youreavinalaff

Highly unlikely. Not impossible. There are 1.6 million people working in social care in UK. The report says there are currently 109 " potential" victims. The background of the potential victims; Tier2 visas, EU workers on settlement scheme, UK citizens......has not been reported. No contradictions there.

Exactly my point. I didn't miss that and actually pointed out the lack of facts. "Cases reported". "Potential" victims. Can't see where is says the complainants are here on Tier2 visas. Remember, I took the trouble to differentiate. You must have missed that bit.

The facts? I don’t recall the report proving anything. I also don't recall the reporting of the complainants' backgrounds. The care industry is very heavily monitored. Whether it's the Mental Health act, Safeguarding, human rights, immigration, health and safety, HMRC, DBS. There are forms to fill in and file with the relevant authotlrities for just about everything. Not to mention unannounced CQC visits. The woman in the OP may well have come up against a bad employer but not to the extent she claims, unless her visa was acquired fraudulently. That then becomes another story.

For those on Tier2 visas, as mentioned in the OP, it is highly unlikely. For those with right to work in UK for other reasons, settlement visa, ILR, UK citizens, it is possible there are scrupulous employers taking advantage.

I don't need to. It's my field. I am involved in the industry. I know how things work. The woman's story is not all true. Simple.

It does.

Oh dear. That old chestnut. So, if she is getting £2 an hour as she claims, how is she paying rent? Buying food? Paying bills? It clearly does not add up. Add to the fact she claims grassing up her employer could make things miserable, why is she telling all to reporters?

That's funny. Thanks for the laugh.

Minimum wage for Tier2 visa is £10.75 per hour or £25600 a year. Employees have the option to sign a waiver if they wish to work more than 48 hours a week. If they don't sign, that is upto them and their hours are capped at 48. Accommodation is arranged as part of the visa sponsorship. It's all closely monitored. I think the person interviewed and those claiming slave labour were not one and the same. I can't see how anyone on a Tier2 visa can accuse employers of slave labour. What I do see is immigrants complaining they have to work harder than in care homes " at home".

No, it isn't.

You might like to read my previous comment on the matter. The comment you quoted is wide of the mark.

Your post and you previous post suggesting " Brits leaving their parents in care homes", highlights your ignorance of who lives in care homes and for what reason.

Was one spelt "Runoldo"? ????????????

Not to mention the £74.99 people pay for a football shirt with their favourite player's name on the back.

I might be linking to the one you've already checked but bever mind. Here's where I'd go. http://www.buriramexpats.com/car-rental/

No. Only the person on the sponsorship forms can enter on a Tier2 visa. The others must apply for dependant visas. This is where the article is confusing. They talk about slave labour then about a woman who has proved enough funds to get a mum and 3 kids dependant visas. It doesn't add up. I would think the slave labour would be about those working with incorrect visas.

To have borrowed £300000 the borrowers would need an income of £75000, unless they thought it was all easy, interest rates would stay low forever and talked the lender into letting them borrow more than 4x salary. Stupid if so. A monthly salary, take home, on £75000 is circa £5000. So, new mortgage payments are less than 30% of income. In 1989, my girlfriend and I were paying over 15% interest and over 50% of our salary went on the mortgage. Nothing to see here.

Why?

I'm not interested in rejoining. Why would I ask?

There are different types of policy. I have a life assurance policy, not life insurance. It's about 1500 baht a month. My wife gets about one hundred thousand if I die. At 60 years old I can ask for closure and get some of the investment back. However, during the 20 years policy and upto 90 years old, if I choose not to close the account at 60, I get extensive medical cover. That includes a 1000 baht a day payment for lose of earnings if I stay in hospital.

I have a piece of string here. I'll ask my wife how long it is. I'd suggest the OP does the same with regards to the projected funeral costs. There's no common ground and many variables to consider.

If it's your funeral, you can make it anything. You're dead.

So, the estate belongs to the prople but Charles must pay inheritance tax. You can't have it both ways.

Sounds like you need some history lessons.

The amount was due to increase as it is worked out as a percentage of the income received by the treasury from the Crown Estate. Income has surged so the amount of sovereign grant was to increase. That was until it was agreed the %%% would reduce from 25% to 12%. Keeping the amount constant at around £86m. I've looked for an article from the Guardian explaining their error but can't find one. This is one that explains all. https://news.sky.com/story/sovereign-grant-changed-after-crown-estate-sees-profits-surge-12924156