divided our society ?

Originally Posted by Russ

How do you know these gangmembers are immigrants?

Do you ask to see their passports? If not how do you know for sure?

Or do they just.....look like immigrants?

I did ask the same question and as yet haven't had an answer ,so i can only come to the conclusion that Arthur assumes them to be "foreigners" as white British youths wouldn't partake in such activities as they are superior in some way

[Chrysalis]

I think the myth is that the claim is the majority of claimants or at least a large portion of them are only playing the system, something that has no proof whatsoever.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

I did ask the same question and as yet haven't had an answer

Nothing new there then

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

How do you know these gangmembers are immigrants?

Do you ask to see their passports? If not how do you know for sure?

Or do they just.....look like immigrants?

Have you ever seen them people running in all directions at Dover?

are they immigrants?

[Russ]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

I think the myth is that the claim is the majority of claimants or at least a large portion of them are only playing the system, something that has no proof whatsoever.

There was a phone-in on BBC Leicester a few weeks back about this and it was suggested that while there's no reason to assume the majority of immigrants are dishonest, when someone comes from a very poor country with nothing but the clothes on their back to a (comparitively) wealthy country with a government that gives them more money than they've probably seen in several years, the temptation to try and get more of this money can be very very strong.

---------- Post added at 10:20 ---------- Previous post was at 10:19 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

are they immigrants?

At Dover, where I assume the majority of immigrants enter the country, it's a pretty safe bet say that they could be,

Originally Posted by Gary L

Have you ever seen them people running in all directions at Dover?

are they immigrants?

No, you just have that effect on people - perhaps more frequent showering may help?

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

At Dover, where I assume the majority of immigrants enter the country, it's a pretty safe bet say that they could be,

Well they made it to Hounslow

[the_neurotic_cat]

Originally Posted by Chris

I think a researched and sourced article requires more than an eight-word rebuttal.

OK, is this verbose enough for ya ...


What are Ed Howker’s criteria for ‘ghetto’? The word implies that there is a segregated group living within the 134 (designated ‘Lower Super Output’) areas. The criteria that I assume he’s using are related to those who live on welfare benefits, which is a false qualifier due to that not being a criteria needed to be living in the area referenced by Ed Howker. The very concept of a ‘welfare ghetto’ doesn’t withstand argumentative analysis. But that’s semantics. Not important for this thread but would be for a self-respecting journalist.

In order to receive benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance you have to look for work or you do not receive it, that is ‘promoting a return to work’. If someone is receiving DLA and IS they have been deemed to be unfit for work by a doctor and that benefit is means tested. You can’t just get it by applying for it.

The bailiff that Ed Howker meets in the Falinge cafe claims to know a lot of personal information about the residents of this estate, this is hardly what I’d call ‘researched’ information. It’s entirely anecdotal. I seriously doubt that this bailiff actually knew what he was talking about considering the scope of personal information he was telling Ed Howker. Not the kind of information a bailiff would have on his targets. The unnamed bailiff continues to paint a caricature of the benefit recipients on the estate which is what this thread is reiterating. The bailiff that Ed Howker is interviewing even states that “People make judgements about you if you’re a resident” which is exactly what he’s doing himself, so that’s a true statement. If the bailiff knew of any welfare fraud that was being commited he should report it. It is an unsubstantiated caricature so my previous comment stands.

As for the statistical information included in the article, it doesn’t address the causes of welfare dependency for the referenced Lower Super Output Areas. Ed Howker does though, he writes about how there had been investment in the area and despite that investment the residents don’t have adequate access to local jobs due to the previous employers leaving the area and moving to other parts of the country. This information also supports my assertion that masses of people living on welfare isn’t due to some kind of lifestyle preference.

You can’t bully and stigmatize people into work when it isn’t there to take just like you can’t force employers to hire someone they don’t like. Employment is a two way thing, not simply down to the applicant.

Originally Posted by Gary L

Well they made it to Hounslow

Arthur's an immigrant?,

That would explain his poor command of the English language, and the frequent spelling mistakes and incomprehensible sentence structure.

It's all becoming very clear now - he is disguising his antecedents by adopting the persona of a typical EDL anti-immigration poster....

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Arthur's an immigrant?,

That would explain his poor command of the English language, and the frequent spelling mistakes and incomprehensible sentence structure.

It's all becoming very clear now - he is disguising his antecedents by adopting the persona of a typical EDL anti-immigration poster....

I know. you'd never guess I was black, would you?

Originally Posted by the_neurotic_cat

OK, is this verbose enough for ya ...


What are Ed Howker’s criteria for ‘ghetto’? The word implies that there is a segregated group living within the 134 (designated ‘Lower Super Output’) areas. The criteria that I assume he’s using are related to those who live on welfare benefits, which is a false qualifier due to that not being a criteria needed to be living in the area referenced by Ed Howker. The very concept of a ‘welfare ghetto’ doesn’t withstand argumentative analysis. But that’s semantics. Not important for this thread but would be for a self-respecting journalist.

In order to receive benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance you have to look for work or you do not receive it, that is ‘promoting a return to work’. If someone is receiving DLA and IS they have been deemed to be unfit for work by a doctor and that benefit is means tested. You can’t just get it by applying for it.

The bailiff that Ed Howker meets in the Falinge cafe claims to know a lot of personal information about the residents of this estate, this is hardly what I’d call ‘researched’ information. It’s entirely anecdotal. I seriously doubt that this bailiff actually knew what he was talking about considering the scope of personal information he was telling Ed Howker. Not the kind of information a bailiff would have on his targets. The unnamed bailiff continues to paint a caricature of the benefit recipients on the estate which is what this thread is reiterating. The bailiff that Ed Howker is interviewing even states that “People make judgements about you if you’re a resident� which is exactly what he’s doing himself, so that’s a true statement. If the bailiff knew of any welfare fraud that was being commited he should report it. It is an unsubstantiated caricature so my previous comment stands.

As for the statistical information included in the article, it doesn’t address the causes of welfare dependency for the referenced Lower Super Output Areas. Ed Howker does though, he writes about how there had been investment in the area and despite that investment the residents don’t have adequate access to local jobs due to the previous employers leaving the area and moving to other parts of the country. This information also supports my assertion that masses of people living on welfare isn’t due to some kind of lifestyle preference.

You can’t bully and stigmatize people into work when it isn’t there to take just like you can’t force employers to hire someone they don’t like. Employment is a two way thing, not simply down to the applicant.

I work in welfare ghetto's every day so don't tell me they don't exist or they are a myth .I clearly see examples of estates where non-working and working resdents are segregated and have a clear difference in the standard of housing/living

Originally Posted by Gary L

I know. you'd never guess I was black, would you?

I refer the Honourable Gentleman to to my recent post in this thread re "more frequent showering"....

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

so ignition you think someone living on welfare creates more of a ghetto than someone on the streets?

Of course not, nor did I ever imply it. You quoted what I said and I believe it is perfectly clear.

[the_neurotic_cat]

Originally Posted by martyh

I work in welfare ghetto's every day so don't tell me they don't exist or they are a myth .I clearly see examples of estates where non-working and working resdents are segregated and have a clear difference in the standard of housing/living

I did acknowledge that the term was a semantic one that's only really relevent for journalists, not this thread.

However, if you know of any welfare fraud, please report it.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by the_neurotic_cat

In order to receive benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance you have to look for work or you do not receive it, that is ‘promoting a return to work’. If someone is receiving DLA and IS they have been deemed to be unfit for work by a doctor and that benefit is means tested. You can’t just get it by applying for it.

I'm trying to work out if you really are naive enough to believe the above. That is indeed how it' supposed to work, the reality is obviously not quite so clear cut.

That or we're about the sickest nation in the western world.

So either our NHS sucks or we've far too many people on long term disability or a combination of both.