UK Benefits Farce.

[MAJIC]

From my experience the Government are not adverse to issuing NI cards,it's to their advantage to get people out to work and paying Taxes ! Unless it's an illegal "cash in hand job" most companies will put you on emergency tax,to begin with, which is a very high rate of tax !

Edited January 12, 2016 by MAJIC

[MAJIC]

Majic,

You seem to be under the impression that an EEA national can waltz into the UK and immediately start claiming benefits.

They can't.

For starters, they can claim nothing until they have lived in the UK exercising a treaty right for at least three months.

Then, to receive any means tested benefit they have to satisfy the habitual residence test.

They can, of course, receive any contribution based benefits for which they have paid the required NICs.

The same rules apply to British citizens living in other EEA states. They have the same, conditional, rights to state benefits as EEA nationals do in the UK; and many do claim those benefits.

Seems like you are saying that after 3 months the EEA National is entitled to the following, offer they wouldn't refuse !

The habitual residence test applies to claims for the following benefits:

• Income Support
• Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
• Income-related Employment and Support Allowance
• Pension Credit
• Housing Benefit
• Council Tax Reduction
• Universal Credit

Seems like pretty good deal to me,and does it include Benefits back dated to the date of first applying???

[nontabury]

As has been shown earlier in the topic; an immigrants eligibility for any public funds, except contribution based ones for which they have paid the required NICs, before they have ILR, which takes at least 5 years to obtain, is virtually non existent.

Again, the Home Office document Public Funds.

As said previously, anyone, immigrant or indigenous, who is using false documents, a false identity or any other fraudulent means to claim and receive benefits to which they are not entitled is committing a criminal offence.

I again urge anyone here who knows of such criminality to report it here

As we all know,there are tens of thousands of what is loosely called asylum seekers (economic immigrants) who are living off the British taxpayers. We must also add onto the known cost of supporting these people the extras, such as the the salary's of those running the system.

A few yrs back while in the UK I went to the post office.There was a long queue, due to a number of these so called asylum seekers who were being advised by social workers how to use the services of the PO, they had even been taken around town to the banks etc. Who do you think was paying the salary's of these social workers. Likewise visited the local library,were they had approximately 30 computers for use by the public, 29 occupied by immigrants( information supplied by angry staff member) again who was paying for all this. So it's not only the direct cost that the public know about, but also these extras. Are you part of these extras,7x7. I ask this as you do not seem to think that the cost issues are important or even relevant.

[7by7]

From my experience the Government are not adverse to issuing NI cards,it's to their advantage to get people out to work and paying Taxes ! Unless it's an illegal "cash in hand job" most companies will put you on emergency tax,to begin with, which is a very high rate of tax !

DWP will only issue a NI number to someone who is entitled to it.

Majic,

You seem to be under the impression that an EEA national can waltz into the UK and immediately start claiming benefits.

They can't.

For starters, they can claim nothing until they have lived in the UK exercising a treaty right for at least three months.

Then, to receive any means tested benefit they have to satisfy the habitual residence test.

They can, of course, receive any contribution based benefits for which they have paid the required NICs.

The same rules apply to British citizens living in other EEA states. They have the same, conditional, rights to state benefits as EEA nationals do in the UK; and many do claim those benefits.

Seems like you are saying that after 3 months the EEA National is entitled to the following, offer they wouldn't refuse !

The habitual residence test applies to claims for the following benefits:

• Income Support
• Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
• Income-related Employment and Support Allowance
• Pension Credit
• Housing Benefit
• Council Tax Reduction
• Universal Credit

Seems like pretty good deal to me,and does it include Benefits back dated to the date of first applying???

The habitual residence test is not a formality; it does not mean an EEA national can immediately start claiming any of those benefits as soon as they have lived here for three months. See The habitual residence test - how a decision is made

As with all claims, if someone is eligible payments will begin from the day they are first claimed or the day the claimant became eligible; whichever is the later.

[7by7]

As has been shown earlier in the topic; an immigrants eligibility for any public funds, except contribution based ones for which they have paid the required NICs, before they have ILR, which takes at least 5 years to obtain, is virtually non existent.

Again, the Home Office document Public Funds.

As said previously, anyone, immigrant or indigenous, who is using false documents, a false identity or any other fraudulent means to claim and receive benefits to which they are not entitled is committing a criminal offence.

I again urge anyone here who knows of such criminality to report it here

As we all know,there are tens of thousands of what is loosely called asylum seekers (economic immigrants) who are living off the British taxpayers. We must also add onto the known cost of supporting these people the extras, such as the the salary's of those running the system.

Student visa holders are allowed to work for up to 20 hours a week and pay the appropriate NICs and taxes. Work visa holders also pay NICs and taxes.

Student visa and work visa holders are not entitled to income related benefits and entitlement to contribution based benefits is not only dependent upon how many NICs one has paid but also when they were paid, usually the amount claimable is based upon NICs paid during the last complete tax year before the claim is made.

The state pension is different. To get the full amount you must have paid, or had credited whilst unemployed etc., at least 30 years of contributions. To get anything at all you must have paid or had credited at least 10 years worth. Considering the maximum term of both student visas and work visas, it is extremely unlikely that a student visa or work visa holder will have made anywhere near 10 years worth, let alone the full 30.

So, student visa holders who work and all work visa holders are paying into the system through their NICs and taxes but will never be able to claim from it.

I don't know if the figures are available to enable a comparison, but as these groups outnumber asylum seekers I suspect that the amount of NICs and tax paid by them is more than enough to cover benefits, monetary or in kind, paid to asylum seekers.

Plus, of course, the large profit made by the treasury from the difference in the fee charged for their visa and the actual cost of processing it.

So it can be argued that the meagre benefits received by asylum seekers actually represents no drain on the British taxpayer because it is covered by the visa fee profit, NICs and taxes from students visa holder and work visa holders!

An assumption; sure. But far more logical a one than some of the pony posted here!

A few yrs back while in the UK I went to the post office.There was a long queue, due to a number of these so called asylum seekers who were being advised by social workers how to use the services of the PO, they had even been taken around town to the banks etc. Who do you think was paying the salary's of these social workers. Likewise visited the local library,were they had approximately 30 computers for use by the public, 29 occupied by immigrants( information supplied by angry staff member) again who was paying for all this. So it's not only the direct cost that the public know about, but also these extras. Are you part of these extras,7x7. I ask this as you do not seem to think that the cost issues are important or even relevant.

"A few years back when I was in the UK." So another anti immigration rant from an immigrant!

How do you know the people in the post office were asylum seekers? Were they wearing signs identifying themselves as such?

Whoever they were, how do you know the people showing them around were social workers employed by the government, council or other publicly funded body? For all you know they may have been volunteers working for a charity.

Whatever, many people, including the anti immigration immigrant brigade, vociferously complain about immigrants not integrating. Surely such activities are designed to help them to do so?

As for the library; I would be very much surprised to discover that any staff member of any library would be angry at the library's computers being used by anyone who was eligible to do so.

To be eligible one has to be a member of that library; which for most, probably all, public libraries means living, working or studying in the area covered and being able to prove it.

How did you and the angry librarian know the people were immigrants? I suspect you simply assumed it because of their skin colour!

Edit; your experience was a few years ago as you say. These days there are very few public computers in libraries. Instead they simply have Wi-Fi available for people to use. Which, of course, costs the same no matter who uses it, immigrant or indigenous, or how many are using it at any one time.

Edited January 13, 2016 by 7by7

[jacky54]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550036/Fraud-fear-as-millions-of-NI-numbers-are-lost.html

This was years ago and it's still going on. Pretty difficult to explain away nearly 70 million NI numbers

'The DWP was embroiled in controversy last year when a loophole allowed at least 3,300 NI numbers to be issued to illegal immigrants.'

Edited January 13, 2016 by jacky54

[jpinx]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550036/Fraud-fear-as-millions-of-NI-numbers-are-lost.html

This was years ago and it's still going on. Pretty difficult to explain away nearly 70 million NI numbers

'The DWP was embroiled in controversy last year when a loophole allowed at least 3,300 NI numbers to be issued to illegal immigrants.'

Tip of the iceberg,,,,,,,

[MAJIC]

From my experience the Government are not adverse to issuing NI cards,it's to their advantage to get people out to work and paying Taxes ! Unless it's an illegal "cash in hand job" most companies will put you on emergency tax,to begin with, which is a very high rate of tax !

DWP will only issue a NI number to someone who is entitled to it.

Majic,

You seem to be under the impression that an EEA national can waltz into the UK and immediately start claiming benefits.

They can't.

For starters, they can claim nothing until they have lived in the UK exercising a treaty right for at least three months.

Then, to receive any means tested benefit they have to satisfy the habitual residence test.

They can, of course, receive any contribution based benefits for which they have paid the required NICs.

The same rules apply to British citizens living in other EEA states. They have the same, conditional, rights to state benefits as EEA nationals do in the UK; and many do claim those benefits.

Seems like you are saying that after 3 months the EEA National is entitled to the following, offer they wouldn't refuse !

The habitual residence test applies to claims for the following benefits:

• Income Support
• Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
• Income-related Employment and Support Allowance
• Pension Credit
• Housing Benefit
• Council Tax Reduction
• Universal Credit

Seems like pretty good deal to me,and does it include Benefits back dated to the date of first applying???

The habitual residence test is not a formality; it does not mean an EEA national can immediately start claiming any of those benefits as soon as they have lived here for three months. See The habitual residence test - how a decision is made

As with all claims, if someone is eligible payments will begin from the day they are first claimed or the day the claimant became eligible; whichever is the later.

"DWP will only issue a NI number to someone who is entitled to it."

My wife at the time was on a settlement visa,and got her NI Card within 4 months of being in the UK,that did not entitle her to anything other than being able to work!

HRT Rules are pretty generous,and can actually be 1 to 3 months depending on individual cases,and different websites.

[7by7]

Majic,

Your wife was in the UK with a settlement visa which allowed her to work; so she was entitled to an NI number!

So, what's your point?

Edited January 13, 2016 by 7by7

[7by7]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550036/Fraud-fear-as-millions-of-NI-numbers-are-lost.html

This was years ago and it's still going on. Pretty difficult to explain away nearly 70 million NI numbers

'The DWP was embroiled in controversy last year when a loophole allowed at least 3,300 NI numbers to be issued to illegal immigrants.'

As that 2007 article says

The Government admitted in a recent parliamentary answer that there are now 76.7 million numbers on the database, well in excess of Britain's adult population of 49 million.

Some of the surplus numbers are legitimate. The DWP estimates that 16.5 million are registered in the names of dead people whose surviving spouses can lawfully claim a pension against their late spouse's NI contributions. Another 1.5 million are thought to belong to pensioners living abroad who can claim UK benefits.

How about NI numbers issued to people now dead where the number is not being used by their surviving spouse?

What about NI numbers issued to student visa and work visa holders who have now left the UK?

As the National Insurance scheme began in 1911 there must be quite a large number of each of those!

Even if someone has managed to fraudulently obtain a NI number, since that article was published the checks employers are now legally obliged to perform on all potential employees means it will be difficult for someone who has done so to obtain work; ditto if they try to claim benefits. See posts passim.

[nontabury]

A few yrs back while in the UK I went to the post office.There was a long queue, due to a number of these so called asylum seekers who were being advised by social workers how to use the services of the PO, they had even been taken around town to the banks etc. Who do you think was paying the salary's of these social workers. Likewise visited the local library,were they had approximately 30 computers for use by the public, 29 occupied by immigrants( information supplied by angry staff member) again who was paying for all this. So it's not only the direct cost that the public know about, but also these extras. Are you part of these extras,7x7. I ask this as you do not seem to think that the cost issues are important or even relevant.

"A few years back when I was in the UK." So another anti immigration rant from an immigrant!

How do you know the people in the post office were asylum seekers? Were they wearing signs identifying themselves as such?

Whoever they were, how do you know the people showing them around were social workers employed by the government, council or other publicly funded body? For all you know they may have been volunteers working for a charity.

Whatever, many people, including the anti immigration immigrant brigade, vociferously complain about immigrants not integrating. Surely such activities are designed to help them to do so?

As for the library; I would be very much surprised to discover that any staff member of any library would be angry at the library's computers being used by anyone who was eligible to do so.

To be eligible one has to be a member of that library; which for most, probably all, public libraries means living, working or studying in the area covered and being able to prove it.

How did you and the angry librarian know the people were immigrants? I suspect you simply assumed it because of their skin colour!

Edit; your experience was a few years ago as you say. These days there are very few public computers in libraries. Instead they simply have Wi-Fi available for people to use. Which, of course, costs the same no matter who uses it, immigrant or indigenous, or how many are using it at any one time.

This was not a rant from an immigrants, for the simple reason I am not an immigrants, I am on a retirement visa for which I have to prove that I will not be

A financial drain on Thailand. Unlike those economic Asylum seekers in the UK who are costing the UK taxpayer millions.Furthermore If I do not comply with the requirements of the Thai authorities I can and would be deported very quickly without resort to any lengthy appeal,financed by the Thai government

They were social workers employed by the local council, payed by the local ratepayers. How do I know, simple they talked to other people in the Queue, stating they were asylum seekers ( economic immigrants )

Obviously the library staff know they were so called asylum seekers, as they would have processed their library card, probably on the strength of them now living in that town at taxpayers expense.

Regarding your assumption that now a days very few library's provide computers for the general public. I can only tell you that last August I used one of Many public computers in Burton upon Trent's central library. You live in the UK, so why not phone them to confirm that they do indeed have public computers.

Edited January 13, 2016 by nontabury

[nontabury]

7x7 I asked you in post 276, but somehow you forgot to answer, are you employed as a social worker, or any other similar employment were your employment deals in any aspect of asylum claimants?

[MAJIC]

Majic,

Your wife was in the UK with a settlement visa which allowed her to work; so she was entitled to an NI number.

So, what's your point?

That's correct!

What's my point ? I should have thought it obvious,i.e it's not too hard to get a NI Card to make obtaining a job a bit easier,

and those that do are complying with our laws,and it's not necessary to obtain a NI Number fraudulently ! and if they did,it's questionable if they should be in the UK in the first place!

Edited January 13, 2016 by MAJIC

[MAJIC]

As has been shown earlier in the topic; an immigrants eligibility for any public funds, except contribution based ones for which they have paid the required NICs, before they have ILR, which takes at least 5 years to obtain, is virtually non existent.

Again, the Home Office document Public Funds.

As said previously, anyone, immigrant or indigenous, who is using false documents, a false identity or any other fraudulent means to claim and receive benefits to which they are not entitled is committing a criminal offence.

I again urge anyone here who knows of such criminality to report it here

As we all know,there are tens of thousands of what is loosely called asylum seekers (economic immigrants) who are living off the British taxpayers. We must also add onto the known cost of supporting these people the extras, such as the the salary's of those running the system.

Student visa holders are allowed to work for up to 20 hours a week and pay the appropriate NICs and taxes. Work visa holders also pay NICs and taxes.

Student visa and work visa holders are not entitled to income related benefits and entitlement to contribution based benefits is not only dependent upon how many NICs one has paid but also when they were paid, usually the amount claimable is based upon NICs paid during the last complete tax year before the claim is made.

The state pension is different. To get the full amount you must have paid, or had credited whilst unemployed etc., at least 30 years of contributions. To get anything at all you must have paid or had credited at least 10 years worth. Considering the maximum term of both student visas and work visas, it is extremely unlikely that a student visa or work visa holder will have made anywhere near 10 years worth, let alone the full 30.

So, student visa holders who work and all work visa holders are paying into the system through their NICs and taxes but will never be able to claim from it.

I don't know if the figures are available to enable a comparison, but as these groups outnumber asylum seekers I suspect that the amount of NICs and tax paid by them is more than enough to cover benefits, monetary or in kind, paid to asylum seekers.

Plus, of course, the large profit made by the treasury from the difference in the fee charged for their visa and the actual cost of processing it.

So it can be argued that the meagre benefits received by asylum seekers actually represents no drain on the British taxpayer because it is covered by the visa fee profit, NICs and taxes from students visa holder and work visa holders!

An assumption; sure. But far more logical a one than some of the pony posted here!

A few yrs back while in the UK I went to the post office.There was a long queue, due to a number of these so called asylum seekers who were being advised by social workers how to use the services of the PO, they had even been taken around town to the banks etc. Who do you think was paying the salary's of these social workers. Likewise visited the local library,were they had approximately 30 computers for use by the public, 29 occupied by immigrants( information supplied by angry staff member) again who was paying for all this. So it's not only the direct cost that the public know about, but also these extras. Are you part of these extras,7x7. I ask this as you do not seem to think that the cost issues are important or even relevant.

"A few years back when I was in the UK." So another anti immigration rant from an immigrant!

How do you know the people in the post office were asylum seekers? Were they wearing signs identifying themselves as such?

Whoever they were, how do you know the people showing them around were social workers employed by the government, council or other publicly funded body? For all you know they may have been volunteers working for a charity.

Whatever, many people, including the anti immigration immigrant brigade, vociferously complain about immigrants not integrating. Surely such activities are designed to help them to do so?

As for the library; I would be very much surprised to discover that any staff member of any library would be angry at the library's computers being used by anyone who was eligible to do so.

To be eligible one has to be a member of that library; which for most, probably all, public libraries means living, working or studying in the area covered and being able to prove it.

How did you and the angry librarian know the people were immigrants? I suspect you simply assumed it because of their skin colour!

Edit; your experience was a few years ago as you say. These days there are very few public computers in libraries. Instead they simply have Wi-Fi available for people to use. Which, of course, costs the same no matter who uses it, immigrant or indigenous, or how many are using it at any one time.

Your Quote

"I don't know if the figures are available to enable a comparison, but as these groups outnumber asylum seekers I suspect that the amount of NICs and tax paid by them is more than enough to cover benefits, monetary or in kind, paid to asylum seekers."

Sorry 7 by 7 you seem to have missed the point of your own above statement, "why should any body of people in the UK underwrite asylum seekers expenditures who owe them nothing ? and as for their "NICs and tax paid by them is more than enough to cover benefits, monetary or in kind, paid to asylum seekers." .....that if it ever happened would be absolutely outrageous (No Government would ever admit to where the money went to)" but I suspect you already know that !

[mmh8]

not read the inbetween bits, posts, but to the op.

I get it, people not having to work for a living.

However it is a sign of intelligence to live well and not work for it.

Also, I admire how these communities, not just muslim, but Turkish, Greek, Lebanese, Bangladeshi communities in London and throughouyt the UK actually look after each other. They look out for each other, and retribution is publically made when an attack is made on people in these communiites.

However, as an English person in Uk, it is bloody difficult to get simple information on what is available to you, your community will not look out for you and support you. Your family will ( if they are good uns) but the community at large does not provide the support that the migrant communities provide their members.

[jpinx]

not read the inbetween bits, posts, but to the op. I get it, people not having to work for a living. However it is a sign of intelligence to live well and not work for it. Also, I admire how these communities, not just muslim, but Turkish, Greek, Lebanese, Bangladeshi communities in London and throughouyt the UK actually look after each other. They look out for each other, and retribution is publically made when an attack is made on people in these communiites. However, as an English person in Uk, it is bloody difficult to get simple information on what is available to you, your community will not look out for you and support you. Your family will ( if they are good uns) but the community at large does not provide the support that the migrant communities provide their members.

That is so very true. It's ironic the way communities in UK are dis-interested, but the UK community in Thailand is quite active I'm sure the same can be said of other nationalities/ethnicities/religions.

One the needs to be said -- bugger the political correctness, within the bounds of reasonably good manners. Europe is absolutely ham-strung by the now-legally-enforced pc-ness thrust upon it like the standard tomato or whatever nonsense Brussels can come up with next. Sweden stifled the reports of the personal crimes (mostly molestation and rape) because it could not identify the group of perpetrators without getting into trouble with the PC-ites. Finland's people have started vigilante patrols. Germany has started to roll up the welcome mat, but it's a bit late not with over a million already in, with a fine sprinkling of seriously bad eggs amongst them, as the Istanbul suicide bomber demonstrated.

Whilst it is perfectly true that there's a large body of "true-blue-brits" scamming the welfare system one way or another, the influx of immigrants, legal or not, has made everyone sit up and pay attention to what their taxes are being spent on. No wonder the "get out of europe" camp is doing well, in spite of the obvious difficulties of unravelling that marriage.

Marks and Spencer refused to deliver a boquet of flowers for an acquaintance because one of the words in the message was not permitted on religious grounds. When asked what word was not allowed, M&S said "Christ" is on the list of barred words. On checking with a friend, the lady discovered that "Allah" is allowed, as is "Buddha", "Mohammed", and a bunch of other religious" words, but Westminster had seen fit to ban "Christ" in case it upset the minorities. I ask you -- have we truly lost the plot, or are we actually under the thumb of political administrators who have forgotten the Queen Elizabeth II has a title of "Defender of the Faith" - Fides Def on the coins.

I am all for social inclusion, and I have no problem with friendly ghettos - I have friends all over the 3rd world, and others in all kinds of ghettos - a term much maligned - but not having a strict control of who can use *MY* taxes while beggaring me in my retirement years is unforgivable.

[AyG]

Marks and Spencer refused to deliver a boquet of flowers for an acquaintance because one of the words in the message was not permitted on religious grounds. When asked what word was not allowed, M&S said "Christ" is on the list of barred words.

I must say that when I read this I thought "urban legend". However it might be true. The Daily Mail (a pretty hateful UK rag) seems to support this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974554/M-S-bans-customers-using-words-Christ-Jesus-Christ-messages-ordering-flowers-online-jihad-okay.html

Similarly, the same store apparently allows its Moslem staff not to serve customers with pork or alcohol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527820/Marks-Spencer-tells-Muslim-staff-CAN-refuse-serve-customers-buying-alcohol-pork.html

I wonder whether this is because of the store's original, Jewish roots, rather than a pro-Moslem stance.

[jpinx]

Marks and Spencer refused to deliver a boquet of flowers for an acquaintance because one of the words in the message was not permitted on religious grounds. When asked what word was not allowed, M&S said "Christ" is on the list of barred words.

I must say that when I read this I thought "urban legend". However it might be true. The Daily Mail (a pretty hateful UK rag) seems to support this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974554/M-S-bans-customers-using-words-Christ-Jesus-Christ-messages-ordering-flowers-online-jihad-okay.html

Similarly, the same store apparently allows its Moslem staff not to serve customers with pork or alcohol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527820/Marks-Spencer-tells-Muslim-staff-CAN-refuse-serve-customers-buying-alcohol-pork.html

I wonder whether this is because of the store's original, Jewish roots, rather than a pro-Moslem stance.

I'm glad you managed to confirm it. Whatever the reason - - it is totally wrong by any standards.

[7by7]

7x7 I asked you in post 276, but somehow you forgot to answer, are you employed as a social worker, or any other similar employment were your employment deals in any aspect of asylum claimants?

No, never have been.

The information and facts I have posted come from proper research, rather than reliance on urban myths and ill informed, prejudiced opinions.

If you are going to attempt to show that something I said is incorrect, don't misquote me! I did not say, as you claim, "very few library's provide computers for the general public."

I have checked the information required when joining a library with several councils, including Staffordshire which covers Burton upon Trent, and none of them even ask about an applicant's nationality or immigration status.

So your library assistant could not have found out that the people you complain about were immigrants from checking their library card!

Maybe the people you objected to in the Post Office did say that they were all asylum seekers; but that doesn't mean that those assisting them were public employees; far more likely to be employed by or volunteers with a charity.

"I'm not an immigrant, I live in Thailand with a non immigrant visa!" is the usual cry from the anti immigration immigrant brigade. You have moved from the country of your birth to live in a foreign country; you are an immigrant. Even those who use visa runs in order to live in Thailand are immigrants.

BTW, the UK's version of a Thai retirement visa, retired persons of independent means, was abolished in 2008. Those who were in the UK in this category at the time can extend their stay; provided they meet the requirements; for example a disposable income, without working, of at least £25,000 p.a. and a close connection to the UK.

So a Thai, or any other non EEA national, cannot now use the route you use to live in Thailand in order to live in the UK..

Edited January 14, 2016 by 7by7

[7by7]

Marks and Spencer refused to deliver a boquet of flowers for an acquaintance because one of the words in the message was not permitted on religious grounds. When asked what word was not allowed, M&S said "Christ" is on the list of barred words.

I must say that when I read this I thought "urban legend". However it might be true. The Daily Mail (a pretty hateful UK rag) seems to support this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974554/M-S-bans-customers-using-words-Christ-Jesus-Christ-messages-ordering-flowers-online-jihad-okay.html

Similarly, the same store apparently allows its Moslem staff not to serve customers with pork or alcohol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527820/Marks-Spencer-tells-Muslim-staff-CAN-refuse-serve-customers-buying-alcohol-pork.html

I wonder whether this is because of the store's original, Jewish roots, rather than a pro-Moslem stance.

I'm glad you managed to confirm it. Whatever the reason - - it is totally wrong by any standards.

The gift story is an old story from last March, and at the time M&S quickly apologised for this, and said that it was caused by a software glitch designed to prevent profanities. This glitch has been corrected.

Marks and Spencer sorry for banning words 'gay' and 'Jesus Christ' from gift messages

But of course, The Daily Mail and the racist sites which picked up on this story have not acknowledged that!

Likewise with allowing Muslim staff to refuse to serve pork and alcohol; an even older story from December 2013. One London branch not following M&S guidance properly!

M&S apology over Muslim staff policy

[AyG]

Marks and Spencer refused to deliver a boquet of flowers for an acquaintance because one of the words in the message was not permitted on religious grounds. When asked what word was not allowed, M&S said "Christ" is on the list of barred words.

I must say that when I read this I thought "urban legend". However it might be true. The Daily Mail (a pretty hateful UK rag) seems to support this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2974554/M-S-bans-customers-using-words-Christ-Jesus-Christ-messages-ordering-flowers-online-jihad-okay.html

Similarly, the same store apparently allows its Moslem staff not to serve customers with pork or alcohol.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2527820/Marks-Spencer-tells-Muslim-staff-CAN-refuse-serve-customers-buying-alcohol-pork.html

I wonder whether this is because of the store's original, Jewish roots, rather than a pro-Moslem stance.

I'm glad you managed to confirm it. Whatever the reason - - it is totally wrong by any standards.

The gift story is an old story from last March, and at the time M&S quickly apologised for this, and said that it was caused by a software glitch designed to prevent profanities. This glitch has been corrected.

Marks and Spencer sorry for banning words 'gay' and 'Jesus Christ' from gift messages

But of course, The Daily Mail and the racist sites which picked up on this story have not acknowledged that!

Likewise with allowing Muslim staff to refuse to serve pork and alcohol; an even older story from December 2013. One London branch not following M&S guidance properly!

M&S apology over Muslim staff policy

Yet the stories were actually true.

The fact that M&S subsequently apologised for their dhimmitude is pretty much irrelevant. It happened.

[7by7]

I have chosen a report from the Daily Express in order to avoid claims that the figure is somehow massaged by PC lefties.

Asylum seekers cost you £786million: Bill to house and feed migrants soars 46%

Now, £786 million is a lot of money when looked in one lump sum.; but with a current working population of 31.05 million (source) that is just £25.31 per year per worker: 7p per day.

Of course, lot's of people who are not working also pay tax, income tax on investments, VAT etc. Plus the government raises revenue from other sources such as corporation tax. So the amount paid per head of the UK tax paying population to support asylum seekers is even less than this.

Meanwhile, benefit fraud costs the taxpayer at least £1.2 billion per year (source), and as has been acknowledged earlier in the topic the vast majority of benefit fraudsters are white British.

So again I urge all those who know or suspect that someone is committing this crime to report it.

[7by7]

Some nested quotes removed to comply with forum software

The gift story is an old story from last March, and at the time M&S quickly apologised for this, and said that it was caused by a software glitch designed to prevent profanities. This glitch has been corrected.

Marks and Spencer sorry for banning words 'gay' and 'Jesus Christ' from gift messages

But of course, The Daily Mail and the racist sites which picked up on this story have not acknowledged that!

Likewise with allowing Muslim staff to refuse to serve pork and alcohol; an even older story from December 2013. One London branch not following M&S guidance properly!

M&S apology over Muslim staff policy

Yet the stories were actually true.

The fact that M&S subsequently apologised for their dhimmitude is pretty much irrelevant. It happened.

True but due to errors.

Odd that you accuse M&S of 'dhimmitude.'

You do know they are a Jewish company and have regularly been accused of Zionism due to their support for the Israeli government, don't you?

Accusations which I am sure are as baseless as yours.

[7by7]

Majic,

Your wife was in the UK with a settlement visa which allowed her to work; so she was entitled to an NI number.

So, what's your point?

That's correct!

What's my point ? I should have thought it obvious,i.e it's not too hard to get a NI Card to make obtaining a job a bit easier,

and those that do are complying with our laws,and it's not necessary to obtain a NI Number fraudulently ! and if they did,it's questionable if they should be in the UK in the first place!

Correct; it is not very hard to get a NI number (not card, they went the way of the dodo years ago) if one is entitled to it; very easy in fact.

But as explained, with links to the relevant government information, at least twice earlier in this topic:

HAVING A NI NUMBER DOES NOT MEAN ONE IS ENTITLED TO WORK OR CLAIM BENEFITS IN THE UK.

EMPLOYERS ARE LEGALLY OBLIGED TO SEE EVIDENCE THAT A POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THEY HAVE A NI NUMBER OR NOT, IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO WORK IN THE UK EITHER BECAUSE THEY ARE A BRITISH CITIZEN OR THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS ALLOWS THEM TO WORK.

DITTO FOR CLAIMING BENFITS.

Sorry to shout, but maybe you and others will get it this time!

[jpinx]

I have chosen a report from the Daily Express in order to avoid claims that the figure is somehow massaged by PC lefties.

Asylum seekers cost you £786million: Bill to house and feed migrants soars 46%

Now, £786 million is a lot of money when looked in one lump sum.; but with a current working population of 31.05 million (source) that is just £25.31 per year per worker: 7p per day.

Of course, lot's of people who are not working also pay tax, income tax on investments, VAT etc. Plus the government raises revenue from other sources such as corporation tax. So the amount paid per head of the UK tax paying population to support asylum seekers is even less than this.

Meanwhile, benefit fraud costs the taxpayer at least £1.2 billion per year (source), and as has been acknowledged earlier in the topic the vast majority of benefit fraudsters are white British.

So again I urge all those who know or suspect that someone is committing this crime to report it.

Statistics -- if you want to play with numbers --

https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886

.... but this is not about numbers, it's about looking after our own people well enough so that they don't feel the need to scam the system. People who have been paying into the system for many years are feeling let down, or there would not be the outcry about the level of basic pension, for one example. Why should a pensioner go short by 7p per day to support someone who has never paid a penny into the system?

Sure -- report the people who are scamming the welfare state, that's all very laudable, but at the same time, lobby your MP to sort out the mess that is immigrations inability to keep track of the people it lets in.

[7by7]

I have chosen a report from the Daily Express in order to avoid claims that the figure is somehow massaged by PC lefties.

Asylum seekers cost you £786million: Bill to house and feed migrants soars 46%

Now, £786 million is a lot of money when looked in one lump sum.; but with a current working population of 31.05 million (source) that is just £25.31 per year per worker: 7p per day.

Of course, lot's of people who are not working also pay tax, income tax on investments, VAT etc. Plus the government raises revenue from other sources such as corporation tax. So the amount paid per head of the UK tax paying population to support asylum seekers is even less than this.

Meanwhile, benefit fraud costs the taxpayer at least £1.2 billion per year (source), and as has been acknowledged earlier in the topic the vast majority of benefit fraudsters are white British.

So again I urge all those who know or suspect that someone is committing this crime to report it.

Statistics -- if you want to play with numbers --

https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886

So, using the figures from there, the money spent on asylum seekers is a mere 0.45% of the £171 billion spent by DWP alone. An even smaller percentage if all welfare spending is used.

.... but this is not about numbers, it's about looking after our own people well enough so that they don't feel the need to scam the system. People who have been paying into the system for many years are feeling let down, or there would not be the outcry about the level of basic pension, for one example. Why should a pensioner go short by 7p per day to support someone who has never paid a penny into the system?

Where did I say that pensioners should go short by 7p a day?

What I said was that the spending on asylum seekers costs working tax payers 7p a day, actually a lot less if all tax revenue is used in the calculation.

Do you honestly believe that if every single asylum seeker left the UK tomorrow that the government would reduce tax rates accordingly, or give that 7p a day to pensioners?

Sure -- report the people who are scamming the welfare state, that's all very laudable, but at the same time, lobby your MP to sort out the mess that is immigrations inability to keep track of the people it lets in.

Agreed. Illegal immigrants and absconders are just as much criminals as benefit fraudsters in my opinion.

But that does not mean the UK, as a civilised country, should allow those coming here to seek asylim to starve!

[7by7]

Majic,

Your wife was in the UK with a settlement visa which allowed her to work; so she was entitled to an NI number.

So, what's your point?

That's correct!

What's my point ? I should have thought it obvious,i.e it's not too hard to get a NI Card to make obtaining a job a bit easier,

and those that do are complying with our laws,and it's not necessary to obtain a NI Number fraudulently ! and if they did,it's questionable if they should be in the UK in the first place!

Correct; it is not very hard to get a NI number (not card, they went the way of the dodo years ago) if one is entitled to it; very easy in fact.

But as explained, with links to the relevant government information, at least twice earlier in this topic:

HAVING A NI NUMBER DOES NOT MEAN ONE IS ENTITLED TO WORK OR CLAIM BENEFITS IN THE UK.

EMPLOYERS ARE LEGALLY OBLIGED TO SEE EVIDENCE THAT A POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE, WHETHER THEY HAVE A NI NUMBER OR NOT, IS LEGALLY ENTITLED TO WORK IN THE UK EITHER BECAUSE THEY ARE A BRITISH CITIZEN OR THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS ALLOWS THEM TO WORK.

DITTO FOR CLAIMING BENFITS.

Sorry to shout, but maybe you and others will get it this time!

Migrants....NOT immigrants who have been given permission to WORK in the UK have claimed benefits..........

Take more water with it, then try posting again.

Your post may be relevant to the quote then!

As for what I think the point you are attempting to make is; see the many previous posts on this matter.

I'm not going to post it all yet again just because you can't be arsed to read or remember what has been posted several times before.you can't be arsed to read or remember them.

[jpinx]

So, using the figures from there, the money spent on asylum seekers is a mere 0.45% of the £171 billion spent by DWP alone. An even smaller percentage if all welfare spending is used.

.... but this is not about numbers, it's about looking after our own people well enough so that they don't feel the need to scam the system. People who have been paying into the system for many years are feeling let down, or there would not be the outcry about the level of basic pension, for one example. Why should a pensioner go short by 7p per day to support someone who has never paid a penny into the system?

Where did I say that pensioners should go short by 7p a day?

What I said was that the spending on asylum seekers costs working tax payers 7p a day, actually a lot less if all tax revenue is used in the calculation.

Do you honestly believe that if every single asylum seeker left the UK tomorrow that the government would reduce tax rates accordingly, or give that 7p a day to pensioners?

Sure -- report the people who are scamming the welfare state, that's all very laudable, but at the same time, lobby your MP to sort out the mess that is immigrations inability to keep track of the people it lets in.

Agreed. Illegal immigrants and absconders are just as much criminals as benefit fraudsters in my opinion.

But that does not mean the UK, as a civilised country, should allow those coming here to seek asylim to starve!

======================================================

The implication is there -- 7p a day is a lot to many honest UK pensioners. Whether or not a government would re-distribute the savings if all immigrants went home is a moot point - they should not have been allowed in in the first place. As a civilised country we pay homage to the immigrants but let our own pensioners suffer. 20,000 pensioners die because of the cold weather - for the lack of heating?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/361382/20-000-pensioners-died-from-the-cold-last-winter

...and...

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/290622/Starving-to-death-this-Christmas

Immigrants first - - UK pensioners second -- is that the policy now?

not only pensioners -- others suffer from government sponsored "austerity" ..

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/people-starving-to-death-in-the-uk-on-david-camerons-doorstep/

Ironic that apparently this came to light at a lord mayors banquet,,,,,,

Edited January 14, 2016 by jpinx

[nontabury]

7x7 I asked you in post 276, but somehow you forgot to answer, are you employed as a social worker, or any other similar employment were your employment deals in any aspect of asylum claimants?

No, never have been.

The information and facts I have posted come from proper research, rather than reliance on urban myths and ill informed, prejudiced opinions.

If you are going to attempt to show that something I said is incorrect, don't misquote me! I did not say, as you claim, "very few library's provide computers for the general public."

I have checked the information required when joining a library with several councils, including Staffordshire which covers Burton upon Trent, and none of them even ask about an applicant's nationality or immigration status.

So your library assistant could not have found out that the people you complain about were immigrants from checking their library card!

Maybe the people you objected to in the Post Office did say that they were all asylum seekers; but that doesn't mean that those assisting them were public employees; far more likely to be employed by or volunteers with a charity.

"I'm not an immigrant, I live in Thailand with a non immigrant visa!" is the usual cry from the anti immigration immigrant brigade. You have moved from the country of your birth to live in a foreign country; you are an immigrant. Even those who use visa runs in order to live in Thailand are immigrants.

BTW, the UK's version of a Thai retirement visa, retired persons of independent means, was abolished in 2008. Those who were in the UK in this category at the time can extend their stay; provided they meet the requirements; for example a disposable income, without working, of at least £25,000 p.a. and a close connection to the UK.

So a Thai, or any other non EEA national, cannot now use the route you use to live in Thailand in order to live in the UK..

Again your playing with words.

In your post 278 you say "these days there are very few public computers in library's"

Not a great deal of difference from me quoting you as saying saying

"very few library's provide computers for the general public"

Not exact I agree and I apologies for the slight difference.

I stand by what I previously said that the library assistant( not in Staffordshire ) told me they were economic immigrants.

Regarding the episode at the PO, perhaps I did not make it plain enough. The economic migrants were being helped by social workers. Who explained to others in the queue, what was happening.

Again I repeat I am not an immigrate in Thailand, and I am certainly not a drain on the Thai economy.

7x7 you are like most fanatical far left people in that as soon as you start to loose an argument you resort to branding people as racist or bigots.If you were to re-read through this thread you will notice that I and others posters have repeatedly condemned those white/ so called Christian people who also scrounge off the UK tax payers. The Benefit system was first, rightly put in place to help those British people who had fallen on hard times,usually not through their own fault or because they were simply too lazy to work. It was never envisaged for those who had never paid into the system or those from other countries to take advantage of.

[elliss]

I think you will find many "true-blue-Brits" working the same system on the benefits system whilst trading on e-bay or where-ever. The new Finnish system of a flat rate payment would fix a lot of these issues.

But generally,

Western benefits are mainly aimed at supplying money to single women with children.

Yeah, a few guys manage to slip in, but that isn't the norm, for most of the payouts.

Benies Britain , is a no work culture promoted b,y the now defunct labour party .

Available to all , foreigners welcome .

GB, we are doomed , the end is nigh .