tend to think that sex was part of the arrangement, but GUNS? Because he LIKES them? As well as a luxury car and luxury motor cycle and truck? A lethal combination in my opinion, and I am pleased that he has been caught, "grassed on" - whatever you care to call it, another piece of Russian garbage bites the dust, and the world is a better place for it!

No,of course I don't, and if you agree with me you would realise that that's what I've been saying all along!

Ridiculous! And worse so - the scenarios happening at the Niagara Falls!

Of course! It's just a shame that people have to go down to their level, and lie and cheat to get what is rightfully theirs.

In a "caring society", which the UK seems to be judging on the number of immigrants it opens its doors to, one would expect it to treat all of its own citizens and pensioners fairly, and in the same way. Obviously they are NOT, and we can be forgiven for not wanting to live in a country that puts the lives and wellbeing of immigrants above that of its own citizens. And quite possibly (and I know the facts should have been checked beforehand) a lot of the expats hit by this anomaly didn't know about it. After all, one would expect if you'd paid youur dues all your working life, it would be reasonable to expect that any benefits due to you in old age would be paid to you wherever you choose to live - would you not? I get a company pension in addition to my State pension, and that is increased every year in line with inflation, (minimum) and they don't specify where I have to live in order to get the increases, so why should the Government? And to the people who say "Ah, but you're not paying Income Tax in the UK (which was one of the reasons for the "knockback" a few years ago when the case was taken to the European Court of Human Rights ((I believe), I DO pay tax in the UK as my gross income from the 2 pensions is more than the Personal Allowances threshold, so my company pension is taxed!!!

It is - I have posted details from the British Government website

Yes, ridiculous isn't it when you can live on one side of the Niagara Falls and get the increments, and live on the other side and not get them! It's almost criminal

Well said!

From the British Government website:- Your State Pension will only increase each year if you live in: the European Economic Area (EEA) Gibraltar Switzerland countries that have a social security agreement with the UK (but you cannot get increases in Canada or New Zealand)

So in order to get a "fair deal" from the Government you have to lie and cheat to get it? Strange old world isn't it?

You mean tell lies like the Politicians do? A couple I know didn't tell the DWP they were living in Thailand, and were getting the annual increments for years. Unfortunately they got found out/were "grassed up", and had to attend a tribunal in the UK to determine if they had to pay the increments back. They were assured that was usually the case for people in their position. However, the male in the couple was ex RAF, and it just so happened that the the magistrate/man in charge of the tribunal was ex RAF too, so after a brief discussion, all "charges were dropped". Isn't nepotism a wonderful thing?

I think you'll find that we've been "whingeing" about this grossly unfair burden ever since it first started! When I came to Thailand originally, the Exchange Rate was 73 baht to the British £ - now it's 46. So in effect, you could say that we've been hit with a "double whammy!"