Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Silomfan,

Are you totally arrogant, or merely stupid? It is difficult to tell.

Once again I have answered every point you have raised,; once again you merely repeat them with different wording and claim I have ignored the difficult question. What question?

I have asked you this before, and you have always declined to answer; so I will ask you once again.

Specifically, what is/are the difficult question(s) you say I have ignored?

As for your comments on taxes and how they are spent. Well, slightly to the right of Ghengis Kahn, aren't they?!

To take just one example. Your taxes pay for schools. You have no children so say why should you pay. You say that those who chose to have children should have to pay for their education. So, you object to your taxes going to pay for the education of the next generation of doctors, nurses, police, paramedics, firefighters etc. Yet you are happy for your taxes to be spent on supporting illegal immigrants.

Like many Thais, my wife had to leave school at the age of 11 and go to work as her parents could not afford to pay. Is this the fate you wish on many children in this country? Personally I want Thailand to adopt the UK system of universal free education (at least to the age of 18, don't get me started on student loans!) rather than the UK adopt the Thai system of making every parent pay.

Another example,

Regarding the NHS yes of course thats very important. Good health is one of the most important things in life . Don't forget you don't have to wait 18 months for your hip replacement, you can always pay for it privately. People love to winge on about the NHS choosing to ignore the fact that if they spend a tiny fraction of their huge savings they can have the treatment next week.
I don't have huge savings. By the time I have paid my tax, NI, council tax, rent, electric, water, and food then there is not much left. We haven't even been to Thailand to see Noi's son for over 3 years (although we did manage to pay for him to come to the UK 2 years ago). We are trying to save enough so we can be there next January for his graduation, but it's difficult. Paying for private health treatment is just not an option for us, and millions of others. we can barely afford the NHS dental fees! You may be lucky enough to be able to afford it, but most of us can't.

I wonder, how do you feel about your taxes being spent on the treatment of HIV/Aids sufferers? Do you feel that they should have to pay for the treatment themselves, and if they can't afford it, tough? Oh, and the many researchers trying to find a cure for this terrible disease, how many of them would there be if there was no free state education?

I feel that the purpose of any government is primarily to look after it's own citizens. Whether those citizens were born here or came as legal immigrants is irrelevant. Those immigrants working toward becoming citizens should be treated, in this respect, the same as citizens. This means, among many other things, that people should only be allowed to come here to work if there is no one already here to do the job.

There is a moral duty to look after asylum seekers. But why can't those asylum seekers be accommodated in refugee centres until their case has been decided. Those that are genuine would not mind; they'd be safe, sheltered and fed; and their children would be educated. Of course, the non-genuine would object as they would be unable to disappear into the murky depths of the black economy.

But I've started to waffle, and have wandered a long way off topic, so I'll stop.

Edited by GU22
Posted
People love to winge on about the NHS choosing to ignore the fact that if they spend a tiny fraction of their huge savings they can have the treatment next week.

those most likely to need urgent treatment are those over 55 , thats when things go wrong.

those over 55 have been brought up in an "nhs" environment , where until recently the system worked well and was able to handle the numbers of patients requiring treatment.

do all those approaching pension age have huge savings ?

do all pensioners have huge savings?

have you checked how expensive it is to get health insurance if you are over 45 ?

to see a doctor privately can cost ukp 200+ , thats the first consultation.

should you need a mri scan , they run at about ukp1500

routine lab tests run about ukp80 , you may need dozens

if you need an op with hospitalization then it can run into many thousands of pounds.

people that have paid taxes in the trust and belief that health care would be free and efficient are being cheated in the cruellest way possible.

not everyone has huge savings.

i'm afraid your arguments are nonsense.

Posted
People love to winge on about the NHS choosing to ignore the fact that if they spend a tiny fraction of their huge savings they can have the treatment next week.

i'm afraid your arguments are nonsense.

Silomfan's generally are.

Posted

I have been trying to get into this site most of today ...is it me or has there been a problem??

Anyway, there are so many topics on the go on this thread now that its getting out of hand. I accept i am partly to blame for guiding it so off topic although in my defence the op was never going to go that far. Rather than go on for ever arguing about things we are never going to agree on let me be the first to "blink" and say we'll draw a line under it for now. Its not because i can't defend my position but ..well..whats the point?

Just to tie up a couple of points GU22's arguement that education should be free for all is not really what i am complaining about . Its the associated benefits that go with it that i feel need more scrutiny. For example, why have child benefit ?? Britons have never been richer than now yet they get given taxpayers money in addition. Back in the good old days of the 1960's when i was a nipper my parents got sod all , and so did all the other parents . Yet we all got through taking responsibility for our own children. why not now?? whats different? So i wasn't saying education should not be free , of course it should , but why the extra freebies to those who CHOOSE to have kids?

I do not like my taxes being spent on asylum seekers and i agree with you that they should be kept in refugee centres until their case is decided and not left to wander the streets. However this process should be quick and the centres should not resemble a prison.

Health care should be free for all , but with so many people going to the doctors things just can't happen immediately. Endless cash is pumped in but the queues are still there although i understand better than a few years ago. I was simply saying that the option to go private is there for those who can do so, and considering how house prices have increased in the last decade , this is actually a lot of people.

Perhaps because i started work (part-time) when i was 14 and still at school i have rather set views on the subject of children working and earning their keep. I worked and i saved , and although i had an offer to go to uni when i was 18 at taxpayers expense (in those days) and have a good skive for 4 years , i went straight out to work and earned and saved. So i can't see the problem with children working from a young age rather than todays worrying trend of children being spoilt rotten and cosseted beyond belief by a society with an obsession with "protecting" children. Protecting from what ?? Already they are getting too overweight because they don't walk to school anymore like i did but get lifts or taxis . They are given far too many things instead of being told to go out and work and buy them themselves. This would teach them financial discipline which is a great education in itself and will ensure they never end up poor . Surely that is a good thing?? Its nonsence to say i am to the right of Ghengis Khan. I am a very compassionate person indeed (and a liberal if you must know) and my theories, like the one above , are designed to help not hinder. Already we are being told todays kids will die before us because they eat the wrong food and do no excercise. For your info i walk to work and back again whatever the weather , 6 days a week and it would never cross my mind to get a bus . Catch todays kids doing that !!

Now i am starting to waffle , never guess this was a forum about Thailand would you ??

Still a bit of healthy debate never did any harm

SILOMFAN

Posted
I
am
an
asylum
seeker
SILOMFAN

:D:D:D

Its nonsence to say i am to the right of Ghengis Khan
- wots wrong wiv that? :o
For your info i walk to work and back again whatever the weather
- ######, that means you win the argument :D:D:D
Posted

Just a few further points to Silomfan.

For example, why have child benefit ?? Britons have never been richer than now yet they get given taxpayers money in addition. Back in the good old days of the 1960's when i was a nipper my parents got sod all , and so did all the other parents .
Wrong! Your father (probably but possible your mother, but certainly one of them, usually the higher earner) would have got an income tax allowance based upon how many children they had. This was abolished (in the '70's, I think) and replaced by child benefit.
I was simply saying that the option to go private is there for those who can do so, and considering how house prices have increased in the last decade , this is actually a lot of people.
Money invested in a house is not like money in the bank; to get at it one has to sell the house! Are you seriously suggesting that people should sell their homes to pay for medical treatment?

I agree with you about teaching children financial Independence. In fact, my daughter gets a small weekly allowance and if she wants more then she has to do extra chores (e.g. clean the car) to earn it. However, this is completely different from children leaving school at 11 and having to work full time because their parents can no longer afford to pay for school, or Grandma's medical bills come to that.

I notice that once again you are furiously backpedaling by saying that what you said is not what you meant. I suggest in future that you think before you type.

I also notice that yet again, having accused me of not answering your "difficult" questions you have ignored my question; i.e. "Specifically, what is/are the difficult question(s) you say I have ignored?"

Its nonsence to say i am to the right of Ghengis Khan. I am a very compassionate person indeed (and a liberal if you must know)
Yeah; and Tony Blair is a Socialist!
Posted

Tony Blair is an absolute disgrace...no doubt about it .

And yes i am a caring person who is happy to let others live their lives and for them to let me live mine without telling me if i can drink, smoke take drugs etc etc . I do none of these and never have , but its their money and it should be up to them what they spend it on . Everyone knows drugs kill and smoking gives you cancer . if people want to ignore that out of choice , they should be free to do so at ANY age (obviously i don't mean small tots here!! before GU22 asks) Again back in the good old 1960's/70's i was still in primary school yet was able to buy cigarettes for my family who smoked then (gave up long ago). They gave me the money and i popped down to the shop to get them .This was quite a normal thing for kids to do then. Never turned me into a chain smoker did it ?? Do that now and it'll be on the front page of the Sun. Such is the ludicrous PC country we now live in .

PS GU22 i never suggested leaving school at 11 and working full time !!! I said i worked from 14 and it did me a lot of good and certainly 14 is not too young to work nowadays too. I do wish you would read what i say before posting.

OK can we now draw a line ??

Posted
OK can we now draw a line ??
Despite accusing me of not answering your "difficult" questions me asking you what these questions are, you have again failed to tell me.

So yes, let's draw a line; for good.

Hopefully you will not be resurrecting this yet again in a new thread, making your ridiculous comments and then yet again either furiously backpedaling or totally denying that you said what you did.

But somehow I doubt it.

Posted

GU22 you just can't be gracious can you and just leave it that we disagree. You have to be personal and insulting in all your replies.

1)You didn't answer all the comments like do you agree with the govts previoius policy of deporting to Zimbabwe to what the BBC said was almost certain torture and often death.??

2)You didn't comment on if you think its right that from next year it will be illegal to smoke at a bus stop??

I could go on with more but no point cos you won't answer them anyway.

3)And what are my rediculous comments?? That children should go out to work part-time and learn some financial discipline (as well as learning to take some limited responsibility for their lives) rather than stay at home playing computer games until they are brain dead whilst stuffing themselves with junk food and getting lifts to school rather than walking or busing?? Not rediculous at all . Just common sense , and who knows they may actually stand a chance of outliving our generation if they got off their <deleted> occasionally. I think thats a view held by many .

4)You accused me of not taking notice of the warning sent to me about being suspended . You made the point that you did take notice of such a warning and thus was not suspended. I wrote back saying i had never recieved this warning and so your accusation is untrue . You have chosen not to answer. Why ?? Scouse has also chosen not to tell me why a warning wasn't sent , which if nothing else is bad practise. Why not be gracious and admit that , as i got no warning , you were wrong in your accusation?

5)Why don't you comment on why it was ok for me , and other kids at that time , to buy cigarettes from the shop to take home to our parents or families or even friends , but why in 2006 its suddenly this massive crime ?. Are you going to suggest that back in the 1960's/70's that us kids were any more likely to take up smoking as a result than now? I didn't , nor did i become an alcaholic or drug-addict.

6) I suggested people (lets be more precise and say 16 or above) should be allowed to smoke and drink freely if that is what they choose to do with their own money. Not be told where and when they can do this . They know the dangers , leave it up to them to decide. If you're betwen 16 and 18 you can't buy alcahol or tobacco. What a farce !! Do you agree with this restriction and if so why?

7)Oh how about this one.. i'm sure you remember when you were young that on Nov 5th everyone used to go to public firework displays and set off their own fireworks . Now its illegal to go to a public space and do so!! And back then kids could buy fireworks . If they did that now it would be on the 6 O'clock news as a scandal. What a load of crap!! This country is breeding a load of robots all scared of their own shadows . Do what the govt says and don't think for yourself. Do you think thats right?

Now why don't you tackle these one at a time in order without missing any and then i can't accuse you of being selective can I?? And without abusing the quote facility if you can. I've even numbered them for you so you can see where each point ends and a new one starts. Of course you may be "too busy" to reply or decide you're not going to . Readers will then draw their own conclusions as will I. And if you do reply why not try to do it without the insults for a change ?

Scouse is no doubt monitoring this debating on when he might shut it down but why not let it run its course? It seems to be one of the most read threads recently so clearly people are interested even if they choose not to participate. Also this seems to be a lean time on this part of thaivisa for new posts. And we are confining it to this one thread . So there

SILOMFAN - not a robot :o

Posted

hey chaps - if and when we ever get the UK ThaiVisa get-together organised... i wanna ringside seat for these two after a few pints

:o

Posted
hey chaps - if and when we ever get the UK ThaiVisa get-together organised... i wanna ringside seat for these two after a few pints

:o

Yeah ... would be fun wouldn't it !! I might even break a habit and have an alcaholic drink :D

Posted (edited)
1)You didn't answer all the comments like do you agree with the govts previoius policy of deporting to Zimbabwe to what the BBC said was almost certain torture and often death.??
I did respond by saying that this is a forum on Thailand and visas and if you wanted to start a discussion on Zimbabwe then I would contribute. I have not researched the Zimbabwe situation, or the case of any Zimbabwean refugees, enough to comment. A quick Google did turn up Zimbabwean Asylum Seeker Wins Test Case. If you want to have a further discussion on Zimbabwe I suggest that you start a thread in General Topics. I will then do some further research and make any relevant comments I may have. Unlike some, I refrain on commenting on subjects I know nothing about.
2)You didn't comment on if you think its right that from next year it will be illegal to smoke at a bus stop??
As a smoker, I try to not smoke where I will inflict my habit on non smokers. But as the traffic passing a bus stop emits far more dangerous emissions than a cigarette smoker, such a rule would be ridiculous. However, as far as I am aware, the proposed ban on smoking in public places refers to enclosed public places, such as pubs, not bus stops. Of course, if you can provide a link to information that says otherwise i will be happy to acknowledge that I am wrong.
3)And what are my rediculous comments?? That children should go out to work part-time and learn some financial discipline (as well as learning to take some limited responsibility for their lives) rather than stay at home playing computer games until they are brain dead whilst stuffing themselves with junk food and getting lifts to school rather than walking or busing?? Not rediculous at all . Just common sense , and who knows they may actually stand a chance of outliving our generation if they got off their <deleted> occasionally. I think thats a view held by many .
Your original comment, which I said was ridiculous, was
After all i could say that as a person with no children why should i have to contribute to the vast expense of OTHER PEOPLES children ?. when i was young most children left school at 16 or 18 if they were so inclined and went straight into a job. Started work and contributed to society. The most my parents got was the occasional free milk or orange juice . No child allowance and weekly freebies like now. If people choose to have children thats fine with me , have dozens for all i care , but why should i pay a penny for their upkeep? The parents should pay as my parents had to. If they can't pay then don't have children until you can.
But you seem to be ignoring your original comment, and are now claiming that you meant something completely different.
4)You accused me of not taking notice of the warning sent to me about being suspended . You made the point that you did take notice of such a warning and thus was not suspended. I wrote back saying i had never recieved this warning and so your accusation is untrue . You have chosen not to answer. Why ?? Scouse has also chosen not to tell me why a warning wasn't sent , which if nothing else is bad practise. Why not be gracious and admit that , as i got no warning , you were wrong in your accusation?
Like everyone who posts on here I had to read and agree to abide by the forum rules. Not being privy to the decisions of the moderators, I can only assume that my infringement of the rules was petty enough to warrant a mere warning, whereas yours was more serious and so warranted instant suspension. I suggest that you have a thorough read of the rules.
5)Why don't you comment on why it was ok for me , and other kids at that time , to buy cigarettes from the shop to take home to our parents or families or even friends , but why in 2006 its suddenly this massive crime ?. Are you going to suggest that back in the 1960's/70's that us kids were any more likely to take up smoking as a result than now? I didn't , nor did i become an alcaholic or drug-addict.
I thought this was a discussion on the UK's immigration policy. Comments on taxes and schools and the NHS and Zimbabwean refugees are sort of relevant; but this!? OK, I will comment anyway. For as long as I can remember it has been illegal for children under 16 to buy tobacco products. But, as a child in the '60s I was often sent to the shop to do so for my elder siblings and my parents. Attitudes have changed, and people now realise how bad this is as it encourages children to smoke; it certainly did me, started at 14! So, it was not OK, it was merely ignored.
6) I suggested people (lets be more precise and say 16 or above) should be allowed to smoke and drink freely if that is what they choose to do with their own money. Not be told where and when they can do this . They know the dangers , leave it up to them to decide. If you're betwen 16 and 18 you can't buy alcahol or tobacco. What a farce !! Do you agree with this restriction and if so why?
Provided it does not cause danger to other people (drink driving, for example) then I think that an adult should be allowed to put whatever they like into their bodies. But when does a child become an adult? 16? 18? 21? Avery complex question. I do agree that the situation regarding the age of consent for everything needs to be standardised. One very ridiculous example: a 16 year old can join the army and be sent by the government to die in a war; yet he cannot vote for that government!
7)Oh how about this one.. i'm sure you remember when you were young that on Nov 5th everyone used to go to public firework displays and set off their own fireworks . Now its illegal to go to a public space and do so!! And back then kids could buy fireworks . If they did that now it would be on the 6 O'clock news as a scandal. What a load of crap!! This country is breeding a load of robots all scared of their own shadows . Do what the govt says and don't think for yourself. Do you think thats right?
Yes. Speak to the people who had to treat the thousands of kids suffering from serious burns around November every year before the law was changed and I'm sure that they would agree.
Now why don't you tackle these one at a time in order without missing any and then i can't accuse you of being selective can I?? And without abusing the quote facility if you can.
Done that, although I did use the quote button in the same way as I always do; to make it clear which point I am responding to.
Of course you may be "too busy" to reply
Well I have replied. I'm sorry if your life is so empty that you have nothing else to do, but I do have a life outside this forum.

So, are these the "difficult" questions you claim I refuse to answer? Somehow, as this is an immigration forum, I had assumed that your "difficult questions would have something to do with that subject.

However, you have often in this and other threads accused me of "ignoring the difficult questions" so for the sake of completeness I will ask you again, in a modified form so that even you can understand:-

What are your "difficult" questions about UK immigration policy, rules or application of same, that you say I have not answered?

On the subject of unanswered questions, what about the following?

You said:-

I was simply saying that the option to go private is there for those who can do so, and considering how house prices have increased in the last decade , this is actually a lot of people.

Another ridiculous comment from you, so I asked:-

Money invested in a house is not like money in the bank; to get at it one has to sell the house! Are you seriously suggesting that people should sell their homes to pay for medical treatment?

Are you going to reply to this?

Edited by GU22
Posted

Thank you for a very complete reply and , this time , without the usual insults. Much more constructive that way isn't it ?.

BTW it was around late March that the smoking ban in public places came in in Scotland. It was on all the news broadcasts the same day and it was on those broadcasts that this example of it being made illegal to smoke at bus stops was mentioned , more than once on both channels BBC and ITV. The relevant minister was being slightly teased with it . So i think we can take it that it is (and next year will be in England too) illegal to smoke at a bus stop this being defined as a public place. This being so you seem to be agreeing with me that this is "rediculous" .

You appear to be backtracking on the "suspension" issue . Originally you said i ignored the warnings. Now you are saying something entirely different as it becomes clear your original accusation was wrong. Why not just say you were wrong ?

Honestly i am at work and like you do have a life to lead. I can't trawl all through the posts there are too many , to identify which questions you didn't answer and as we seem to be agreeing to let it lie now i suggest we let it go. It would take too long to do a proper job on it .

In return i won't push you to comment on the Zimbabwe deportations anymore. It is not a scientific arguement we are having here , just asking your opinion which you won't give. There has been enough about this on TV this year to form one .HOWEVER like i said , we'll leave it .

Re the tobacco thing , well you seem to be saying it encouraged you to smoke . Me it didn't. So thats 1-1. Unless someone else has an opinion we can only leave it at that.

We seem to be agreeing that the transition from child to adult is a grey area and you give a good example . I could also add "can be sent to die in a war but not buy alcahol and tobacco"

On the firework thing can we agree to disagree.?

Oh you asked me something . Re the paying for your treatment issue. I pointed out that a lot of people can , but won't , pay for their treatment. I simply said its an option if you don't want to wait. I don't agree with you that most people nowadays can't pay for the fairly basic treatments , hip , teeth and the like. They just don't want to. I said that given the huge demand from patients things can't happen immediately so there will always be a wait. I'm not saying i'm happy about this . Not at all. It would be great if you could walk in and out again in a couple of hours , job done. I base my opinion on the fact that , day to day , i deal with a variety of the public in money matters and they all appear to be well-off enough to afford a couple of holidays a year, have a nice enough house/flat, always going shopping for non-essentials . Many items on the news of people downsizing, giving their children deposits to buy a house (quite a new thing that) , buying second properties etc etc . All of which indicates affordability is high. Its hard for me to accept that £400 on a dentist or even £1800 on a hip surgery is beyond their ability. Really annoying yes, granted , but possible . If you genuinely can't pay then yes you are on the waiting list and thats bad. But to suggest that this would be different if money was not spent on illegals is just conjecture. You can't know that. Of course the govt could cut back on their huge defence spending and put that into hospitals and health. I bet that would make a bigger impact than a few milion spent on worrying about what a few illegals are doing with themselves.

So there you are , some agreement and mostly disagreement. Exactly as expected i guess.

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply . Have a nice day

Posted
Law lords housing ruling 'could attract workshy to Britain'By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor and Anil Dawar

(Filed: 07/04/2006)

European nationals living in Britain who receive income support are also entitled to housing assistance, the Court of Appeal decided yesterday. Campaigners said the ruling could attract people to Britain who had no intention of working.

Three judges dismissed an appeal by the London borough of Barnet against an earlier decision in favour of two Dutch nationals on income support.

Hassan Ismail, a widower who is the sole carer for his two young children, and Nimco Abdi, a mother of three daughters who fled war-torn Somalia, have been unable to work since arriving in Britain because of their childcare responsibilities.

They persuaded the Court of Appeal that they were "persons subject to immigration control". Under regulations made by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, a person subject to immigration control who receives income support is thereby eligible for assistance from a local housing authority under the Housing Act 1966.

People not subject to immigration control may claim housing assistance only if they have a right to live in the British Isles.

Mr Prescott's department said it was "very disappointed" with the judgment. "We intend to change the regulations to remedy the situation as soon as possible," a spokesman added.

Anyone who is a national of a state within the European Economic Area is entitled to be admitted to Britain, the judge said, but that did not give them an automatic right to remain here.

Under section 13(2) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, a person who requires leave to remain in Britain is subject to immigration control. That provision means "what its words say", Lord Justice Buxton concluded. Lord Justices Lloyd and Richards agreed.

Sir Andrew Green, of the campaign group Migration Watch, said: "If these two people are indeed subject to immigration control they should be removed. They should not be granted council housing.

"This is a clear attempt to exploit our welfare state and those who will suffer most are British people who have paid taxes all their lives. The risk is that this will set a most unwelcome precedent."

Sir Andrew believed the Government should seek to appeal against the judgment or amend the law. "If we don't change the law," he added, "it could attract a very large number of people to this country who have no intention of working at all."

items like this appear in the uk press almost every day.

Posted

I've no intention to add more fuel to the fire on what had become an emotive issue, besides, there are more important issues over this that reqiure members responses.

But, If a sponsored Thai went awol in the uk what would be their entitlement..................As opposed to a EU national or asylum seeker.

I accept there are now more Thai's and non EU nationals entering than ever before and this will increase regardless of the uk's backpedling tactics.

With a guessimate ratio of 2000 - 5, Who in your mind would be more likely to be a burden upon the state in terms of criminal activity, NHS, Handouts ect, The 5 non EU nationals, I don't think so. Ok, one could argue every little helps so does p.....g in the wind, which is exactly what this is. If you think things are bad now then you don't want to be around in 2012.

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...