• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Rorschach said:
I would say that is too limiting. There are many reasons for seeking asylum beyond war, though obviously, everything helps. By a big margin, refugees just move to the next country anyway. If they cross a continent and/or body of water to get to the UK, it is nearly always for reasons other than just getting away from flying bullets. There is usually an additional reason for their journey - some other tie they have with the UK.
Click to expand...

Do you not think that's to do with having resource? Money to travel, money for sustenance, money for smugglers. Hence why a lot of our claimant are for example Iranian, because that's actually quite a wealthy society. By taking them you are rewarding the strongest and most capable over the most needy, which isn't a very good principle.
 
Gutter Boy said:
Do you not think that's to do with having resource? Money to travel, money for sustenance, money for smugglers. Hence why a lot of our claimant are for example Iranian, because that's actually quite a wealthy society. By taking them you are rewarding the strongest and most capable over the most needy, which isn't a very good principle.
Click to expand...
It may be a factor in some cases but you never really know the full circumstances. It could be that these people have sold everything they have to make it to UK shores, so this is not a good yardstick to measure against. I believe the most common reasons are family, or they speak English, or some other past colonial-related connection, or even a military connection, like in the case of Afghans. Those who make it to the UK should be assessed based on the merits of their claim and nothing else.
 
thfcsteff said:
Let's dial this back a minute. Let me answer your question with a couple of mine.
1) Do you genuinely sit there believing that there are masses of people currently in the UK whose sole aim and ambition in life is to pop out as many children as they can without any responsibility in the expectation that they should be suported solely by benefits?
2) Do you have proof it isn't rare?
Again, do you genuinely believe there is a large swathe of people on welfare who see children as a way to 'make a living'?
Click to expand...
So to actually answer my question, you don’t have any evidence?

Even though you didn’t answer mine, I will answer yours…

1. Sole aim and ambition? No…. Though I think there are too many people not prepared to take financial responsibility for themselves and their family and expect the state to do so.
2. I never said people thought it was a way to make a living. You’re trying to attribute words to me that I haven’t said.
 
Rorschach said:
If the government can set an arbitrary number, like zero for instance, then that will be abused and needless to say would not be your fair share.

Of course you don't have to accept them all. The asylum process will decide if they are valid or not. Most that apply are approved now, but the throughput is slow, hence the hotel mess.
Click to expand...
What is a “fair share’? How many billions of people live in backward, illiberal brickholes? With which countries do we share responsibility for the people in those backward, illiberal brickholes?
 
Finney Is Back said:
So to actually answer my question, you don’t have any evidence?
Click to expand...
Hahaha. You'll have to try harder than that. It's a bit hard to present data in 2025 which does not show how we're fudging people into poverty based on the sorts of assumptions you seem to be making, thanks to the two child policy (which essentially does what I believe you feel is right?)...

In April 2024...well, I'll leave it to you to do the math. But in 2024 here are some 'family/children' stats.

https://www.statista.com/statistics...e estimated to be,have three or more children.

And here are some Child Tax Credit/Universal Credit numbers...

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...ouseholds with three or,or after 6 April 2017.




Finney Is Back said:
Even though you didn’t answer mine, I will answer yours…

1. Sole aim and ambition? No…. Though I think there are too many people not prepared to take financial responsibility for themselves and their family and expect the state to do so.
Click to expand...

Am I to assume you have proof of this? If so, would you show it? If it is an opinion, all good, we can leave it at 'I disagree'.


Finney Is Back said:
2. I never said people thought it was a way to make a living. You’re trying to attribute words to me that I haven’t said.
Click to expand...
I am glad and relieved to be corrected.
 
scaramanga said:
So immigration policy can't be wacist but asylum policy can? Strange stance to take.
Click to expand...

Dude we weren't in the EU and Ukrainians were allowed in easy. The others weren't. You are reaching here. The inequity of the system is plain. You don't want to see it as you think you are not a bigot. But we know your HR policies are illegal as it is in your own firm lol.
 
Finney Is Back said:
What is a “fair share’? How many billions of people live in backward, illiberal brickholes? With which countries do we share responsibility for the people in those backward, illiberal brickholes?
Click to expand...
Yes lots of people live in poor countries. We are talking about asylum seekers and refugees, some of which the UK has had a hand in causing. That is a shocking post.
 
LutonSpurs said:
Dude we weren't in the EU and Ukrainians were allowed in easy. The others weren't. You are reaching here. The inequity of the system is plain. You don't want to see it as you think you are not a bigot. But we know your HR policies are illegal as it is in your own firm lol.
Click to expand...
Expert legal advise says otherwise.

As with most legal concepts, it's all about framing and wording. Employees' safety will always trump their imaginary friends in court.
 
thfcsteff said:
Hahaha. You'll have to try harder than that. It's a bit hard to present data in 2025 which does not show how we're fudging people into poverty based on the sorts of assumptions you seem to be making, thanks to the two child policy (which essentially does what I believe you feel is right?)...

In April 2024...well, I'll leave it to you to do the math. But in 2024 here are some 'family/children' stats.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/734771/family-sizes-uk/#:~:text=There were estimated to be,have three or more children.

And here are some Child Tax Credit/Universal Credit numbers...

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-and-child-tax-credit-claimants-statistics-related-to-the-policy-to-provide-support-for-a-maximum-of-2-children-april-2024/universal-credit-and-child-tax-credit-claimants-statistics-related-to-the-policy-to-provide-support-for-a-maximum-of-two-children-april-2024#:~:text=In April 2024, there were 720,000 households with three or,or after 6 April 2017.
Click to expand...

So, according to the figures you've presented, 62.5% of the families that rely on my money to get by have 3 or more kids.

govt stats said:
In April 2024, there were 720,000 households with three or more children claiming either Universal Credit (570,000) or Child Tax Credit (150,000).

Of these, 450,000 households across UC and CTC were affected by the policy to provide support for a maximum of two children
Click to expand...

Do you think that 62.5% of the families that pay their own way have 3 or more kids? The average number of dependents per household in the UK is less than 1. So that would show a huge skew towards more children for those who are not paying for them and fewer children for those who are.

That, in itself, doesn't show intent to use children as a means to take more of my money but it does, at the very least, show that portion of society is doing a terrible job at not having children. That is a gigantic societal problem that is only going to get worse with every generation.
 
thfcsteff said:
Hahaha. You'll have to try harder than that. It's a bit hard to present data in 2025 which does not show how we're fudging people into poverty based on the sorts of assumptions you seem to be making, thanks to the two child policy (which essentially does what I believe you feel is right?)...

In April 2024...well, I'll leave it to you to do the math. But in 2024 here are some 'family/children' stats.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/734771/family-sizes-uk/#:~:text=There were estimated to be,have three or more children.

And here are some Child Tax Credit/Universal Credit numbers...

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/universal-credit-and-child-tax-credit-claimants-statistics-related-to-the-policy-to-provide-support-for-a-maximum-of-2-children-april-2024/universal-credit-and-child-tax-credit-claimants-statistics-related-to-the-policy-to-provide-support-for-a-maximum-of-two-children-april-2024#:~:text=In April 2024, there were 720,000 households with three or,or after 6 April 2017.






Am I to assume you have proof of this? If so, would you show it? If it is an opinion, all good, we can leave it at 'I disagree'.



I am glad and relieved to be corrected.
Click to expand...
Sorry I don’t know what you mean by your comment that I’ll have to ‘try harder than that’?

To go on to the figures you have links to it is difficult to interpret much from those (especially now that universal credit has replaced other forms of income support. Something I did see from the Joseph Rountree Foundation is that larger families with 3 or more children have consistently faced a higher rate of poverty (45% of children in large families were in poverty in 2022/23). That does indicate to me that too many people who cannot provide for their family are having multiple children despite not being able to afford having multiple children.

Am I happy seeing children grow up in poverty? Absolutely not, it sickens me, and to that I end I would happily wager that I likely give far more to charity both through my company and personally than perhaps anyone on this forum (and by that I mean giving financially, giving opportunity and giving time). However, I personally feel that we have a clear problem in this country where too many people expect the state to provide for them and their families instead of having the expectation that it is their job to to provide for themselves and their family. There are many, many genuine cases of people who cannot provide for themselves. If we lived in the perfect society, those people would never be unsafe or go hungry or cold. However, in order to ensure that happens we need to try to get to a point where the resources are being diverted to those truly needy and not those who put their family in poverty by making certain choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back