2 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So soon you prove my point by doubling down on imagined opinions.

 

I don’t mind being in the minority who understand there are two sides to all equations.

 

 

 

Here is another opinion, backed up by fact

 

Why are you getting an arse skelping on the transgender thread ?
 

Is it because nobody likes you, or is it because you are a great example of the mentalism that is destroying western Countries ?

1 minute ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Here is another opinion, backed up by fact

 

Why are you getting an arse skelping on the transgender thread ?
 

Is it because nobody likes you, or is it because you are a great example of the mentalism that is destroying western Countries ?

Are you sure you’re posting on the right page?

 

You seem to be awfully emotional while fantasizing over violence against certain parts of other folk’s anatomy.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

You seem to be awfully emotional

 

Let me just quote you

 

Quote

There you go fabricating opinions on my behalf.

 

Mentalist, like you, will never, ever get me emotional

 

No apologies for bursting your bubble, or highlighting your hypocrisy.

I'm looking at the title and I'm going to ask the obvious question - Why are foreign nationals getting benefits at all??!!

2 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Let me just quote you

 

 

Mentalist, like you, will never, ever get me emotional

 

No apologies for bursting your bubble, or highlighting your hypocrisy.

Let’s see if you have anything other than personal attacks to add to the thread:

I would be delighted to hear your counter argument to my post:

 

4 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Benefit payments to households with at least one foreign national have surged to nearly £1 billion a month, a sharp increase from £461 million in March 2022, according to newly released government figures.”

 

Putting this into a context that might very well apply to members of this forum.

 

A British citizen marries a Thai national moves back to the UK with his Thai wife and perhaps their children, then someone in their household is in receipt of benefits, those benefits are added to the tally.

 

Perhaps Brits who marry foreigners should be denied all UK benefits.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote

The DWP categorises a foreign claimant as someone who does not hold British or Irish nationality and has passed the Habitual Resident Test, which checks for legal residency and physical presence in the UK. Even if other household members are British, joint claims that include at least one non-British or Irish national are counted as foreign.

They are not even talking about the illegal ones, this is only the legal ones. Could one reason be that they are bringing additional family members from abroad?

1 minute ago, cmsally said:

They are not even talking about the illegal ones, this is only the legal ones. Could one reason be that they are bringing additional family members from abroad?

It’s got more to do with the fact illegal immigrants do not receive benefits.

And that despite:

 

“Even if other household members are British, joint claims that include at least one non-British or Irish national are counted as foreign.”

 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Do you have any evidence of this oft repeated claim of yours that British pensioners have frozen in their homes?

 

Following publication of new official data, the End Fuel Poverty Coalition has estimated that 4,950 excess winter deaths in the UK were caused by living in cold homes during winter 2022/23. [1]

 

4,950 excess winter deaths caused by cold homes last winter

 

https://www.endfuelpoverty.org.uk/

 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s got more to do with the fact illegal immigrants do not receive benefits.

And that despite:

 

“Even if other household members are British, joint claims that include at least one non-British or Irish national are counted as foreign.”

 

Illegal immigrants get accommodation, healthcare, schooling and a cash allowance. On top of that there are processing fees and possibly legal aid. All paid for by the British taxpayer.

I wondered why they would risk their lives to cross over from France,

where they are safe ,in small rubber boats ,it's the benefits and money.,

I seen a story the other week ,a French warship was sailing along side

one of these rubber boats , We are paying Millions to the French tostop

them coming over......

 

regards Worgeordie

 

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It’s got more to do with the fact illegal immigrants do not receive benefits.

 

Nonsense. Stop peddling misinformation. 

 

Free accomodation in a hotel, paid for by the taxpayer is very much a benefit. 

 

 

12 minutes ago, worgeordie said:

I wondered why they would risk their lives to cross over from France,

where they are safe ,in small rubber boats ,it's the benefits and money.,

I seen a story the other week ,a French warship was sailing along side

one of these rubber boats , We are paying Millions to the French tostop

them coming over......

 

regards Worgeordie

 

 

Exactly.

 

France is a safe country. They are not fleeing France because they fear for their lives, they just get more free stuff in the UK because of our weak, stupid government.

 

France don't stop them leaving because they don't want them either. 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wonder why it’s been left to the Labour Government to deal with this:

Perhaps because one of the planks on which they campaigned, and were elected to power, was the intention to sort it out.

 

Of course, their preferred tactics, "smashing the gangs" has proved to be a non starter, but the municipal authorities of Calais are very grateful for the money which has flowed in their direction.

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

 

Have you considered taking a course in basic government?

The laws are enacted by Parliament, not the civil service, not the judiciary and not the police.

The judiciary applies the laws as they were written. it has no other option. The police apply the laws as they were written and as they are directed by the elected government.

The voters elect the Members of Parliament and the ruling government who determine which laws to enact.

Therefore, the responsibility for the mess that the UK is in now rests entirely with the voters. 35% of the population can't be bothered to vote, which says that they don't care. 

 

Anytime a UK government  has attempted to  stop the madness arising from the  influx of bogus refugees and economic migrants it has been stymied, blocked and sabotaged, by political parties like Labour, by labour unions, by some organized religious groups and  by the people of the UK itself. Remember when the  last UK government tried to remove bogus refugees and criminals by air, and passengers on the flights  protested the removal?  It is a cop out to blame everyone but the  UK public for the mess.  

A rather muddled response. You appear to naively believe that the institutions would never ignore government legislation. Dream on in your perfect world. 

20 minutes ago, JAG said:

Perhaps because one of the planks on which they campaigned, and were elected to power, was the intention to sort it out.

 

Of course, their preferred tactics, "smashing the gangs" has proved to be a non starter, but the municipal authorities of Calais are very grateful for the money which has flowed in their direction.

And yet here Labour are writing up the framework for a law that could have been dealt with at any time in the last 14 years.
 

I wonder if the Tories and Reform will back it?

4 hours ago, Watawattana said:

The article doesn't mention anything about people who "freeze in their homes" or are "frozen in their homes".

Why not pay attention, a post mentioned "freeze in their homes" and a reply turned it into "frozen in their homes", a blatant context distortion.

It may come as a surprise to you but "freeze " is the process of going cold, "frozen" is the end state.

 

I also have to assume the word "bias" meant little to you.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet here Labour are writing up the framework for a law that could have been dealt with at any time in the last 14 years.
 

I wonder if the Tories and Reform will back it?

 

A law to do what exactly?  There is already a law that states:

 

"The Law of the Sea Convention 1982 allows coastal states to take “the necessary steps” to prevent the passage of any vessel that is not innocent. That includes a vessel seeking to unload persons “contrary to the immigration laws and regulations of the coastal State” (art 19(2)(g))"

 

Reform want to uphold that law and leave the ECHR so that Human rights laws cannot be abused when upholding that law.  The Tories are just another version of Labour.  What do this version of Labour want to do?  

2 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet here Labour are writing up the framework for a law that could have been dealt with at any time in the last 14 years.

 

Astound us all with your brilliance 

 

Is this this the law that will see Illegal Gommegrants returned to a safe Country ?
 

Are these the same Countries that Labour howled incessantly that " Those Countries are under no obligation to take them back "

 

Therefore we can safely assume, that.

 

1. The Law is a complete waste of time and energy.

 

2 The Illegal Gimmegrants will ignore it anyway.

 

Only mentalists cannot see that a deterrent is needed.

23 minutes ago, James105 said:

 

A law to do what exactly?  There is already a law that states:

 

"The Law of the Sea Convention 1982 allows coastal states to take “the necessary steps” to prevent the passage of any vessel that is not innocent. That includes a vessel seeking to unload persons “contrary to the immigration laws and regulations of the coastal State” (art 19(2)(g))"

 

Reform want to uphold that law and leave the ECHR so that Human rights laws cannot be abused when upholding that law.  The Tories are just another version of Labour.  What do this version of Labour want to do?  

The law of the sea doesn’t apply on dry land.

 

Reform are full of easy promises but I do believe them on their intention to leave the ECHR, it would be of great benefit to the people they actually represent and to the detriment of those they pretend to represent.

 

58 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The law of the sea doesn’t apply on dry land.

 

Which Law of the sea would you be referring to ?
 

I hope you are not going to embarrass yourself 😀😀

11 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“Benefit payments to households with at least one foreign national have surged to nearly £1 billion a month, a sharp increase from £461 million in March 2022, according to newly released government figures.”

 

Putting this into a context that might very well apply to members of this forum.

 

A British citizen marries a Thai national moves back to the UK with his Thai wife and perhaps their children, then someone in their household is in receipt of benefits, those benefits are added to the tally.

 

Perhaps Brits who marry foreigners should be denied all UK benefits.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps Brits who marry foreigners should be denied all UK benefits.

 

What a desperate attempt at deflection and extreme case of Chomper false equivalence on so many levels, have you got some stats on the numbers of Brits in the UK who married foreigners and are claiming benefits?

 

Of the 200 nationalities, Poland accounted for the largest number of claimants at 89,040, followed by Pakistan (85,881), Bangladesh (54,589), Romania (45,727), India (33,561), Portugal (32,063), Nigeria (23,627) and Ireland (17,933).
The Congo had the highest rate, at 445 claims per 1,000 of its population in the UK, based on 2021 census figures from the Office for National Statistics.
It was followed by Iraq at 434 per 1,000, Afghanistan (414), Algeria (361), Eritrea (355), Syria (352), Somalia (336), Iran (334), Morocco (286) and Slovakia (283). The average for the UK was 100 per 1,000 of the population.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/17/more-than-one-million-foreigners-claim-benefits/

https://archive.ph/HBbf3

 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The law of the sea doesn’t apply on dry land.

 

Reform are full of easy promises but I do believe them on their intention to leave the ECHR, it would be of great benefit to the people they actually represent and to the detriment of those they pretend to represent.

 

 

Unless there is a teleport involved how exactly do you think the illegals are getting from France to the UK genius?  I'll give you a clue - it is not on dry land.  It is on that journey where their "not innocent" voyage takes place with the intention to break the immigration laws of that coastal state, which the state is within its right to prevent.   Reform are making an easy promise because it is easy.   Only stupid people, people who profit from illegal immigrants and invertebrates make the claim it is difficult to protect a coastal border.

5 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

And yet here Labour are writing up the framework for a law that could have been dealt with at any time in the last 14 years.
 

I wonder if the Tories and Reform will back it?

Is that the law that will have failed asylum seekers transferred to a third country? These bogus asylum claimants get years of rejections and appeals before they are deemed to be failed asylum seekers. 

 

This law will not deter the boat people. To deter the boat people we need a law that would remove illegal migrants immediately. 

 

The Rwanda plan started to deter illegals entering Britain (remember how Ireland were cursing the UK because the illegals were going there instead?). Even though the Rwanda plan never got off the ground, the risk of being sent to a third country was a deterrent. 

 

Since Labour removed that deterrent we've seen record breaking numbers crossing the Channel. 

7 hours ago, Thingamabob said:

A rather muddled response. You appear to naively believe that the institutions would never ignore government legislation. Dream on in your perfect world. 

 

No. You are blaming everyone, other than accepting responsibility for the  deficiency. It is the electorate who set the rules. It is the electorate who put the MPs in office. It is easier to pint a finger at the judiciary and the police than to accept that  the impediment to immigration reform are the people themselves.

How often do we see a violent   migrant take refuge in a Church and some group to claim that there is a right of sanctuary? (There is none). How often did we see idiots block removal efforts  of violent offenders? The people doing the blocking were never held accountable by friends or family or the public. Instead they were more likely to be celebrated as heroes.  How does some of the UK public  have a moral right to complain when it returns MPs like  Sarah Owen, the Labour MP for Luton North who offers the bankrupt position that the best way to avoid the UK becoming an “island of strangers” is to invest in communities so that they thrived.

Or, Nadia Whittome, the Labour MP for Nottingham East, who claims that “Migrants are our neighbours, friends and family. To suggest that Britain risks becoming ‘an island of strangers’ because of immigration mimics the scaremongering of the far right.”

The UK votes in MPs like that, who determine government policy. It is up to the UK voters to  vote in MPs who have  a different position.

11 hours ago, JAG said:

That is remarkably disingenuous even by your standards Chomper.

 

It is absolutely clear, and made so by several senior figures in the present government, that this massive increase is the result of unfettered and often illegal immigration.

 

The problem? That they, as with their hopeless predecessors, are unable to get their act together to get it under some semblance of control.

Probably because the ECHR doesn't allow them? 

 

11 hours ago, JAG said:

That is remarkably disingenuous even by your standards Chomper.

 

It is absolutely clear, and made so by several senior figures in the present government, that this massive increase is the result of unfettered and often illegal immigration.

 

The problem? That they, as with their hopeless predecessors, are unable to get their act together to get it under some semblance of control.

Probably due to the ECHR intervening?

2 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Is that the law that will have failed asylum seekers transferred to a third country? These bogus asylum claimants get years of rejections and appeals before they are deemed to be failed asylum seekers. 

 

This law will not deter the boat people. To deter the boat people we need a law that would remove illegal migrants immediately. 

 

The Rwanda plan started to deter illegals entering Britain (remember how Ireland were cursing the UK because the illegals were going there instead?). Even though the Rwanda plan never got off the ground, the risk of being sent to a third country was a deterrent. 

 

Since Labour removed that deterrent we've seen record breaking numbers crossing the Channel. 

The Rwanda plan convinced 4 immigrants to volunteer to leave, at a cost of over £700,000,000 of tax payer’s money.

 

 

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Rwanda plan convinced 4 immigrants to volunteer to leave, at a cost of over £700,000,000 of tax payer’s money.

 

 

 

   The idea wasn't to convince them to go to Rwanda .

No phoning them and asking whether they fancied going to Kigali .

The ide was to put them in handcuffs and straight jackets and force them onto flights 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Rwanda plan convinced 4 immigrants to volunteer to leave, at a cost of over £700,000,000 of tax payer’s money.

 

 

No, the Rwanda plan was delayed by human rights activists and lawyers, and then scrapped by Labour. It wasn't a perfect plan but it was already deterring illegal migrants even before being implemented. 

What is a better deterrent - the threat of being sent to Rwanda, or the 'threat' of being put up in a UK hotel? 

Have boat crossing increased since the Rwanda plan was scrapped? 

6 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Have boat crossing increased since the Rwanda plan was scrapped? 

 

42% and it is only the beginning of June.

 

" Smash the Gangs "

 

😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀😀

 

Couldn't smash a soft boiled egg onto a slice of toast.

20 hours ago, Purdey said:

People like Nigel Farage, who is married to a German, should be aware of the problem that he is a part of. A small part but nonetheless is he claiming for her too?

He seems to have left his wife in the lurch and gone off with a French woman - Laure Ferrari - so he probably counts as 2 claims.... She's the one who has bought a house in Clacton.