The Labour Government

They can get access to primary ( GP ) care but secondary ( hospital ) is subject to charges.

Work visa applicants pay £1035 per adult per year £716 per child per year - so if someone gets a work visa and comes here with a partner plus 2 kids 16 + and 2 under 16's that costs @ £6300 pa for a service they may never use. Of course vested interests won't tell you that.
Asylum seekers ( not those here on work visa);
Secondary Healthcare:
Asylum seekers are also entitled to free secondary healthcare, such as hospital treatment, on the same basis as any other resident.
Refused Asylum Seekers:
Even if asylum is refused, individuals may still be entitled to free secondary healthcare if they are receiving support from the Home Office under section 4(2) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
 
Saying asylum seekers only receive £50 a week thus indicating its not much of a financial strain to us is so dishonest than even one of our politicians would think twice about claiming it.

Notice how the conversation always gets dragged to immigration when the need to deflect is great?
 
Last edited:
Notice how the conversation always gets dragged to immigration when the need is great to deflect?
The disabled need to get on their bikes they cost us just too darn much unlike the frugal asylum seekers who often bring their own flasks.

This can be flipped depending on what Keir 'the Adult' Starmer says on any given day.
 
The so called asylum seekers and small boat arrivals, how does anybody know where they have come from? They destroy any documentation before they get here.

They are here for one thing only the Welfare State, paid for by you and me.

Not yet but if accepted that is what they will be claiming, they think the streets are paved with gold.
It's your fault then. All these refugees reading Blue Moon where some idiot tells them about all the free stuff they get here.

Maybe if the Mail and Express were full of "Why do we treat asylum seekers so badly?" headlines, they'd all think stuff it, I'll go elsewhere.
 
The most vocal Labour posters on here have always said they are on the left but I’m beginning to doubt that claim as they continue to cheerlead what this government is doing.
I have been a very vocal left wing figure on here for 20 years

I despise this so called Labour government
 
Where to?
Canada, vastly underpopulated country.
It's your fault then. All these refugees reading Blue Moon where some idiot tells them about all the free stuff they get here.

Maybe if the Mail and Express were full of "Why do we treat asylum seekers so badly?" headlines, they'd all think stuff it, I'll go elsewhere.
Don’t be daft, they are tipped off by family members and friends who are already here.
 
The so called asylum seekers and small boat arrivals, how does anybody know where they have come from? They destroy any documentation before they get here.

They are here for one thing only the Welfare State, paid for by you and me.
Our welfare state is appalling compared to the the rest of Europe, so why are they choosing rubbish welfare instead of decent welfare?
 
I have been a very vocal left wing figure on here for 20 years

I despise this so called Labour government

It wasn’t aimed at you Russ. We might rarely agree politically on many things mate but you never waiver on your opinions, ever.

This isn’t a Labour government, that much is clear. Had these policies been announced by a Tory government this place would have erupted and rightly so. The silence from many though who would have erupted is embarrassingly deafening.
 
Our welfare state is appalling compared to the the rest of Europe, so why are they choosing rubbish welfare instead of decent welfare?
I was speaking to a colleague a couple of years ago. He is the son of immigrants and we were discussing how hard it is at the moment to get a GP appointment.
Completely unprompted he said "that's why my parents came here...the NHS and free healthcare"

Now I understand that one tiny snapshot is not indicative of all, but it did open my eyes to what some immigrants see. And want.

When my Irish ancestors came here there was nothing. They worked or they went home.
 
They come here because

1. The speak the language

2. They have family here

3.They have community here.

4. Old Colonial connections.

5. No extradition treaty with the country they have left.


Pick one or two out of any of the above.
A lot of the world speak English

Family they were quite happy not to live near until they were fleeing or supposedly fleeing

They don't, you don't have a community in a place you've never lived.

Colonial connections haha

Why would they be extradited?

Anyhow the laws internationally could do with a rethink imho, I don't see much difference between an asylum seeker currently in France and an economic immigrant from any other part of the world.

The want a better life for themselves and to get out of poverty, who wouldn't? The sticking point for countries is numbers, its always has been about tte numbers.

And it's the one thing people can't agree on or in many cases even talk about because when you shut the door the person outside was just as worthy as the first one you opened it to. And that's a very shit situation for all concerned.
 
Canada, vastly underpopulated country.

Don’t be daft, they are tipped off by family members and friends who are already here.
Which no doubt explains the much greater numbers of people who seek asylum somewhere other than Britain.

Anyway, "tipped off" about what? "Yeah, there's plenty of work. Loads of lazy Brits spending their benefit on haircuts and nails. And if you can get a driving licence, haulage and bus companies are short of recruits."
 
...

When my Irish ancestors came here there was nothing. They worked or they went home.
That ain't necessarily so. They could still usually get poor relief same as others "here" (why should they be treated differently from other British citizens?). There were attempts to "remove" (deport) people back to Ireland but it was often more trouble than it was worth.

* The change in publio opinion was partly manifested in the recognition, in some great centres of population, that it was not economical to incur the expense of removal of the unsettled paupers. As early as 1817 some of the London parishes were not troubling about removals (The Old Poor Law, by S. and B. Webb, 1927, p. 339). In 1862 it could be said that “ it has been customary in Manchester to relieve the indigent Irish from the Poor Rate, though they have obtained no settlement . . . the number . . . thus relieved amounts to two-thirds of the settled paupers ” (Four Periods of Public Education, by Sir J. Kay-Shuttleworth, 1862, p. 176). On April 8, 1866, the Poor Law Board seriously warned the Boards of Guardians that any general exercise of the power of removal might “ cause suffering, expense and other inconvenience without ensuring any corresponding benefit"

[English Poor Law History, PART II : THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS, by Sidney and Beatrice Webb; 1922]
 
Last edited:

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top