The overall conclusion of the study was that highly qualified migrants were a net positive, whilst unskilled ones were a net burden, this should be readily apparent considering the overall average unemployment rates for Muslim men and women in 2012 was around two thirds, a staggering increase from 2004 when rates were around 15%. This strongly suggests to me that the qualifications of those coming into the Country has declined markedly just as the numbers have accelerated.

What evidence do you have that the increase in unemployment among Muslim men is due to large numbers of unskilled Muslim men entering the country?

I can't find any reference to unemployed Muslims in either of the reports you linked to; but it is possible I missed it, I did read them hurriedly. Can you point out to me where either report makes reference to this?

Unemployed Muslims are just as likely to have been in the UK for many years, indeed even been born here as to be recent immigrants; more likely probably!

I totally agree, however the government response is pathetic. If you take the step to report a clear case of fraud, you would expect a clear result. What you actually get is ignored, or the individual is given a little warning.

Action has to follow words, or the words fail. Right now the words fail. I cant really add to that.

If you take the step to report an ALLEGED case of fraud you would expect it to be tried in a a court of law. That's how the law works. It relies on evidence and a trial.

You said in an earlier post that there ought to be some new law passed regarding benefit fraudsters. I'm not quite sure what kind of law you want but whatever it is it still relies on those breaking the law being apprehended and tried.

If the new law were to be passed and you knew people that were breaking that law but you continued to refuse to 'grass them up' what good would that law be? How many people would be tried and sentenced because of that new law if they hadn't been caught? You seem to want to be an upstanding citizen without taking any responsibility.

If you know people who are criminals report them. If you aren't willing to then your lack of action speaks for itself.

If you read my post from the 23rd, you will see I did infact report one type of fraud. No action was taken by the authorities.

You accuse people of lacking the will to report benefit fraud,

I was actually accusing theblether of lacking the will to report benefit fraud because he was the one making the song and dance about it. Let me ask you the same question I asked him.

If the new law that he wishes for is passed how many more benefit fraudsters will be prosecuted under it if the same people who haven't reported them in the past don't report them in the future?

I wondered how long it would be before the Muslims popped up.

I've given you my answer, and my answer is clear. The authorities condone this fraud, and while they condone it I will not participate in this charade. Full stop.

Labour won't tackle it as it hits at their core vote, the Conservatives won't tackle it as it puts them into the "Nasty Party" mode again. Political cowards both.

If you want to do something about it, 7x7 and Sustento, stand for Parliament. I'll vote for you

So which left leaning publications are you dismissing?

You could argue that both the Economist and the Huffington Post are left leaning; but you can't put that label onto The Spectator!

Sorry but the Economist cannot be described as left leaning. It's rather like saying GW Bush was left leaning as he had the foresight ( for once) to start moving the GOP toward a less hostile attitude towards immigration.

The Economist is one of the most intelligently written and comprehensive news sources out there and it's original stance of JS Mill style free trade remains its only bias...not a bad one to have in any century.

I've given you my answer, and my answer is clear. The authorities condone this fraud, and while they condone it I will not participate in this charade. Full stop.

Labour won't tackle it as it hits at their core vote, the Conservatives won't tackle it as it puts them into the "Nasty Party" mode again. Political cowards both.

If you want to do something about it, 7x7 and Sustento, stand for Parliament. I'll vote for you

I'd rather you did something about it. You're the man with the evidence of criminal activity which you're unwilling to report. Don't try and blame other people for your unwillingness to act.

7 x 7

...

Unfortunately it has proven impossible to find figures which differentiate between contribution based benefits and means tested ones.

Even Channel 4 couldn't do it.

...

The little snippet from your post above gives the basis of all the rumours, agitation, mis-interpretations, whatever you like to call the comments in many of the previous posts on this thread.

No government has issued such comparisons. Neither has the National Statistics Institute, nor any other recognised authoratative body. This goes back many, many years so I am not scoring any political point.

It seems to me that, as no comparisons have been issued, no Minister is aware of the facts, nor aware of the potential problem. Why is this? Has the DWP not wished to provide the information? Or has no Minister asked for such comparisons? Or is there some other explanation? Again, it seems to me that the whole thing is such a potential trap for both the DWP and the Minister supposedly controlling the spending of benefit monies that no one is willing to lift the rock and look under it.

Thus the rumours and so on will continue to multiply until some politician has the stomach to tell his civil service mandarins to provide him with fully substantiated figures of the various categories of people contributing to / receiving all the benefits handled by both the DWP in central government and the housing and similar benefits handled jointly by central and local government.

Regrettably I doubt that there are enough savvy people around to sort this dog's breakfast out before the country goes bankrupt.

I've given you my answer, and my answer is clear. The authorities condone this fraud, and while they condone it I will not participate in this charade. Full stop.

Labour won't tackle it as it hits at their core vote, the Conservatives won't tackle it as it puts them into the "Nasty Party" mode again. Political cowards both.

If you want to do something about it, 7x7 and Sustento, stand for Parliament. I'll vote for you

I'd rather you did something about it. You're the man with the evidence of criminal activity which you're unwilling to report. Don't try and blame other people for your unwillingness to act.

Nope, you keep living in your trigger finger want to grass anything that moves bubble.

I'll keep living in the real world.

I've given you my answer, and my answer is clear. The authorities condone this fraud, and while they condone it I will not participate in this charade. Full stop.

Labour won't tackle it as it hits at their core vote, the Conservatives won't tackle it as it puts them into the "Nasty Party" mode again. Political cowards both.

If you want to do something about it, 7x7 and Sustento, stand for Parliament. I'll vote for you

You are so right,The constituency that I used to live in is 100% Labour controlled as are the neighbouring constituencies and they have been for decades, some of them have never had a MP who was not Labour.The politicians in these areas are fully aware of the situation and have absolutely no intension of changing things,( better to copy the ostrich)if they did they would soon be out of office. Many of us complain about the corruption here in Thailand, but what is taking place in the UK is also CORRUPTION but in a different foam, will things change, "YES" on the same day as corruption is irradicated in Thailand.

Yup and the tragic thing is there was a moment in time when things could have been so different. Tony Blair had the majority and the goodwill, and with Frank Field he had the visionary to change the system, but Gordon Brown stepped in and assassinated Frank Fields political career.

All part of the turf war between Blair and Brown, and the British public lost again.

A guy I know called Jimmy Wray died a few weeks ago, He was with GB and Blair on that infamous Gravitas dinner day, but not actually at the dinner. The next day when GB told him what had been agreed Wray went mad. According to his polling GB had the votes to beat Blair in the leadership election, and he said at the very least the ballot should have gone ahead.

That dinner at Gravitas poisoned our country.

I knew Jimmy Wray but I wasn't keen on him for various reasons, he was typical of the politicians in our country. Self first, party second, country an afterthought. It's as big game and the Mr Angries are tolerated / ridiculed for their naiviete.

It's not about the best interests of the British public, it's always been about looking after your electoral tribe. Foolish is the man that doesn't know that.

A simple law, in fact a simple sentencing amendment would eradicate the majority of benefit fraud. People only do it because the price of being caught is not high enough.

The battle lines are drawn, the trenches are dug, the immovable has met the hard rock cafe and the coffee has gone stale. Can I have the temerity to suggest, instead of going round in circles like a Bangkok roundabout, we withdraw to our respective Fox holes, put on our tin hats and take a breath. Just sayin of course, because I understand both sides, I don't agree with both sides but I understand them nonetheless.

I shall accede to that suggestion Mossfinn, thanks very much.

I've given you my answer, and my answer is clear. The authorities condone this fraud, and while they condone it I will not participate in this charade. Full stop.

Labour won't tackle it as it hits at their core vote, the Conservatives won't tackle it as it puts them into the "Nasty Party" mode again. Political cowards both.

If you want to do something about it, 7x7 and Sustento, stand for Parliament. I'll vote for you

Usual cop out from theblether.

Followed, as ever, by posts about his important connections designed to divert attention away from his complete failure to support his initial assertions in any way, shape or form.

The blether, you say you know of criminal activity and who is committing the crime; yet you point blank refuse to do anything about it. Despite the mechanism for you to do so being in place.

The government do not condone this fraud, they have put a system in place to try and stop, or at least reduce, it. No one is saying the system is perfect; but it is there. Use it.

Until you do, your complaints about this crime going unpunished are nothing more than hot air.

I've given you my answer, and my answer is clear. The authorities condone this fraud, and while they condone it I will not participate in this charade. Full stop.

Labour won't tackle it as it hits at their core vote, the Conservatives won't tackle it as it puts them into the "Nasty Party" mode again. Political cowards both.

If you want to do something about it, 7x7 and Sustento, stand for Parliament. I'll vote for you

Usual cop out from theblether.

Followed, as ever, by posts about his important connections designed to divert attention away from his complete failure to support his initial assertions in any way, shape or form.

The blether, you say you know of criminal activity and who is committing the crime; yet you point blank refuse to do anything about it. Despite the mechanism for you to do so being in place.

The government do not condone this fraud, they have put a system in place to try and stop, or at least reduce, it. No one is saying the system is perfect; but it is there. Use it.

Until you do, your complaints about this crime going unpunished are nothing more than hot air.

Mossfinn, have a word with him.

Probably the case; but still doesn't answer the question I asked.

The main reason why many cases go undetected is because those who know about them don't report them.

Instead they just moan about the level of benefit fraud on internet forums and complain that the government doesn't do anything about it!

Mossfinn, have a word with him.

It is not my job, neither would I want it ( mods laughing uproariously, never would it be asked ) however the one question I would ask 7', considering my request, have you gained anything from your continued questioning? Knowing full well there was never going to be a response to them that would be to your . Liking, what motivates you to continue when a line has tried to be drawn. It was easy for every body to just walk away, I know life ain't easy, but this is an internet forum, nobody wins.

I'm not looking for a response that is to my liking; I am looking for a response period!

Yes, this is just an internet forum and nothing said here is ever going to change anything.

But it is a forum; a place for discussion. People who post an opinion as though it were fact should be prepared to answer questions on and defend that opinion in a reasonable manner, rather than dismissing all who question them as, what was the word he used? Ah yes; pathetic.

Otherwise all of those who hold an opinion that differs to his may as well stop posting and TV be renamed "Theblether's opinion page!"

But what do you gain from continuing a line that is going nowhere? The discussion has hit a brick wall, no one is moving, you continue to ask the same questions, what do you gain, there is no discussion, just claim.and counter claim, there is a time to continue to talk, but not an internet forum, and certainly not this thread.the blather has acceded, can I ask you to as well, there is nothing to be gained here?

Should read the blether, but I am struggling with this flaming kindle!!!

I made my final response to theblether in post no. 134.

Subsequent posts were in response to vinniekintana and your good self.

When I used the word pathetic, it was directed at Exsexyman who has a habit of making obtuse and stupid personal attacks.

Here is quite a revealing publication commissioned by the house of Lords, in the abstract it is quite damning of the tendency to focus solely on GDP when considering the pro's and con's of immigration. Indeed it is quite damning about the lack of data collected to test the prevailing assumptions underlying immigration policy - So to argue the British people are wrong to be so concerned about immigration is an assumption made on scant data, hardly likely down to a couple of right wing newspapers or blogs I would suggest.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Overall GDP, which the Government has persistently emphasised, is an irrelevant

and misleading criterion for assessing the economic impacts of immigration on the

UK. The total size of an economy is not an index of prosperity. The focus of

analysis should rather be on the effects of immigration on income per head of the

resident population. Both theory and the available empirical evidence indicate that

these effects are small, especially in the long run when the economy fully adjusts to

the increased supply of labour. In the long run, the main economic effect of

immigration is to enlarge the economy, with relatively small costs and benefits for

the incomes of the resident population.

The overall conclusion of the study was that highly qualified migrants were a net positive, whilst unskilled ones were a net burden, this should be readily apparent considering the overall average unemployment rates for Muslim men and women in 2012 was around two thirds, a staggering increase from 2004 when rates were around 15%. This strongly suggests to me that the qualifications of those coming into the Country has declined markedly just as the numbers have accelerated.

What evidence do you have that the increase in unemployment among Muslim men is due to large numbers of unskilled Muslim men entering the country?

I can't find any reference to unemployed Muslims in either of the reports you linked to; but it is possible I missed it, I did read them hurriedly. Can you point out to me where either report makes reference to this?

Unemployed Muslims are just as likely to have been in the UK for many years, indeed even been born here as to be recent immigrants; more likely probably!

The figures I quoted from memory were from a Daily Telegraph article which details the sharp increase in Muslim unemployment since 2004. I think it a reasonable assumption that in a downturn firms get rid of unskilled workers quicker than trained and specialist staff. I also fail to see the logic in your last point, I would have thought Muslims who have been in the UK many years may have better language skills and be hence more employable as oppose to recent immigrants, which New Labour could not let in quick enough.

Here is quite a revealing publication commissioned by the house of Lords, in the abstract it is quite damning of the tendency to focus solely on GDP when considering the pro's and con's of immigration. Indeed it is quite damning about the lack of data collected to test the prevailing assumptions underlying immigration policy - So to argue the British people are wrong to be so concerned about immigration is an assumption made on scant data, hardly likely down to a couple of right wing newspapers or blogs I would suggest.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Overall GDP, which the Government has persistently emphasised, is an irrelevant

and misleading criterion for assessing the economic impacts of immigration on the

UK. The total size of an economy is not an index of prosperity. The focus of

analysis should rather be on the effects of immigration on income per head of the

resident population. Both theory and the available empirical evidence indicate that

these effects are small, especially in the long run when the economy fully adjusts to

the increased supply of labour. In the long run, the main economic effect of

immigration is to enlarge the economy, with relatively small costs and benefits for

the incomes of the resident population.

The part I have emphasised is in direct contradiction to your earlier assertion that unemployed immigrants cost the UK taxpayer £13 billion per year.

Do you now withdraw that remark?

I see that you now admit you have no idea where you got the figure for unemployed Muslims from; except a vague memory that you may have read it in the Telegraph!

That someone is unemployed and a Muslim does not make them an immigrant. There are plenty of native English speaking, skilled non Muslims who are also unemployed!

Here is quite a revealing publication commissioned by the house of Lords, in the abstract it is quite damning of the tendency to focus solely on GDP when considering the pro's and con's of immigration. Indeed it is quite damning about the lack of data collected to test the prevailing assumptions underlying immigration policy - So to argue the British people are wrong to be so concerned about immigration is an assumption made on scant data, hardly likely down to a couple of right wing newspapers or blogs I would suggest.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Overall GDP, which the Government has persistently emphasised, is an irrelevant

and misleading criterion for assessing the economic impacts of immigration on the

UK. The total size of an economy is not an index of prosperity. The focus of

analysis should rather be on the effects of immigration on income per head of the

resident population. Both theory and the available empirical evidence indicate that

these effects are small, especially in the long run when the economy fully adjusts to

the increased supply of labour. In the long run, the main economic effect of

immigration is to enlarge the economy, with relatively small costs and benefits for

the incomes of the resident population.

The part I have emphasised is in direct contradiction to your earlier assertion that unemployed immigrants cost the UK taxpayer £13 billion per year.

Do you now withdraw that remark?

I see that you now admit you have no idea where you got the figure for unemployed Muslims from; except a vague memory that you may have read it in the Telegraph!

That someone is unemployed and a Muslim does not make them an immigrant. There are plenty of native English speaking, skilled non Muslims who are also unemployed!

Google Muslim unemployment UK Telegraph, not so difficult is it? I didn't pepper you with links as if to vindicate by their number, besides this thread is about UK public opinion not any single issue, hence I'm not interested in a never ending circular argument.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8054403/Britains-coping-classes-at-breaking-point.html

P.S I suggest you read the House of Lords report in it's entirety, if GDP was the best metric for assessing immigration then a relatively modest rise is hardly likely to cause the large degree of public concern over the issue.

Nothing in that Telegraph article to say that they are immigrants.

Nothing in the House of Lords report to support your earlier claim that unemployed immigrants cost the UK taxpayer £13 billion per year.

Come on guys , this is just getting ridiculous. Please take a moment and revisit the thread, it's becoming embarrassing. Let's take a breath and let it lie.

I've given you my answer, and my answer is clear. The authorities condone this fraud, and while they condone it I will not participate in this charade. Full stop.

Labour won't tackle it as it hits at their core vote, the Conservatives won't tackle it as it puts them into the "Nasty Party" mode again. Political cowards both.

If you want to do something about it, 7x7 and Sustento, stand for Parliament. I'll vote for you

If you voted for me you may very well find yourself in court for knowingly aiding and abetting benefit fraud.

A simple law, in fact a simple sentencing amendment would eradicate the majority of benefit fraud. People only do it because the price of being caught is not high enough.

People only do it because they think they're not going to get caught. Your reluctance to "grass them up" (your words) demonstrates why.