• 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

indianspur said:
The problem is there are many low skilled jobs that need doing whether by Brits or by immigrants. Let's say Amazon need 2000 workers to help fulfil orders at one of their warehouses. If there is no minimum wage and Amazon is free to offer what it wants then what do think the outcome will be ? will Brits be able or want to work for let's say £3.00 or less an hour? the jobs will need filling somehow
Click to expand...
The wage offered will end up being the wage that people will work for.

If it's too low, then nobody will accept it and Amazon will have to increase it.
 
r-u-s-x said:
"As at football matches, the way to move a large, hostile crowd is on horseback - I don't think there's a better alternative that anyone has found."

I am not arguing against this but I would suggest that below would imply that they went above and beyond this. Again if we have laws and rules the police should follow them/

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/22/orgreave-truth-police-miners-strike

"Far less publicised, a year later, was the unravelling of the police case. Officers had arrested and charged 95 miners with riot, an offence of collective violence carrying a potential life sentence. Yet in July 1985 the prosecution withdrew and all the miners were were acquitted after the evidence of some police officers, including those in command, had been discredited under cross-examination.

In 1991 South Yorkshire police paid £425,000 compensation to 39 miners who had sued the force for assault, unlawful arrest and malicious prosecution. But still the police did not admit any fault, and not a single police officer was ever disciplined or prosecuted."


During these discussions it does appear that your argument relies on how you would do things rather than the rules we as a society have agreed on. I know its a forum and you can have your opinion but just because you think that a water cannon should be used unless its lawful it does not really bring a lot to the table as I can counter it with - "no it shouldn't".
Click to expand...
If striking carried an appropriate sentence then I don't think officers would have had to try and bring the charge of riot. It was obviously a mistake to try and do so, and a clear lapse in planning that striking hadn't been given a stronger sentence.

I think there's plenty of scope for discussion of things that are acceptable outside the framework of the law. We all speed when driving, we all (or almost all) accept breaking that law in order to achieve something we want - arriving at our destination sooner. I am happy for police to deal with strikers physically in order to stop them getting in the way of the rest of society. That's just a judgement call and most people will probably be fairly spread along that line.
 
scaramanga said:
The wage offered will end up being the wage that people will work for.

If it's too low, then nobody will accept it and Amazon will have to increase it.
Click to expand...

Of course they would have to increase it and it will be increased to a level acceptable to Brits but also attractive to immigrants and we will all be back to square one. Increased influx of immigrant workers and the associated housing, school, health, society issues.
 
scaramanga said:
If striking carried an appropriate sentence then I don't think officers would have had to try and bring the charge of riot. It was obviously a mistake to try and do so, and a clear lapse in planning that striking hadn't been given a stronger sentence.

QUOTE]

It does carry an appropriate sentence, just not what you consider appropriate. There is a discussion to be had that police should be able to operate outside of the law or the law changed so they have more leeway inside it but that is not the reality we live in.

Using your speeding example I would be happy to have proportional fines for speeding based upon income /assets similar to Germany. But I cant shout when that does not happen as we do not have this law. We can have a discussion on the merits of bringing it in but that does not change the reality of the current situation.

The law for striking is set, the laws for police behavior is set. My preferences have no bearing on this.


Click to expand...
 
indianspur said:
Of course they would have to increase it and it will be increased to a level acceptable to Brits but also attractive to immigrants and we will all be back to square one. Increased influx of immigrant workers and the associated housing, school, health, society issues.
Click to expand...
I can bet it will be increased to a level far below that of minimum wage.

Incentives aren't binary - massive wages attract lots of people, tiny ones very few, and everything in between is a sliding scale. Allowing the markets to set the rate rather than artificially propping it up will go a long way to improving things.
 
r-u-s-x said:
It does carry an appropriate sentence, just not what you consider appropriate. There is a discussion to be had that police should be able to operate outside of the law or the law changed so they have more leeway inside it but that is not the reality we live in.

Using your speeding example I would be happy to have proportional fines for speeding based upon income /assets similar to Germany. But I cant shout when that does not happen as we do not have this law. We can have a discussion on the merits of bringing it in but that does not change the reality of the current situation.

The law for striking is set, the laws for police behavior is set. My preferences have no bearing on this.
Click to expand...
Yet we, as society ignore the laws on speeding all the time because we consider it an acceptable cost for the required outcome.

I am happy to ignore the police acting outside the law, if it means dispersing those on strike who are stopping others from working. Again, it's all relative - had the police murdered their children I'd consider it too much, had the police just stood there a wagged their fingers I'd have considered it thoroughly insufficient.
 
scaramanga said:
Yet we, as society ignore the laws on speeding all the time because we consider it an acceptable cost for the required outcome.

I am happy to ignore the police acting outside the law, if it means dispersing those on strike who are stopping others from working. Again, it's all relative - had the police murdered their children I'd consider it too much, had the police just stood there a wagged their fingers I'd have considered it thoroughly insufficient.
Click to expand...

I am not ok for police to act outside of the law. The fact that I am not ok with it adds no weight to the argument, just as the fact you are ok with it adds no weight - why would it?

As far as I am aware we (GB) expect the police to uphold and adhere to the rule of law, in this instance they did not. You can excuse and condone this but this is not the behavior we expect of the police, it is the exception.

I am also trying to understand why it would be desirable to allow Police to set their own restrictions on behavior rather than have rules that have to follow. Surely we want to set their agenda / limits, even if we want to allow more flexibility to go in and crack some heads why would you let them decide when to do it. If we want it to be ok for Police to behave in this manor then pass a law / act of parliament to allow it.
 
Bullet said:
OK. Once they accrue a certain amount, they can claim nhs/benefits. E.g. 5 years or £50,000
Click to expand...

I wouldn't treat them any differently to a school/university leaver in their first job, as soon as they hit their annual tax free earnings and start to pay in they should be able to claim
 
It's already 5 years for non-EU migrants irrc, it used to be 2 and a half. Before my wife got indefinite leave to remain, she had a 'probationary period' of 2 and a half years on a spouse visa. In big red letters on the visa it said "no recourse to public funds."

If we end up treating EU migrants the same (as in ending freedom of movement) when we leave the EU, then I guess it will be the same for them. If we stay in the single market and have freedom of movement, then it will stay as it is currently I guess.
 
galeforce said:
I wouldn't treat them any differently to a school/university leaver in their first job, as soon as they hit their annual tax free earnings and start to pay in they should be able to claim
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that you would have to have the same rules for British citizens (in the proposed EEA position in the article that lead to this discussion).

Personally, I doubt that benefits or healthcare are much of a pull factor for immigrants and certainly haven't seen any decent data to support it being a reason. People come here because there are jobs and they want to improve their English.

I also think that there is a danger that the people who are very concerned about immigration will never be satisfied. Whatever measures are put in place, I think that they will always think that immigration is too high.
 
milo said:
The problem with that is that you would have to have the same rules for British citizens (in the proposed EEA position in the article that lead to this discussion).

Personally, I doubt that benefits or healthcare are much of a pull factor for immigrants and certainly haven't seen any decent data to support it being a reason. People come here because there are jobs and they want to improve their English.

I also think that there is a danger that the people who are very concerned about immigration will never be satisfied. Whatever measures are put in place, I think that they will always think that immigration is too high.
Click to expand...

indeed, that's just how things would be in my little utopia

yep

and very much yep
 
galeforce said:
doesn't sound fair to me, if they are working they should accrue NI points the same as anybody else
Click to expand...
We already charge non EU nationals £600 per year for three years for the NHS, irrespective of previous NI contributions - apply that to EU migrants and we'll need a new bus!

It makes sense, May has made immigration a big business already, so I'm sure her sights are on extending that
 
monkeybarry said:
We already charge non EU nationals £600 per year for three years for the NHS, irrespective of previous NI contributions - apply that to EU migrants and we'll need a new bus!

It makes sense, May has made immigration a big business already, so I'm sure her sights are on extending that
Click to expand...

wow, I didn't know that

surely increasing that customer base could be a good earner?
 
monkeybarry said:
It makes sense, May has made immigration a big business already, so I'm sure her sights are on extending that
Click to expand...

There is a long way to go yet and positions will change. On becoming Prime Minister May needed to convince Brexit supporters that she was serious about taking us out of the EU. I think that the Tory conference was about reinforcing this message and they used immigration to do this because it plays well with their heartlands. I suspect that the economic reality will win out and we will find a middle way that each party can sell to their voters.
 
galeforce said:
wow, I didn't know that

surely increasing that customer base could be a good earner?
Click to expand...

£600 is the thin end of fudge all once you've put in place the infrastructure to process the payments and we certainly would not want EU states putting a reciprocal arrangement in place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back