Cameron looking to change benefit system for immigrants

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

My position on this pretty much mirrors yours Gen, agree with all the rest but not the position on justice. However I have heard that lately Legal Aid has been tightened for a lot of reasons - nothing to do with immigrants. If this is part of the whole cutting of legal aid issue I'd have less problem with it. I don't think the high profile Abu Qatada case helps either. I can't really rationalise my reasoning here - I think legal aid access is right but not in cases like that:o.

Legal aid is kinda like a benefit I suppose: you get legal help paid for you.

N1AK

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't think the high profile Abu Qatada case helps either. I can't really rationalise my reasoning here - I think legal aid access is right but not in cases like that:o.

The Abu Qatada case is both a great example and a terrible reminder. It is a great example of how a modern country can treat everyone properly even when they 'hate' the country and what they claim it stands for. It's a terrible reminder that rather than be proud of our country for that most people are far more regressive and would rather we chucked the guy over the border and wouldn't give a toss what happened to them.

Britain has acted in a way even Voltaire would have been impressed by yet too many Britons would have rather taken a lesson from the likes of Saddam on how to treat those who disagree with you.

Graham_Devon

I can't agree with harbouring terrorists Niak.

Not sure that makes me just as bad as Saddam.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't agree with harbouring terrorists Niak.

Not sure that makes me just as bad as Saddam.

I don't think anyone agrees with harbouring terrorists.

But I think most people would agree it's better to only treat them as such after our world renowned justice system has had a chance to determine if they are in fact, terrorists.

Regardless, I don't think Cameron meant anyone shouldn't have access to justice in the courts. Just that he wanted to limit some of the procedural abuses or delaying tactics that can happen.

CLAPTON

one assumes that this is an aspiration rther than a policy commitment?

kaya

Immigrants in the uk, blah, blah, blah, stop their benefits , blah, blah, blah, human rights legislation reinstates it at a cost of millions in legal procedures, blah, blah, blah ............
Cameroon has to be seen to try and do something to appease the tabloid reader or he has zero chance of being re-elected again

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I can't agree with harbouring terrorists Niak.

Not sure that makes me just as bad as Saddam.

Deciding without a court of law is what would make you as bad as a dictator. Throwing out peoples rights because you don't like them would make you as bad as a dictator. Not seeing the difference between that and actually 'harbouring' terrorists just means you'd go along with one while his agenda suited you.

Conrad

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Keeps the bigots happy that something is being done about what is essentially a non-existent problem,

.

In this regard you truly have your head in the sand. We deal with new immigrants day in day out, welfare access is a breeze when there are children involved, perhaps a bit of agraphobia and all manner of other ruses.

We have people obtaining a massive RTB discount having been here just a few years.
We have others subletting thier HB property whilst buying another themselves.

Mobility vehicles, the list goes on and on.

You mind me of Clown in 2008 referring to that 'biggoted woman' who had far more street smarts than he.


PS I'm a vehment defender of gay marriage, so hardly a biggot. Jusr cannot abide naevity.

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Keeps the bigots happy that something is being done about what is essentially a non-existent problem, and it won't noticeably reduce immigration levels, so we get the growth and population increase needed.

Yet another fascist trying to label people bigot's.

Cameron will not see this through, I am surprised Graham has been duped so easily and expected better.........:cool:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Conrad wrote: »

In this regard you truly have your head in the sand. We deal with new immigrants day in day out, welfare access is a breeze when there are children involved, perhaps a bit of agraphobia and all manner of other ruses..

The facts are the facts Conrad.

Immigrants claim welfare at less than half the rate of the native born. Around 6% of immigrants, and 15% of native born.

The rate of recent immigrants that are allocated social/council housing is also far lower than native born.