UK Benefits Farce.

[chiang mai]

I read all the UK papers in the morning and the following, from that "quality" UK paper the Express, details some numbers about immigrants living in London, some may find the article interesting when posters ask, what have they done to my country and why:

So here's the "what":

"Of the total three million non-British residents 40 per cent were from Europe, 30 per cent from the Middle East and Asia, 20 per cent from Africa and 10 per cent from America or the Caribbean".

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/631471/London-population-immigration-migrants-infrastructure-strain

And here's the "why":

"In 1997, Tony Blair and his Cabinet had several reasons for wishing to increase the number of immigrants into Britain. One was that they perceived an electoral advantage".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5028913/All-you-need-to-know-about-immigration-in-Britain-today.html

And:

The model mid page showing the effects of immigration on an ageing UK population tells most of the story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8368230.stm

And yes, both articles are dated 2009, the fact is this is not a new problem and the reasons for it remain as valid today as they did seven years ago.

[MAJIC]

Why the universal credits is taking so long to roll out is amazing,but 2020 is noted for completion day ,just unrolling it piece meal at the moment.

The ghetto structures,cram dozens under one roof are in for a particularly bad time,that one roof ,one address is limited to £23000 inc housing benefit,probably being reduced further,a lot of disquiet will follow, no job? tough

They're probably pacing it carefully to avoid getting slung out at the next election

They are indeed pacing it, in part because of the political backlash in parliament (MPs in fear of losing their seats), in part because of public backlash because of genuine cases of hardship being created by reducing welfare, in part because of the substantial number of buy-to-let landlords who's business plan is based upon welfare supporting the rents they charge, and in part because of push back from businesses and public sector employers who, themselves hooked on welfare supporting the low wages they pay, claim they can't afford to pay a living wage.

Buy to let Landlords were busy renting out private housing in the 80s,while Margaret Thatcher's conservatives Party was busy vote buying by selling off the

Council Housing Stock, and it all progressed from there, with Interest rates for many years @....0.5% it wasnt difficult to see the best place to invest your

money,for maximum return! of 5-6 % of the house price! and more in richer areas.and indeed it was a business plan there for the taking,which is still driving up

house prices and creating a Landlords market to this very day,needless to say the Council Housing waiting list spans many years,and if one comes up years l

ater,don't expect it be in the area you want to live!

Edited January 4, 2016 by MAJIC

[Liquorice]

Very interesting 2014 House of Commons paper on Statistics of Migrants and Benefits.

Statistics on Migrant.pdf

[chiang mai]

So, only 7.4% of all claimants were non-UK nationals and 5% were additionally not EU nationals either.

Table 2 tells the detailed story quite nicely I think.

[loppylugs1]

So, only 7.4% of all claimants were non-UK nationals and 5% were additionally not EU nationals either.

Table 2 tells the detailed story quite nicely I think.

Making a case on figures alone is bu.lshit,7.4% were non-UK nationals,5% were non-EU nationals,that is sizable enough,but when reckoned up of the total it could be twice or three times the amount,just because he/she is classed UK national,but in essence a through and through Paki,who will never work just soak up benefits is tough to absorb.

For one Id let them starve,the overwhelming amount of white UK do not want them,but as pointed out IDS has the measure of them,bring it on

[chiang mai]

So, only 7.4% of all claimants were non-UK nationals and 5% were additionally not EU nationals either.

Table 2 tells the detailed story quite nicely I think.

Making a case on figures alone is bu.lshit,7.4% were non-UK nationals,5% were non-EU nationals,that is sizable enough,but when reckoned up of the total it could be twice or three times the amount,just because he/she is classed UK national,but in essence a through and through Paki,who will never work just soak up benefits is tough to absorb.

For one Id let them starve,the overwhelming amount of white UK do not want them,but as pointed out IDS has the measure of them,bring it on

You're a bigot and a racist who doesn't/can't understand the facts, we're done, go back to your Dutch courage.

[huawei]

So, only 7.4% of all claimants were non-UK nationals and 5% were additionally not EU nationals either.

Table 2 tells the detailed story quite nicely I think.

Making a case on figures alone is bu.lshit,7.4% were non-UK nationals,5% were non-EU nationals,that is sizable enough,but when reckoned up of the total it could be twice or three times the amount,just because he/she is classed UK national,but in essence a through and through Paki,who will never work just soak up benefits is tough to absorb.

For one Id let them starve,the overwhelming amount of white UK do not want them,but as pointed out IDS has the measure of them,bring it on

You're a bigot and a racist who doesn't/can't understand the facts, we're done, go back to your Dutch courage.

Agree, there are a few in this thread.If it wasn't the Muslim currently I am sure it was the blacks previously.

This isn't about benefits.

We all understand that the Muslim issue is a big issue but these same people were complaining about the blacks how they were involved in mugging ,drugs etc..back in the day.

Born a bigot still a bigot it just depends on the topic " du jour".

[7by7]

<snip>

After all, there are plenty of non Muslim women in the UK who are doing exactly the same thing; probably proportionately more given the Islamic prohibitions on sex outside of marriage and adultery.....

You would have to put it to the muslim rape gangs that marauded up and down the UK with regards to the Islamic prohibitions on sex inside and outside marriage,and I do believe the majority banged up over the last few years were indeed married,grandfathers too oh dear......

As was repeatedly shown in the various topics discussing the horrendous crimes of those gangs, they were roundly condemned by the Muslim community.

More so than the Catholic priests who abused young boys in their care in Ireland, the UK, Spain etc. have been by the Catholic community!

Wrong, as shown in previous topics, they were not condemned by the majority of their fellow Muslems. No street demonstrations took place in Rotherham condemning these child rapist. As I have pointed out to you previously, the only demonstration that took place in Rotherham was when the local authority ordered that ALL taxis ( the Muslim taxi drivers were at the centre of this abuse ) to install cameras in their vehicles . This lead to the Muslims demonstrating on the streets.

This is not the first time you have accused the innocent majority of British Muslims of not condemning, maybe even condoning, the horrendous crimes of these evil men because there have been no mass street demonstrations.

Yet I have yet to see you make the same accusation about

• Catholics because there have been no street demonstrations against the long term child abuse by Catholic priests;
• media personalities because there have been no street demonstrations against child abuse by people such as Saville;
• MPs and other establishment figures because there have been no street demonstrations against cases such as the Dolphin square scandal;
• ex pats in S.E. Asia because there have been no street demonstrations against child abuse by Western sex tourists;
• etc., etc.

[nontabury]

<snip>

After all, there are plenty of non Muslim women in the UK who are doing exactly the same thing; probably proportionately more given the Islamic prohibitions on sex outside of marriage and adultery.....

You would have to put it to the muslim rape gangs that marauded up and down the UK with regards to the Islamic prohibitions on sex inside and outside marriage,and I do believe the majority banged up over the last few years were indeed married,grandfathers too oh dear......

As was repeatedly shown in the various topics discussing the horrendous crimes of those gangs, they were roundly condemned by the Muslim community.

More so than the Catholic priests who abused young boys in their care in Ireland, the UK, Spain etc. have been by the Catholic community!

Wrong, as shown in previous topics, they were not condemned by the majority of their fellow Muslems. No street demonstrations took place in Rotherham condemning these child rapist. As I have pointed out to you previously, the only demonstration that took place in Rotherham was when the local authority ordered that ALL taxis ( the Muslim taxi drivers were at the centre of this abuse ) to install cameras in their vehicles . This lead to the Muslims demonstrating on the streets.

This is not the first time you have accused the innocent majority of British Muslims of not condemning, maybe even condoning, the horrendous crimes of these evil men because there have been no mass street demonstrations.

Yet I have yet to see you make the same accusation about

• Catholics because there have been no street demonstrations against the long term child abuse by Catholic priests;
• media personalities because there have been no street demonstrations against child abuse by people such as Saville;
• MPs and other establishment figures because there have been no street demonstrations against cases such as the Dolphin square scandal;
• ex pats in S.E. Asia because there have been no street demonstrations against child abuse by Western sex tourists;
• etc., etc.

No one is trying to defend those Catholic priest,MP's etc.

What I was replying to was your assertion that these animals were roundly condemned by the majority of their fellow Muslims. This is quite untrue, what happened is that we were deafened by their silence.

[7by7]

As shown previously, Muslim spokespeople, both religious and political, have spoken out against and condemned the sexual abuse of children. As have, for example, Catholic spokespeople.

But ordinary Catholics? We have also been deafened by the silence from them; where is your condemnation of them and snide accusations that Catholics therefore condone child sexual abuse?

Ditto ex pats in S.E. Asia etc., etc.

You only demand these mass demonstrations from Muslims, no one else.

The reason for that is obvious.

[nontabury]

As shown previously, Muslim spokespeople, both religious and political, have spoken out against and condemned the sexual abuse of children. As have, for example, Catholic spokespeople.

But ordinary Catholics? We have also been deafened by the silence from them; where is your condemnation of them and snide accusations that Catholics therefore condone child sexual abuse?

Ditto ex pats in S.E. Asia etc., etc.

You only demand these mass demonstrations from Muslims, no one else.

The reason for that is obvious.

We are talking about the problem in the Muslim community, please try not to divert criticism elsewhere.

[jacky54]

As shown previously, Muslim spokespeople, both religious and political, have spoken out against and condemned the sexual abuse of children.

Very few and they never speak out about the cause because they cannot, the cause being the koran and the life of the prophet. Jesus was not a rapist of slaves and children but Mohamad was and they are the cause where Muslim child abusers are concerned.

[jpinx]

Have there not been several instances of the Pope and others making declarations of condemnation?

[i claudius]

As shown previously, Muslim spokespeople, both religious and political, have spoken out against and condemned the sexual abuse of children. As have, for example, Catholic spokespeople.

But ordinary Catholics? We have also been deafened by the silence from them; where is your condemnation of them and snide accusations that Catholics therefore condone child sexual abuse?

Ditto ex pats in S.E. Asia etc., etc.

You only demand these mass demonstrations from Muslims, no one else.

The reason for that is obvious.

We are talking about the problem in the Muslim community, please try not to divert criticism elsewhere.

Come on ,divert? It's what the left do when they lose an argument

[arunsakda]

More than the subtle bigotry so commonly tolerated on Thaivisa here we have overt racism. The vast majority of public benefits are sucked up by the majority. Why bigots never point to Stoke-on-Trent or Scunthorpe to blame White British for these paradises? Of course not.

[Craig krup]

The bottom line is that it doesn't serve the interests of professional politicians to tell the truth about the situation and neither they nor the taxpayers generally will address the issue until it blows up in their faces. As the great Feynman said, the universe is not easily fooled. We evolved social institutions to meet our needs as a species. So marriage is an institution that had to be created to bridge the gap between a woman's knowledge that a child is hers and a man's belief that the child is his. Marriage, as an institution accepted by an entire community, ensures that children benefit from their father's affection. People love their own kids much more than they love other people's kids, which is why they will work so hard to give them a good life.....and so on, and so on, and so on....

The basic postwar truth is that people with degrees thought they knew better than the species collectively for the last 40,000 years. So the death penalty is barbaric because their seminar group and their sentiments tell them that it is. The fact that every single hunter-gatherer society has the death penalty doesn't faze them - they just "know" that it's barbaric. If modest and small "c" conservative people suggest that there are real problems with handing folks a quarter of a trillion pounds a year - a quarter of it borrowed money - then they too are barbaric. You're a right-wing monster if you suggest that it's unwise to make an open offer to the entire world that you can work 16 hours a week in London on minimum wage, have three kids, and get £3,500 a month.

Ronald Reagan's economic adviser said that if something can't continue for ever then it'll stop. That's axiomatic, and it's a lot more profound than you'd think. Can what the UK is doing continue for ever? Obviously it can't. So it'll stop. All that needs to be decided is how it will stop. I can't see how it'll stop without merry hell.

I know two people who work in welfare rights. Each of them, independently of the other and without me inviting it, said that they were shocked that devout Muslim women wearing headscarves, with their husband three feet away, would say that they don't know who their kids' fathers are. That's where we've got to. It has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion - the indigenous population are just as bad - but what's interesting is that even strong religious beliefs aren't a barrier to it. Indeed, this is what you should expect, although Oxford educated politicians (a.k.a. careerist idiots) mind find it difficult.

It's all very, very serious. The deficit is back up to about £80bn and the **** could really hit the fan at some point.

[loppylugs1]

More than the subtle bigotry so commonly tolerated on Thaivisa here we have overt racism. The vast majority of public benefits are sucked up by the majority. Why bigots never point to Stoke-on-Trent or Scunthorpe to blame White British for these paradises? Of course not.

But of course the majority of benefits are sucked up by the majority...did not have to get the brain kick started to sort that one out..Now you mention Stoke,and Scunthorpe ,both areas laid low by industrial downsizing,yes pity the white British living there,but then we look at Preston ,Blackburn,Bradford laid low by the population

[chiang mai]

As shown previously, Muslim spokespeople, both religious and political, have spoken out against and condemned the sexual abuse of children. As have, for example, Catholic spokespeople.

But ordinary Catholics? We have also been deafened by the silence from them; where is your condemnation of them and snide accusations that Catholics therefore condone child sexual abuse?

Ditto ex pats in S.E. Asia etc., etc.

You only demand these mass demonstrations from Muslims, no one else.

The reason for that is obvious.

We are talking about the problem in the Muslim community, please try not to divert criticism elsewhere.

Come on ,divert? It's what the left do when they lose an argument

No need to divert anything IC, the notion that all UK Muslims are on benefits has been seriously trounced by Table 2 in the government document supplied by Faz, next!

[AyG]

No need to divert anything IC, the notion that all UK Muslims are on benefits has been seriously trounced by Table 2 in the government document supplied by Faz, next!

The document is seriously flawed in showing anything of the sort.

(1) "Asia & the Middle East" is lumped together as a single category. This will include highly educated Indian Hindus, hard working Vietnamese, skilled Sri Lankans, alongside the typically less educated, less employable Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

(2) The document is restricted to DWP, working age benefits. That is only a subsection of the state benefits that can be claimed.

[chiang mai]

No need to divert anything IC, the notion that all UK Muslims are on benefits has been seriously trounced by Table 2 in the government document supplied by Faz, next!

The document is seriously flawed in showing anything of the sort.

(1) "Asia & the Middle East" is lumped together as a single category. This will include highly educated Indian Hindus, hard working Vietnamese, skilled Sri Lankans, alongside the typically less educated, less employable Pakistanis and Bangladeshis.

(2) The document is restricted to DWP, working age benefits. That is only a subsection of the state benefits that can be claimed.

There are 2.7 million Muslims in the UK according to the 2011 census. Table 2 of the report mentioned earlier suggests 397,000 non-UK and Unknown people claim benefits (all DWP working age client group benefits). Even if we take that number of 397k to be the worst possible case number, recognizing that it includes some non-Muslims also, that's roughly 15% of all Muslims claiming benefits (using those non time aligned numbers). If that doesn't trounce the argument that the vast majority of UK Muslims are on benefits then I don't know what does!

[jpinx]

The bottom line is that it doesn't serve the interests of professional politicians to tell the truth about the situation and neither they nor the taxpayers generally will address the issue until it blows up in their faces. As the great Feynman said, the universe is not easily fooled. We evolved social institutions to meet our needs as a species. So marriage is an institution that had to be created to bridge the gap between a woman's knowledge that a child is hers and a man's belief that the child is his. Marriage, as an institution accepted by an entire community, ensures that children benefit from their father's affection. People love their own kids much more than they love other people's kids, which is why they will work so hard to give them a good life.....and so on, and so on, and so on....

The basic postwar truth is that people with degrees thought they knew better than the species collectively for the last 40,000 years. So the death penalty is barbaric because their seminar group and their sentiments tell them that it is. The fact that every single hunter-gatherer society has the death penalty doesn't faze them - they just "know" that it's barbaric. If modest and small "c" conservative people suggest that there are real problems with handing folks a quarter of a trillion pounds a year - a quarter of it borrowed money - then they too are barbaric. You're a right-wing monster if you suggest that it's unwise to make an open offer to the entire world that you can work 16 hours a week in London on minimum wage, have three kids, and get £3,500 a month.

Ronald Reagan's economic adviser said that if something can't continue for ever then it'll stop. That's axiomatic, and it's a lot more profound than you'd think. Can what the UK is doing continue for ever? Obviously it can't. So it'll stop. All that needs to be decided is how it will stop. I can't see how it'll stop without merry hell.

I know two people who work in welfare rights. Each of them, independently of the other and without me inviting it, said that they were shocked that devout Muslim women wearing headscarves, with their husband three feet away, would say that they don't know who their kids' fathers are. That's where we've got to. It has nothing to do with ethnicity or religion - the indigenous population are just as bad - but what's interesting is that even strong religious beliefs aren't a barrier to it. Indeed, this is what you should expect, although Oxford educated politicians (a.k.a. careerist idiots) mind find it difficult.

It's all very, very serious. The deficit is back up to about £80bn and the **** could really hit the fan at some point.

Nicely put Intellect is useful as long as it is used for the more practical matters of life, but as soon as the social behaviourists get going society is royally screwed. Someone once told me that anyone who wants to be a politician should automatically be barred, for the simple reason that ambition is the driving force that makes people mislead others to further their own aims.

Religions are the opiate of society, they allow individuals to abrogate all personal responsibility. When a society is more secular, home-grown extremism is much reduced. Human nature is programmed to survive, also to find the easiest way to do things. Put all those factors together and you have what we have today, politicians who provide welfare because it wins votes -- and voters who find the easiest way to survive comfortably.

The only certainty is that it can not go on, but it's difficult to know how it will unravel -- It won't be pretty.

[nontabury]

More than the subtle bigotry so commonly tolerated on Thaivisa here we have overt racism. The vast majority of public benefits are sucked up by the majority. Why bigots never point to Stoke-on-Trent or Scunthorpe to blame White British for these paradises? Of course not.

Many of us have already mentioned ( post 131)that the benefits scandal is not restricted to immigrants. We all know that the white natives are the greater recipient of welfare benefits, if only because there are more of them. What I cannot understand is why the UK is allowing more people with no connection into the UK, who are basically unemployable, yet are placing restrictions on British citizens, with a foreign spouse,from returning to their home country unless they can prove their spouse will not be a drain on the tax payer.

[Ricardo]

Yes, I have a 55-year-old cousin who's only worked 10 years, and a niece who (until now ... age 24) has only worked 3-months a year, and the system supports them, if not to a very high standard. Because they live in the U.K., not the real world. My Thai relatives, who moved to the UK all work, most of them very hard !

Yet if a British citizen wants to take his Thai wife or family back, they're made to jump through hoops, even without recourse to public funds initially.

And if a Brit dares go retire to another country outside the EEC, following children who've emigrated to Canada or Australia, they risk being penalised for it !

Now that's not the country I grew up in, it's not fair or just, and I don't feel any great need to support it, especially when they try to deny my right to vote ! The Americans had a slogan, "no representation, no taxation", which resonates.

And we did it, or the politicians did with our approval & support, to ourselves !

It's too easy merely to blame recent immigrants, who may look different or follow a different religion, but the causes are wider than just that IMO. The British have grown fat & lazy, supported by the Empire, and it's not a pretty sight.

And those of us who saw this, and didn't like it, are fully-entitled to vote with our feet, as many on TV have done !

Edited January 6, 2016 by Ricardo

[Liquorice]

My house in the UK is tucked in a cull de sac adjacent a major hospital.

Parking is restricted to resident permit holders with the exception of blue badge holders.

On days off, I frequently watched SUV's park displaying blue badges.

The driver would check around the car, lift the tailgate, pull out a pair of crutches or Zimmer frame and limp of to the hospital for his appointment.

Or the young neighbour who's wife worked at the hospital, but he's never worked in his life.

I once asked him why he didn't work.

'Bad back', unemployable, on Disability payments, but it never stopped him playing football every Sunday.

Years ago, my neighbour was a 'Benefits Fraud' investigator. Suspecting and getting proof are two different entities.

He told me how he and his colleague had been following a man for two years suspected of faking his disability.

They eventually followed him 55 miles to Blackpool one day, then while he was away they let down one of his tyres.

He returned 7 hours later and they filmed him jacking up the car and changing the wheel.

Of course they could never tell anyone they interfered with the wheel.

It was pure coincidence they were in the right place at the right time.

I guess you've got to cheat, to catch a cheat.

Edited January 6, 2016 by Faz

[GuestHouse]

More than the subtle bigotry so commonly tolerated on Thaivisa here we have overt racism. The vast majority of public benefits are sucked up by the majority. Why bigots never point to Stoke-on-Trent or Scunthorpe to blame White British for these paradises? Of course not.

Many of us have already mentioned ( post 131)that the benefits scandal is not restricted to immigrants. We all know that the white natives are the greater recipient of welfare benefits, if only because there are more of them. What I cannot understand is why the UK is allowing more people with no connection into the UK, who are basically unemployable, yet are placing restrictions on British citizens, with a foreign spouse,from returning to their home country unless they can prove their spouse will not be a drain on the tax payer.

The regulations on income and access to public funds where put in place to restrict migration from the Indian subcontinent. If you read this and many other threads on TVF they are full of British expats baying for more controls over foreigners entering the UK, their voices and the voices of many in the UK were listened too, the restrictions put in place and British expats in Thailand got caught up with the restrictions aimed at reducing the business of getting into the UK by means of arranged marriages.

That said, you'll have a hard time convincing people these days of your right to bring your foreign wife or family to the UK if you yourself cannot support them.

[jpinx]

More than the subtle bigotry so commonly tolerated on Thaivisa here we have overt racism. The vast majority of public benefits are sucked up by the majority. Why bigots never point to Stoke-on-Trent or Scunthorpe to blame White British for these paradises? Of course not.

Many of us have already mentioned ( post 131)that the benefits scandal is not restricted to immigrants. We all know that the white natives are the greater recipient of welfare benefits, if only because there are more of them. What I cannot understand is why the UK is allowing more people with no connection into the UK, who are basically unemployable, yet are placing restrictions on British citizens, with a foreign spouse,from returning to their home country unless they can prove their spouse will not be a drain on the tax payer.

The regulations on income and access to public funds where put in place to restrict migration from the Indian subcontinent. If you read this and many other threads on TVF they are full of British expats baying for more controls over foreigners entering the UK, their voices and the voices of many in the UK were listened too, the restrictions put in place and British expats in Thailand got caught up with the restrictions aimed at reducing the business of getting into the UK by means of arranged marriages.

That said, you'll have a hard time convincing people these days of your right to bring your foreign wife or family to the UK if you yourself cannot support them.

That is all very true, but somehow the rules do not seem to apply to foreigners who manage to get into UK and then import their vast extended family -- all done on taxpayers money.

[7by7]

More than the subtle bigotry so commonly tolerated on Thaivisa here we have overt racism. The vast majority of public benefits are sucked up by the majority. Why bigots never point to Stoke-on-Trent or Scunthorpe to blame White British for these paradises? Of course not.

Many of us have already mentioned ( post 131)that the benefits scandal is not restricted to immigrants. We all know that the white natives are the greater recipient of welfare benefits, if only because there are more of them. What I cannot understand is why the UK is allowing more people with no connection into the UK, who are basically unemployable, yet are placing restrictions on British citizens, with a foreign spouse,from returning to their home country unless they can prove their spouse will not be a drain on the tax payer.

They are not.

All non EEA nationals who wish to settle in the UK via the family route have to meet exactly the same requirements, financial and other, as the foreign spouse of a British citizen and have the same prohibition on receiving public funds until they have ILR.

If entering via another route, e.g. family member of a work visa holder, then they have to show they will not be a drain on the public purse and are also prohibited from receiving public funds.

EEA nationals who enter the UK as a jobseeker have to find work within three months of arrival or leave; the same as British citizens moving to another EEA country looking for work.

[7by7]

<snip>

somehow the rules do not seem to apply to foreigners who manage to get into UK and then import their vast extended family -- all done on taxpayers money.

As said above, this is nonsense. All those entering the UK via the family route have to meet the financial requirement.

All are prohibited from claiming public funds until they have ILR; which takes at least 5 years to obtain.

Their sponsor is also prohibited from claiming extra public funds due to their immigrant family member living with them.

Then there is the £200 per year per family member NHS surcharge.

Settlement requirements for a spouse, civil partner, fiance or proposed civil partner and children under 18 of same are difficult enough; other family members near impossible.

Eligibility requirements for adult dependents

Coming to be cared for - you’re an adult dependent relative

You must be dependent on a parent, grandchild, brother, sister, son or daughter of someone living permanently in the UK.

You must prove that:

you need long-term care to do everyday personal and household tasks

the care you need is not available or affordable in the country you live in

the person you’ll be joining in the UK will be able to support, accommodate and care for you without claiming public funds for at least 5 years

you’re 18 or over

(7by7 emphasis)

I suggest that you acquaint yourself with the immigration rules before commenting on them further.

Edited January 7, 2016 by 7by7

[7by7]

Illegal immigrants who have disappeared is another matter.

They certainly are not claiming benefits; they are in the UK illegally and doing so, even if they could, would bring them to the attention of the authorities!

You should acquaint yourself with the evidence of entitlement required from anyone claiming public funds in the UK; including NHS treatment.

Edited January 7, 2016 by 7by7

[jpinx]

Illegal immigrants who have disappeared is another matter.

They certainly are not claiming benefits; they are in the UK illegally and doing so, even if they could, would bring them to the attention of the authorities!

You should acquaint yourself with the evidence of entitlement required from anyone claiming public funds in the UK; including NHS treatment.

I agree totally with you about what the rules are, but the loopholes are big enough to drive a bus through (with your extended family on board) Transam beat me to it with the comment about the abuse of A&E -- the easiest way to get treated.