57 minutes ago, Purdey said:

Presumably an associate membership will have less control or power than full membership. 

And possibly be far more expensive IMO as well.

28 minutes ago, MarkyM3 said:

Not many volunteers here willing to walk the talk...

 

 

Why should private individuals undertake the duties of the State?

 

Do you go out and sweep the streets, clean the drains, fix the roads or any other of the tasks dealt with by government local or national?

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Why should private individuals undertake the duties of the State?

 

Do you go out and sweep the streets, clean the drains, fix the roads or any other of the tasks dealt with by government local or national?

I agree. 

 

There are too many people in UK that can't seem to take care of their own responsibilities with out the need of,or demanding, government handouts.

22 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I agree. 

 

There are too many people in UK that can't seem to take care of their own responsibilities with out the need of,or demanding, government handouts.

I’ve been in discussion with one this past few weeks, a guy who’s mother needs continuous care, he’s a lawyer and trying everything he can think of to get the NHS to pay for her care in order that she doesn’t have to use her own money.

 

Money he hopes to inherit when she dies.

 

Maybe it’s right that people on low incomes should pay taxes to take are of someone with significant financial means in order to pretext the inheritance of their children.

 

But of course that, as with your own objection, is individuals looking for the state to take care of them, not individuals taking care of the duties of the state.

 

I’m a supporter of the charity ’Soldiers off the streets’ but my support doesn’t run to taking a soldier off the streets and taking them into my own home.

That I don’t take a soldier off the streets into my home does not diminish my support for the ‘soldiers off the streets’ charity.

 

The argument that individuals should take i asylum dealers is nonsense.

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve been in discussion with one this past few weeks, a guy who’s mother needs continuous care, he’s a lawyer and trying everything he can think of to get the NHS to pay for her care in order that she doesn’t have to use her own money.

 

Money he hopes to inherit when she dies.

 

Maybe it’s right that people on low i l one’s should take are of someone with significant financial means in order to pretext the inheritance of their children.

 

 

So who pays for the ladies care because he ( a lawyer, earning a few quid) wants her cash........?  ????

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go to the top of the thread, you’ll find a clue to the country under discussion.

 

 

You were replying directly to a comment that I posted about illegal immigrants to any country; you then questioned that I had said it was to the UK; this is a typical online tactic employed by trolls that respond to something they claim someone has said, as opposed to what they actually said … please read more carefully in future.

7 minutes ago, transam said:

So who pays for the ladies care because he ( a lawyer, earning a few quid) wants her cash........?  ????

He, the (corporate ) lawyer, earning more than a few quod, would like tax payers to pay for his mum’s care to protect his inheritance.

 

 

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve been in discussion with one this past few weeks, a guy who’s mother needs continuous care, he’s a lawyer and trying everything he can think of to get the NHS to pay for her care in order that she doesn’t have to use her own money.

 

Money he hopes to inherit when she dies.

 

Maybe it’s right that people on low incomes should pay taxes to take are of someone with significant financial means in order to pretext the inheritance of their children.

 

But of course that, as with your own objection, is individuals looking for the state to take care of them, not individuals taking care of the duties of the state.

 

I’m a supporter of the charity ’Soldiers off the streets’ but my support doesn’t run to taking a soldier off the streets and taking them into my own home.

That I don’t take a soldier off the streets into my home does not diminish my support for the ‘soldiers off the streets’ charity.

 

The argument that individuals should take i asylum dealers is nonsense.

 

 

 

 

It's the dealers that need to be stopped. Not supported.

5 minutes ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

You were replying directly to a comment that I posted about illegal immigrants to any country; you then questioned that I had said it was to the UK; this is a typical online tactic employed by trolls that respond to something they claim someone has said, as opposed to what they actually said … please read more carefully in future.

“this is a typical online tactic employed by trolls”

 

I’ll bow to your expertise on the matter.

Just now, youreavinalaff said:

It's the dealers that need to be stopped. Not supported.

If you’ll be more precise on who the ‘dealers’ are I’ll be able to say whether I agree or not.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Millions have entered the UK illegally?

 

Are you exaggerating?

It doesn't matter. If nothing changes it will be soon.

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It doesn't matter. If nothing changes it will be soon.

The failing Government’s failing policies are not going to continue beyond the next election.

1 hour ago, Purdey said:

Presumably an associate membership will have less control or power than full membership. 

 

46 minutes ago, billd766 said:

And possibly be far more expensive IMO as well.

From what I understand, it would be similar to what EFTA members currently have.

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you’ll be more precise on who the ‘dealers’ are I’ll be able to say whether I agree or not.

It's you that mentioned them. I'd have thought you know who they are.

11 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It's you that mentioned them. I'd have thought you know who they are.

Forgive me, it was a typo, an error on my part.

 

My intended term was ‘asylum seekers’ 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve been in discussion with one this past few weeks, a guy who’s mother needs continuous care, he’s a lawyer and trying everything he can think of to get the NHS to pay for her care in order that she doesn’t have to use her own money.

 

Money he hopes to inherit when she dies.

 

Maybe it’s right that people on low incomes should pay taxes to take are of someone with significant financial means in order to pretext the inheritance of their children.

For those who have worked, paid tax and NI, NHS care is not a benefit. It's an entitlement and should not be refused just because someone has chosen to be financially astute all their life and accrued wealth.

 

You suggest those on low incomes should not be taxed to take care of someone with wealth but I guess you are OK for those same low earners to be taxed to pay for care for someone who has chosen not to plan for such, but decided to fritter their salaries away every month, or has been on benefit for much of their life.

 

And there was I thinking you were against discrimination. 

38 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The failing Government’s failing policies are not going to continue beyond the next election.

Isn't this the whole point about Brexit? We can kick out the UK government at the next election if they fail to deliver on immigration. Therefore we've taken back control. 

If we were still in the EU we'd have all the Romanian and Lithuanian car washing men continuing to swamp our neighbourhoods legally, ON TOP of the thousands of young male economic migrants coming over illegally on boats. 

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

Presumably an associate membership will have less control or power than full membership. 

associate members would not be
represented in the EP or the Commission but have speaking without voting rights in the
Council and would be offered associate membership in relevant EU agencies. They would
fall under the jurisdiction of the CJEU. Associate members would pay into the EU budget
but on a lower level (e.g., for common institutional costs), with lower benefits (e.g., no
access to cohesion and agricultural funds).

2 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

Isn't this the whole point about Brexit? We can kick out the UK government at the next election if they fail to deliver on immigration. Therefore we've taken back control. 

If we were still in the EU we'd have all the Romanian and Lithuanian car washing men continuing to swamp our neighbourhoods legally, ON TOP of the thousands of young male economic migrants coming over illegally on boats. 

Can you tell me the last time the UK electorate were not able to replace the UK Government by means of an ejection?

 

 

15 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

For those who have worked, paid tax and NI, NHS care is not a benefit. It's an entitlement and should not be refused just because someone has chosen to be financially astute all their life and accrued wealth.

 

You suggest those on low incomes should not be taxed to take care of someone with wealth but I guess you are OK for those same low earners to be taxed to pay for care for someone who has chosen not to plan for such, but decided to fritter their salaries away every month, or has been on benefit for much of their life.

 

And there was I thinking you were against discrimination. 

Incorrect.

 

Care in old age is means tested.

 

I thought you worked in the care industry and if so how are you not aware of that fact.

 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/help-from-social-services-and-charities/financial-assessment-means-test/#:~:text=A financial assessment or means,savings less than £23%2C250.

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Incorrect.

 

Care in old age is means tested.

 

I thought you worked in the care industry and if so how are you not aware of that fact.

 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/help-from-social-services-and-charities/financial-assessment-means-test/#:~:text=A financial assessment or means,savings less than £23%2C250.

I didn't say how it is, I said how it should be.

 

It really would be beneficial if you read what is written in comments rather than read what you'd like to see.

5 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

I didn't say how it is, I said how it should be.

 

It really would be beneficial if you read what is written in comments rather than read what you'd like to see.

Sorry, I like dealing with the reality of how it is.

 

Your fanciful thoughts on why some folk aren’t sufficiently wealthy to fund their own care in old age are just that, fanciful.

 

Your statement “For those who have worked, paid tax and NI, NHS care is not a benefit. It's an entitlement” reads like an assertion of fact, all be it misinformed.

 

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’ve been in discussion with one this past few weeks, a guy who’s mother needs continuous care, he’s a lawyer and trying everything he can think of to get the NHS to pay for her care in order that she doesn’t have to use her own money.

 

Money he hopes to inherit when she dies.

 

Maybe it’s right that people on low incomes should pay taxes to take are of someone with significant financial means in order to pretext the inheritance of their children.

 

But of course that, as with your own objection, is individuals looking for the state to take care of them, not individuals taking care of the duties of the state.

 

I’m a supporter of the charity ’Soldiers off the streets’ but my support doesn’t run to taking a soldier off the streets and taking them into my own home.

That I don’t take a soldier off the streets into my home does not diminish my support for the ‘soldiers off the streets’ charity.

 

The argument that individuals should take i asylum dealers is nonsense.

 

 

 

 

the guy mother has been paying for care for a number of years

1) National Insurance

2) Adult Social Care Precept within your Council Tax  ( an additional amount put on everyone council tax bill

Maybe he is fed up with seeing Mp's in all parties claiming everything under the sun because they can

Everyone should be assessed for their health needs not how much they have in the bank

Hopefully the lawyer is aware of this website

https://caretobedifferent.co.uk/

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Sorry, I like dealing with the reality of how it is.

 

Your fanciful thoughts on why some folk aren’t sufficiently wealthy to fund their own care in old age are just that, fanciful.

 

Your statement “For those who have worked, paid tax and NI, NHS care is not a benefit. It's an entitlement” reads like an assertion of fact, all be it misinformed.

 

 

It is a fact. All UK citizens are entitled to use NHS. Some non citizens too.

 

My thoughts are not fanciful. They are based on experience.

24 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

It is a fact. All UK citizens are entitled to use NHS. Some non citizens too.

 

My thoughts are not fanciful. They are based on experience.

Continuing Healthcare: The Secret Fund

READ THE TRANSCRIPT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/18_11_14_fo4_continuinghealthcare.pdf

 

https://decisions.ombudsman.org.uk/decisions?type=health

Filter on Complaint category and select Continuing Healthcare:

 

Both Local councils and the NHS would prefer that people are not made aware of any of the above

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Incorrect.

 

Care in old age is means tested.

 

I thought you worked in the care industry and if so how are you not aware of that fact.

 

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/help-from-social-services-and-charities/financial-assessment-means-test/#:~:text=A financial assessment or means,savings less than £23%2C250.

Care in old age is means tested this is false if you have a primary health care need this should be fully funded by the NHS

Social Care is means tested 

How close to bankrupt are most of the EU countries, Greece, Spain, Italy, and more.

   UK may be having its issues, but rejoining the Eu would be just another big mistake.

Maybe if France would keep some of the refugees that keep crossing to the UK, the UK would be in better

shape. Right?

8 hours ago, Eloquent pilgrim said:

Indeed, as the EU are rather belatedly finding out; France has just sent soldiers, helicopters and drones to its border with Italy to prevent the surge of migrants from entering France. Georgia Meloni has just said that she will not allow Italy to become the refugee camp of Europe. Africa is invading Europe, and the EU remains completely passive to the invasion. The Strange Death Of Europe.

I posted this in another thread but it is also relevant here

-------

The suggestion that nothing is being done to prevent illegal migration is nonsense. 

 

Whether the measures are effective and the money is being as well-spent as it might be are different questions.

 

https://home-affairs.ec.europa.eu/policies/migration-and-asylum/irregular-migration-and-return_en

 

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2023/07/04/money-spent-by-eu-on-migration-policy-becoming-complex-to-track-expert

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Can you tell me the last time the UK electorate were not able to replace the UK Government by means of an ejection?

 

 

I was pointing out we now have more (electoral) control over immigration.

When we were in the EU the UK government were not accountable for EU migration by Romanian car washers etc., because Romanian car washers had freedom of movement into the UK. 

Now that the UK government are accountable for ALL migration, the UK electorate by extension have more power over immigration issues. As you'll see at the next general election if UK gov don't get a grip on it. 

13 hours ago, Nick Carter icp said:

We signed a contract whilst in the E.U with the passport maker and we need to wait for that contract to expire before we can look for another supplier 

You seem to know more about this than me so could you confirm if this is the same company that was producing our pre-brexit passports?

 

And, additionally, can you point to any evidence to confirm your allegation that we chose the company because we were forced to under EU rules, as opposed to it simply being a financial decision to take the lowest offer?