Immigrants allowed in unchecked

We have to pay for goverment noo matter what party is in charge so everyone has to pay or not pay it makes no diffrances whos actually in goverment. Hense money has no part in it. Unless you want taxs to be cut that is.

Also when the election rolls around I will be ready to vote.

Also I support the paying fees for UNI as it means more places which incrases my chances and i dont have to pay till i start work

[deadite66]

Originally Posted by dellwear

But we're now a the lowest level of unemployment for donkeys years:

The number of unemployed people fell from 2.9 million in 1993 to 1.5 million in October-December 2001



http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=697




I believe that its because he didn't use the official channels available to him

you only need look on the guardian's job section to see where the unemployed and tax's are going, Nulabour have cornered the marked on expensive non-jobs.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by dellwear

But we're now a the lowest level of unemployment for donkeys years:

The number of unemployed people fell from 2.9 million in 1993 to 1.5 million in October-December 2001

But thats more likely due to the other factors which produced such a rapid drop when the tories were still in power, than anything the gov has done.
They've just been lucky in coming up with schemes which have cost a fortune but give very little extra benifit.


And surely if he didn't go through proper channels, there is more reason for the minister of civil servants (TB) to get involved? Or at least have the decency to meet with him and discuss things.
The whistle blower is being punished for going public and making the gov look bad. It's simply revenge by the gov and his managers by not giving him the support the gov says whistleblowers should have.

[punky]

Some good point Xaccers and SMHarman.

Just as an aside... The very definition of corporate delegation, is that you give someone else a job, but you remain responsible if anything goes wrong. I'm assuming it is the same for government delegation. If this government minister passes immigration laws down to civil servant managers, then it is the minister's responsibility to make sure that the figures aren't being fudged or checks aren't being carried out.

SMH, what exactly did you mean by: "Mrs H's personal allowances cannot be shared with me"?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by punky

then it is the minister's responsibility to make sure that the figures aren't being fudged or checks aren't being carried out.

Or a manager below her.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by downquark1

Or a manager below her.

Well as the minister is the one presenting the facts to parliment, surely they are ultimately responsible to ensure that the information is accurate. I'm sure a political party worthy of being in power would do that.
Oh well, maybe we'll get one after the next election

who?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Damien

who?

We'll have to wait and see.
Hopefully not labour.

[paulyoung666]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

We'll have to wait and see.
Hopefully not labour.

without wishing to inflame the thread , would any other party do any different than labour have done , promise the earth to get elected then ***** on the ppl who voted them in to power

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by paulyoung666

without wishing to inflame the thread , would any other party do any different than labour have done , promise the earth to get elected then ***** on the ppl who voted them in to power

Reminds me of some grafiti "there's no point voting, the goverment always wins"

We'll have to wait til election year I suppose before we get any "promises" from the other parties.
Doubt they'll make the same 5 "promises" that Labour did.



PS didn't think you were mate. tis a valid concern

[SMHarman]

Originally Posted by punky

Some good point Xaccers and SMHarman.

<snip>

SMH, what exactly did you mean by: "Mrs H's personal allowances cannot be shared with me"?

Say you have 2 people earning 35000 a year or one earning 70000

For each of the two people
0-4615 = no tax
4616-6536 @ 10%
6537-35000 @ 22%
Total Tax each 6,453 in total 12,906

If only one earns the combined amount
0-4615 = no tax
4616-6536 @ 10%
6537-36437 @ 22%
36438-70000 @ 40%
Total 20195

So the same starting income, yet the household ends up with 7288 pa or 607 a month less as the non working partners allowances go unused.

Thats the point about sharing allowances. Many countries allow it, after all the same number of mouths need feeding and by only one of the household working it can mean employment opportunities for other households.

In this example the 70k sounds a lot, 35k seems more normal for someone in the south of england. For two 35k incomes to be replaced with one income, that income needs to be 82,000 thats the difference the tax policies make on income tax.

Though a non working spouse apparantly spends less on clothes, travel, food, work costs etc.

[Ramrod]

Minister authiorised immigration

THE immigration minister Beverley Hughes personally authorised a policy to allow tens of thousands of migrants into Britain without adequate checks, according to a leaked Home Office document.
Despite being cleared by an internal inquiry into the
†œfast-trackingââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� of migrants last week, new evidence indicates that the minister approved a far wider policy than previously disclosed to rubber-stamp applications. According to the confidential memo, staff at the
immigration service headquarters were ordered to wave through applications which had been on their files for more than three months.

The lying cow!

[Macready]

I honestly believe that given the current state of immigration of this manner into the country and the large dual standards in treatment of people within the country, which see immigrants get any and absolutely anything they want, and people unemployed left to struggle with a system very much against them.

I believe this will only see militant / heavy handed parties get into power eventually, such as the BNP, which will be a sad step backwards for us as a nation.

[aliferste]

Originally Posted by Macready

which see immigrants get any and absolutely anything they want,

Untrue. Asylum seekers only get 70% the amount that someone on jobseeker akowance gets. They want to flee from persecution, although generally it must seem that they are fleeing to persecution im sure judging by the way they are treated.

[Macready]

I know largely thats set to change now apparently, but theres still cases ive known that have really made me laugh there.

Ive known immigrants to be bought cars and stuff where I live to allow them to get to work, as getting them a minibus to take them back and fore work was too expensive in comparison.

My friends aunt sold a car to one person like that and was paid with a girocheque, when she said you cant pay with that, the immigrant gave her a letter off the DSS/Job Centre, I forget which at this time, she rang the number that the person gave them with it to confirm the payment was legitimate.

I didnt see the Job Centre offer to buy me a car when I was unemployed for a year to get about like that.

and in answer to your other point I noted.

Why does this "persecution" exist that their fleeing to ?

Largely because of the way in which the media reports on these matters, its a seemingly slow attempt at introducing the fear culture that resides in countries like america as I see it myself.