Government's Mortgage Rescue

Dithering_Dad

neas wrote: »

Got to give it to zammo.. it was incredily cruel... to pounce on him like that

BUT and its a big BUT!...

I absolutely spilled my coffe all over my monitor laughing at it... it was a good joke lol... and good jokes have some truth to them.... which this does.... tax payers will fund these measures....

Yes, quite hilarious. My ribs are also aching from the humour of it all.

It took me right back to my school days. Hopefully someone will push some else over. That was also a laugh riot.

StevieJ

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Yes, quite hilarious. My ribs are also aching from the humour of it all.

It took me right back to my school days. Hopefully someone will push some else over. That was also a laugh riot.

Yes, has more than a hint of Grange Hill about it.

swingjune

!!!!!!? wrote: »

We're already at the stage where kids are used by irresponsible adults to ensure they get the optimum welfare benefits. eg. Having a kid is a ticket to a council house. Same goes for various other benefits too - much easier to get if you have a child, hard to get as a single person or childless couple. Kids are also 'misused' by illegal immigrants to give them an excuse to avoid deportation. "You can't deport us - we've had children and they've settled in, or you'll be sending them back to a life of poverty" or some such argument.

As welfare dependency grows and the economy (taxes) shrink we'll be hitting a point where the whole concept of the welfare system is threatened. At some stage you have to start being ruthless to ensure that we actually keep a welfare system rather than end up like much of the world (USA included) where it's very much everyone for themselves, children or no children.

Well said :T

neverdespairgirl

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

I'm pretty that although they would never admit to it, quite a few are parental home back-bedroom dwellers.

There's nothing actually wrong with living with people you like and love, IMO.

neverdespairgirl

lostinrates wrote: »

I do not think workhouses or debtors' prisions sound amusing.

The workhouses were incredibly cruel. Usually, families were split up - babies, infants, boys, girls, men, women. And the different groups weren't allowed to meet.

neverdespairgirl

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes, has more than a hint of Grange Hill about it.

I had a deprived childhood. My mother refused to let us watch Grange Hill.

StevieJ

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I had a deprived childhood. My mother refused to let us watch Grange Hill.

Earlier post
Got to give it to zammo.. it was incredily cruel... to pounce on him like that

BUT and its a big BUT!...

I absolutely spilled my coffe all over my monitor laughing at it... it was a good joke lol... and good jokes have some truth to them.... which this does.... tax payers will fund these measures....

I didn't watch it either but some characters travel beyond their medium, i.e. Becks

http://www.grangehillfans.co.uk/schoolreport/zammomaguire.php

neverdespairgirl

!!!!!!? wrote: »

. Kids are also 'misused' by illegal immigrants to give them an excuse to avoid deportation. "You can't deport us - we've had children and they've settled in, or you'll be sending them back to a life of poverty" or some such argument. .

Not quite as simple as that.

The matter kicked off with the Home Office policy DP5/96, and was originally the 10 year rule - the rebuttable presumption that a child who has lived here 10 years or more should not be removed or deported. Later amended to 7 years. The latest case on this is NF (Ghana) v. The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 906, a Court of Appeal case.

The CA sets out the policy in paragraph 23 of the judgment:


The original policy document DP 5/96 (headed "DP 5/96 and instruction to IES" ie Illegal Entry Section) was written in terms of children aged 10 or over. In 1999 it was reissued in identical terms save that "7" was substituted for "10" in manuscript. We have not seen an original copy of the amended version, but it appears that the original "10" was snow-paked over and that "7" was then written on top. In this amended version, a copy of which is exhibited to Ms Dolby's affidavit, the policy reads as follows:

"DEPORTATION IN CASES WHERE THERE ARE CHILDREN WITH LONG RESIDENCE

Introduction

The purpose of this instruction is to define more clearly the criteria to be applied when considering whether enforcement action should proceed or be initiated against parents who have children who were either born here and are aged 7 or over or where, having come to the United Kingdom at an early age, they have accumulated 7 years or more continuous residence.

Policy

Whilst it is important that each case must be considered on its merits, the following are factors which may be of particular relevance:

(a) the length of the parents' residence without leave;

(b) whether removal has been delayed through protracted (and often repetitive) representations or by the parents going to ground;

(c) the age of the children;

(d) whether the children were conceived at a time when either of the parents had leave to remain;

(e) whether return to the parents' country of origin would cause extreme hardship for the children or put their health seriously at risk;

(f) whether either of the parents has a history of criminal behaviour or deception.

3. When notifying a decision to either concede or proceed with enforcement action it is important that full reasons be given making clear that each case is considered on its individual merits."

That amended document still bears the date of the original policy's issue, March 1996.

So it's not coming out of the blue on behalf of Appellants / Claimants, but is a specific Home Office Policy. It's not a blanket policy, either, as you can see from the factors to be taken into account.

As far as asylum etc, goes, it only assists if the children are themselves at risk because of specific factors, such as female genital mutilation.

Dithering_Dad

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

There's nothing actually wrong with living with people you like and love, IMO.

Nope, nothing at all wrong with that until you then start criticising people who are struggling financially while ensconced in the comfort and security provided by someone else.

I'd have a bit more time for these people if they had families and homes to support, though I suspect if they did they would understand the daily struggle and so perhaps wouldn't entertain these views?

lostinrates

Dithering_Dad wrote: »

Nope, nothing at all wrong with that until you then start criticising people who are struggling financially while ensconced in the comfort and security provided by someone else.

I'd have a bit more time for these people if they had families and homes to support, though I suspect if they did they would understand the daily struggle and so perhaps wouldn't entertain these views?

Living with your parents doesn't mean you always have! I've lived away from home since 17 until this! I've worked (even as a kid) always until ill health and really HAVE understood the daily struggle - I would argue perhaps more than someone who was my age, flat sharing and using their cerdit card to the max