Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Adrian wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2016 17:22:13 +0100, tim... wrote:



As I have said elsewhere - TTIP is currently floundering because of
several countries insistence that foreign trade agreements require the
foreign countries to respect EU "protected names" (which for some reason
the US are disinclined to agree to).

I doubt that UK negotiators give a fig about that.


Really? Why?

I'd imagine that the Scotch Whisky industry would be quite keen on that,
apart from all the other PGO products originating in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_United_Kingdom_food_and_drink_products_wit h_protected_status


AIUI, TTIP is dead because the US is afraid of higher unemployment.

And what makes you think the same won't happen in Europe if the UK leaves
the EU?



If we get rid of 3M EU citizens, UK citizens employment chances
will increase, as will their incomes and their standard of living!
They'll have a chance of affording to buy a house for one thing, and
rents will fall.

On Wed, 18 May 2016 09:40:17 +0100, Capitol wrote:

If we get rid of 3M EU citizens, UK citizens employment chances
will increase, as will their incomes and their standard of living!
They'll have a chance of affording to buy a house for one thing, and
rents will fall.

If the UK "gets rid" of "3m" EU citizens, then why on earth wouldn't the
other 27 countries similarly "get rid" of the UK citizens living there...?

But let's pause and think about those EU citizens, shall we?

Let's look at somebody like my mother-in-law. She always retained her
Swedish nationality, so would be fair game under your suggestion.

As it happens, she died a few years ago but, if she was still alive,
she'd now be 84. She last lived outside the UK in 1959. She last left the
UK, even for a holiday, in 1993.

You'd deport somebody like her, would you?

But, of course, her British-born, British-nationality husband and
daughter would not - assuming any degree of reciprocity - be allowed to
move to Sweden with her. Even if they could, could I?

Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 09:40:17 +0100, Capitol wrote:


If we get rid of 3M EU citizens, UK citizens employment chances
will increase, as will their incomes and their standard of living!
They'll have a chance of affording to buy a house for one thing, and
rents will fall.

If the UK "gets rid" of "3m" EU citizens, then why on earth wouldn't the
other 27 countries similarly "get rid" of the UK citizens living there...?

But let's pause and think about those EU citizens, shall we?

Let's look at somebody like my mother-in-law. She always retained her
Swedish nationality, so would be fair game under your suggestion.

As it happens, she died a few years ago but, if she was still alive,
she'd now be 84. She last lived outside the UK in 1959. She last left the
UK, even for a holiday, in 1993.

You'd deport somebody like her, would you?

But, of course, her British-born, British-nationality husband and
daughter would not - assuming any degree of reciprocity - be allowed to
move to Sweden with her. Even if they could, could I?


Was she cremated or buried, cremated is a lot easier to extradite?

I doubt that there are 3M Brits living in Sweden in the EU.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:

If we get rid of 3M EU citizens, UK citizens employment chances
will increase, as will their incomes and their standard of living!
They'll have a chance of affording to buy a house for one thing, and
rents will fall.

Interesting. Wonder just how many BREXITs are looking forward to lower
house prices and rents. It's not something the outers have made much of a
point about.

--
*Being healthy is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
I doubt that there are 3M Brits living in Sweden in the EU.

There are considerable numbers living around the EU. Many retired. If they
are forced to come back to the UK because we've done the same to EU
members living here, you'll be (in general) replacing young men of working
age with OAPs. With the NHS etc having lost a large number of its staff.

--
*The problem with the gene pool is that there is no lifeguard *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

Adrian wrote:

On Mon, 16 May 2016 17:22:13 +0100, tim... wrote:



As I have said elsewhere - TTIP is currently floundering because of
several countries insistence that foreign trade agreements require the
foreign countries to respect EU "protected names" (which for some
reason
the US are disinclined to agree to).

I doubt that UK negotiators give a fig about that.


Really? Why?

I'd imagine that the Scotch Whisky industry would be quite keen on
that,
apart from all the other PGO products originating in the UK.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
List_of_United_Kingdom_food_and_drink_products_wit h_protected_status


AIUI, TTIP is dead because the US is afraid of higher unemployment.

And what makes you think the same won't happen in Europe if the UK leaves
the EU?



If we get rid of 3M EU citizens, UK citizens employment chances
will increase,

Not necessarily, as those EU citizens have to be provided
with services and food and housing etc etc etc.

as will their incomes and their standard of living!

Not necessarily either.

They'll have a chance of affording to buy a house for one thing,

Not if they don't have their job anymore.

and rents will fall.

Not necessarily if more can afford to buy a house.

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 May 2016 09:40:17 +0100, Capitol wrote:

If we get rid of 3M EU citizens, UK citizens employment chances
will increase, as will their incomes and their standard of living!
They'll have a chance of affording to buy a house for one thing, and
rents will fall.

If the UK "gets rid" of "3m" EU citizens, then why on earth wouldn't the
other 27 countries similarly "get rid" of the UK citizens living there...?

Essentially because many of those other EU countries actually
benefit economically from the UK citizens in their country and
aren't necessarily the countries that have seen some of their
own citizens move to Britain to work.

But let's pause and think about those EU citizens, shall we?

Too radical by far.

Let's look at somebody like my mother-in-law. She always retained her
Swedish nationality, so would be fair game under your suggestion.

As it happens, she died a few years ago but, if she was still alive,
she'd now be 84. She last lived outside the UK in 1959. She last left the
UK, even for a holiday, in 1993.

You'd deport somebody like her, would you?

But, of course, her British-born, British-nationality husband and
daughter would not - assuming any degree of reciprocity - be allowed to
move to Sweden with her. Even if they could, could I?

In article ,
wrote:
If the UK "gets rid" of "3m" EU citizens, then why on earth wouldn't
the other 27 countries similarly "get rid" of the UK citizens living
there...?

Essentially because many of those other EU countries actually
benefit economically from the UK citizens in their country and
aren't necessarily the countries that have seen some of their
own citizens move to Britain to work.

That assumes the EU members living here aren't of benefit economically to
the UK? The old 'they only come here to live off state handouts' rubbish
in the gutter press that has been shown to be nonsense?

--
*Born free - taxed to death *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 18/05/16 09:51, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2016 09:40:17 +0100, Capitol wrote:

If we get rid of 3M EU citizens, UK citizens employment chances
will increase, as will their incomes and their standard of living!
They'll have a chance of affording to buy a house for one thing, and
rents will fall.

If the UK "gets rid" of "3m" EU citizens, then why on earth wouldn't the
other 27 countries similarly "get rid" of the UK citizens living there...?

But let's pause and think about those EU citizens, shall we?

Let's look at somebody like my mother-in-law. She always retained her
Swedish nationality, so would be fair game under your suggestion.

As it happens, she died a few years ago but, if she was still alive,
she'd now be 84. She last lived outside the UK in 1959. She last left the
UK, even for a holiday, in 1993.

You'd deport somebody like her, would you?

Absolutely not. Why would you?


But, of course, her British-born, British-nationality husband and
daughter would not - assuming any degree of reciprocity - be allowed to
move to Sweden with her. Even if they could, could I?

Total straw man. You are making up alarming but completely unrealistic
scenarios.

My sister was married to a german and living in Germany before we joined
the EU.

And my other sister was married to a S African and living in Africa and
S Africa has NEVER joined the EU.

This is pure straw man scaremongering.

Its not about sending everyone back, its about saying to people who have
no skills and no jobs - and who are here illegally as well often - and
who probably have criminal records, we reserve the RIGHT to send you back.


--
A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on
its shoes.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not about sending everyone back, its about saying to people who have
no skills and no jobs - and who are here illegally as well often - and
who probably have criminal records, we reserve the RIGHT to send you back.

I'm willing to bet the average BEXIT who is concerned about immigration
expects a great deal more. It would be good to hear from the BREXIT
leaders exactly what they think would happen to the many EU workers here
at present.

BTW, just how many EU citizens are here illegally?

--
*Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
wrote

If the UK "gets rid" of "3m" EU citizens, then why
on earth wouldn't the other 27 countries similarly
"get rid" of the UK citizens living there...?

Essentially because many of those other EU countries actually
benefit economically from the UK citizens in their country and
aren't necessarily the countries that have seen some of their
own citizens move to Britain to work.

That assumes the EU members living here aren't of benefit economically to
the UK?

No it does not. They obviously are of economic benefit,
if only because they have to be provided with food, housing
and other services etc.

The old 'they only come here to live off state handouts' rubbish
in the gutter press that has been shown to be nonsense?

Corse it was always nonsense with the only.

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
I doubt that there are 3M Brits living in Sweden in the EU.

There are considerable numbers living around the EU. Many retired. If they
are forced to come back to the UK because we've done the same to EU
members living here, you'll be (in general) replacing young men of working
age with OAPs. With the NHS etc having lost a large number of its staff.

This is another Remain red herring. The situation of ex-pats is covered
by UN agreement.
--
bert

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not about sending everyone back, its about saying to people who have
no skills and no jobs - and who are here illegally as well often - and
who probably have criminal records, we reserve the RIGHT to send you back.

I'm willing to bet the average BEXIT who is concerned about immigration
expects a great deal more.
AS an average Brexit who is concerned abut immigration I will take on
your bet as I do not expect more. So you now owe me zillions. You can
send it in bitcoins.
It would be good to hear from the BREXIT
leaders exactly what they think would happen to the many EU workers here
at present.

BTW, just how many EU citizens are here illegally?


--
bert

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
That assumes the EU members living here aren't of benefit economically
to the UK?

No it does not. They obviously are of economic benefit,
if only because they have to be provided with food, housing
and other services etc.

Most would consider that a drain on resources - not a benefit to the
economy.

But carry on simply arguing with everything. It's what you do.

--
*My wife and I had words. But I didn't get to use mine.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
The Natural Philosopher wrote

Its not about sending everyone back, its about saying to people who
have no skills and no jobs - and who are here illegally as well often -
and
who probably have criminal records, we reserve the RIGHT to send you
back.

I'm willing to bet the average BEXIT who is concerned
about immigration expects a great deal more.

Easy to claim...

It would be good to hear from the BREXIT leaders

No such animal.

exactly what they think would happen
to the many EU workers here at present.

Doesn’t matter what they think, those with the biggest
mouths like Farage would never get any say whatever
on that even if Britain does get to leave the EU. In fact
he wouldn’t even be in politics at all after that, because
none of his rabble would even have seat in the EP
anymore and so all that funding would evaporate
and there would be no UKIP anymore either.

"bert" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Capitol wrote:
I doubt that there are 3M Brits living in Sweden in the EU.

There are considerable numbers living around the EU. Many retired. If they
are forced to come back to the UK because we've done the same to EU
members living here, you'll be (in general) replacing young men of working
age with OAPs. With the NHS etc having lost a large number of its staff.

This is another Remain red herring. The situation of ex-pats is covered by
UN agreement.

Like hell it is.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That assumes the EU members living here
aren't of benefit economically to the UK?

No it does not. They obviously are of economic
benefit, if only because they have to be provided
with food, housing and other services etc.

Most would consider that a drain on resources

Those that do that are fools.

- not a benefit to the economy.

Of course it’s a benefit to the economy when people
have to be employed to provide all that stuff to them.

reams of your signature desperate attempt at insults that
any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 17:35:33 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Its not about sending everyone back, its about saying to people who have
no skills and no jobs - and who are here illegally as well often - and
who probably have criminal records, we reserve the RIGHT to send you back.

I'm willing to bet the average BEXIT who is concerned about immigration
expects a great deal more. It would be good to hear from the BREXIT
leaders exactly what they think would happen to the many EU workers here
at present.

Fantasising again?

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That assumes the EU members living here
aren't of benefit economically to the UK?

No it does not. They obviously are of economic
benefit, if only because they have to be provided
with food, housing and other services etc.

Most would consider that a drain on resources

Those that do that are fools.

- not a benefit to the economy.

Of course it’s a benefit to the economy when people
have to be employed to provide all that stuff to them.

So what we need is lots more old folk. Everyone can them be employed
looking after them. Problem solved in one stroke.

--
*I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 19 May 2016 05:30:15 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That assumes the EU members living here
aren't of benefit economically to the UK?

No it does not. They obviously are of economic
benefit, if only because they have to be provided
with food, housing and other services etc.

Most would consider that a drain on resources

Those that do that are fools.

No they are correct. As is everyone who is taking more than they are contributing.
Of course we could just import or breed lots of cats and dogs they will need food, vets and all sorts of things, biut who will foot the costs of them.



- not a benefit to the economy.

Of course its a benefit to the economy when people
have to be employed to provide all that stuff to them.

How does that work out if they arenlt producing anything other than aste products.


reams of your signature desperate attempt at insults that
any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs

who's doing the flushing.

On Thursday, 19 May 2016 11:31:59 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That assumes the EU members living here
aren't of benefit economically to the UK?

No it does not. They obviously are of economic
benefit, if only because they have to be provided
with food, housing and other services etc.

Most would consider that a drain on resources

Those that do that are fools.

- not a benefit to the economy.

Of course its a benefit to the economy when people
have to be employed to provide all that stuff to them.

So what we need is lots more old folk. Everyone can them be employed
looking after them. Problem solved in one stroke.

Thas an intresting way of working it out yes.
My mum is in a nursing home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and nursing staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and many other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
So what we need is lots more old folk. Everyone can them be employed
looking after them. Problem solved in one stroke.

Thas an intresting way of working it out yes. My mum is in a nursing
home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and nursing
staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and many
other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a geriatric
hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by caring staff,
and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk to pay for their
own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country. But the NHS is safe
in their hands...

--
*Why isn't there mouse-flavoured cat food?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 19 May 2016 16:20:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Thas an intresting way of working it out yes. My mum is in a nursing
home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and nursing
staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and many
other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a geriatric
hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by caring staff,
and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk to pay for their
own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country. But the NHS is
safe in their hands...

My M-i-L spent her last few years in a similar home. Most of the staff
were from various corners of Africa or the subcontinent.

(I idly wonder whether our marinaded friend thinks Mauritius is part of
the EU)

I really don't see why council tax payers should subsidise the next
generation's inheritance, though.

On Thursday, 19 May 2016 16:25:37 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
So what we need is lots more old folk. Everyone can them be employed
looking after them. Problem solved in one stroke.

Thas an intresting way of working it out yes. My mum is in a nursing
home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and nursing
staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and many
other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a geriatric
hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by caring staff,
and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk to pay for their
own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country. But the NHS is safe
in their hands...

But we are in the EU with free movement of people so it's OK isn't it,
nothing else works as well and never will.

On Thursday, 19 May 2016 16:36:40 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 16:20:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Thas an intresting way of working it out yes. My mum is in a nursing
home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and nursing
staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and many
other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a geriatric
hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by caring staff,
and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk to pay for their
own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country. But the NHS is
safe in their hands...

My M-i-L spent her last few years in a similar home. Most of the staff
were from various corners of Africa or the subcontinent.

Yes that's how it was and still is in older homes my mums home was srt up in 2004. So they nowe import people from teh EU rather than the commonwealth..


(I idly wonder whether our marinaded friend thinks Mauritius is part of
the EU)

No it's not so can yuo tell, me how she managed to come to this country when we don;t have a trade deal with Mauritius and we don;t have free movement between the UK and Mauritius.
How much per month do we pay to Mauritius ?


I really don't see why council tax payers should subsidise the next
generation's inheritance, though.

But the can put inin to saving accounts off shore in non EU countries
so they don;t have to pay tax..

"Dave Plowman (News)" posted
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
So what we need is lots more old folk. Everyone can them be employed
looking after them. Problem solved in one stroke.

Thas an intresting way of working it out yes. My mum is in a nursing
home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and nursing
staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and many
other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a geriatric
hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by caring staff,
and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk to pay for their
own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country. But the NHS is safe
in their hands...


Another Plowman fantasy. Elderly people (who have some money) have been
charged for their residential care long before the Conservatives got in.
And that applies to both personal and NHS care, although there have been
endless disputes about the latter (under the Labour government as well
as Coalition or Conservative). See Coghlan.

--
Les

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 16:20:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Thas an intresting way of working it out yes. My mum is in a nursing
home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and nursing
staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and many
other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a geriatric
hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by caring staff,
and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk to pay for their
own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country. But the NHS is
safe in their hands...

My M-i-L spent her last few years in a similar home. Most of the staff
were from various corners of Africa or the subcontinent.

(I idly wonder whether our marinaded friend thinks Mauritius is part of
the EU)

I really don't see why council tax payers should subsidise the next
generation's inheritance, though.

I'd agree if simply old age. But when someone is so ill they can't do
anything for themselves or even communicate, is a commercially run care
home the best answer?

--
*Why do psychics have to ask you for your name? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Big Les Wade wrote:
My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a
geriatric hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by
caring staff, and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk
to pay for their own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country.
But the NHS is safe in their hands...


Another Plowman fantasy.

Really? Your crystal ball is red hot again.
Tell you what. I'll bet you £10,000 I'm telling the truth.

Elderly people (who have some money) have been
charged for their residential care long before the Conservatives got in.

And my mother did have some money. From the sale of her house.

And that applies to both personal and NHS care, although there have been
endless disputes about the latter (under the Labour government as well
as Coalition or Conservative). See Coghlan.

No matter what you decide you think you know, my truth is the truth.

--
*Plagiarism saves time *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 19 May 2016 18:09:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'd agree if simply old age.

There're very few people in care homes JUST because of old age.

A friend in the village is 89 next week. She lives on her own at home,
and drives. Another in-law is 87 soon, and still working.

But when someone is so ill they can't do anything for themselves or
even communicate, is a commercially run care home the best answer?

Better than a hospital, unless they actually need such acute medical care.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That assumes the EU members living here
aren't of benefit economically to the UK?

No it does not. They obviously are of economic
benefit, if only because they have to be provided
with food, housing and other services etc.

Most would consider that a drain on resources

Those that do that are fools.

- not a benefit to the economy.

Of course it's a benefit to the economy when people
have to be employed to provide all that stuff to them.

So what we need is lots more old folk. Everyone
can them be employed looking after them.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Makes a hell of
a lot more sense to have the professionally qualified
that can be used in the NHS etc because not enough
of the locals are prepared to put in years of study to
get qualified to work there instead.

Problem solved in one stroke.

You're the one stroking your dick.

You'll end up completely blind, boy.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
Of course it's a benefit to the economy when people
have to be employed to provide all that stuff to them.

So what we need is lots more old folk. Everyone
can them be employed looking after them.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Makes a hell of
a lot more sense to have the professionally qualified
that can be used in the NHS etc because not enough
of the locals are prepared to put in years of study to
get qualified to work there instead.

I know English isn't your first language, but thought you might just have
recognised irony by now.

Problem solved in one stroke.

You're the one stroking your dick.

You'll end up completely blind, boy.

I bow to your experience.

--
*Someday, we'll look back on this, laugh nervously and change the subject

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Rod Speed wrote

That assumes the EU members living here
aren't of benefit economically to the UK?

No it does not. They obviously are of economic
benefit, if only because they have to be provided
with food, housing and other services etc.

Most would consider that a drain on resources

Those that do that are fools.

No they are correct.

Like hell they are.

As is everyone who is taking more than they are contributing.

Like hell they are, most obviously with those who work for
the NHS who not only contribute just as much as any of
the locals who do, and who need just as much in the way
of food, housing and other services as the locals who work
for the NHS with the same qualifications, and pay the same
taxes and NI as the locals who work for the NHS with the
same qualifications.

reams of your silly **** flushed where it belongs

- not a benefit to the economy.

Of course its a benefit to the economy when people
have to be employed to provide all that stuff to them.

How does that work out if they arenlt producing
anything other than aste products.

Pity about those who do like those working for the NHS.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 16:20:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Thas an intresting way of working it out yes. My mum is in a nursing
home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and
nursing
staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and many
other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a
geriatric
hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by caring
staff,
and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk to pay for
their
own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country. But the NHS is
safe in their hands...

My M-i-L spent her last few years in a similar home. Most of the staff
were from various corners of Africa or the subcontinent.

(I idly wonder whether our marinaded friend thinks Mauritius is part of
the EU)

I really don't see why council tax payers should subsidise the next
generation's inheritance, though.

I'd agree if simply old age. But when someone is so ill they can't do
anything for themselves or even communicate, is a commercially run care
home the best answer?

Depends on what assets that family has.

IMO it makes no sense for the state to be providing
free care so the children or whatever can inherit
large amounts of assets when that individual dies.

in 1486287 20160519 190942 Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 18:09:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'd agree if simply old age.

There're very few people in care homes JUST because of old age.

A friend in the village is 89 next week. She lives on her own at home,
and drives. Another in-law is 87 soon, and still working.

I've even heard of 90-year-olds making TV documentaries and ruling countries.


But when someone is so ill they can't do anything for themselves or
even communicate, is a commercially run care home the best answer?

Better than a hospital, unless they actually need such acute medical care.

Some ****wit lefty**** alcoholic claiming to be
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
just the puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


Dave Plowman (News) wrote

just the puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead.

But seems to defeat you by this response.

--
*I thought I wanted a career. Turns out I just wanted paychecks.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thursday, 19 May 2016 19:09:49 UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 18:09:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

I'd agree if simply old age.

There're very few people in care homes JUST because of old age.

yes, in my mothers case it is a nursing home, well the top floor is nursing the 2 lower floors are for various types of care.


A friend in the village is 89 next week. She lives on her own at home,
and drives. Another in-law is 87 soon, and still working.

My mum is 85 and after a minor stoke that affected her vision and balance the doctors evaluated her needs and said she needed to go into a nursing home, not a care home but specifically said a nurse home at the time I thought they were pretty much the same. But I found some homes are care only homes..



But when someone is so ill they can't do anything for themselves or
even communicate, is a commercially run care home the best answer?

Better than a hospital, unless they actually need such acute medical care..

Apparently it's far cheaper than a hospital about 1/4 or less of the cost of hospital care.

On Friday, 20 May 2016 07:36:51 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 16:20:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Thas an intresting way of working it out yes. My mum is in a nursing
home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and
nursing
staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and many
other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a
geriatric
hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by caring
staff,
and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk to pay for
their
own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country. But the NHS is
safe in their hands...

My M-i-L spent her last few years in a similar home. Most of the staff
were from various corners of Africa or the subcontinent.

(I idly wonder whether our marinaded friend thinks Mauritius is part of
the EU)

I really don't see why council tax payers should subsidise the next
generation's inheritance, though.

I'd agree if simply old age. But when someone is so ill they can't do
anything for themselves or even communicate, is a commercially run care
home the best answer?

Depends on what assets that family has.

it would also depend on how yuo see the family.


IMO it makes no sense for the state to be providing
free care so the children or whatever can inherit
large amounts of assets when that individual dies.

Does it make more sense if that person is an ecomomic migrant or anyone esle coming from another country, as half of those on the top floor of the home aren't UK born according to the staff as I ask them.
The one shouting out Nruse warden please every 10-15min was born in banledesh
and never has any visitors, maybe he is paying for himself but it doesn't seem very likely.

My mum and dad both encouraged me to save for a rainy day or my future, which they did throught their lives and as my mum was a housewife and then was a part time school kitchen assistant until she retired. The last time they went on holiday was in the 70s to ramsgate, they have never been out of teh country and never had a car.
It does seem starnge that we have limitles funs to support those coming from other countries that haven't a home or a job in the UK.

So like a true socialsist I'm gonna spend my money on me rather than save up.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


Dave Plowman (News) wrote

just the puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead.

But seems to defeat you by this response.

Then you need to get your seems machinery seen to, BAD.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 20 May 2016 07:36:51 UTC+1, Rod Speed wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 16:20:11 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
Thas an intresting way of working it out yes. My mum is in a
nursing
home and it cost £900 a week, she gets a room with a toilet and
nursing
staff. From Romania, portagal, mauritius, italy and Poland, and
many
other places, I've yet to ask all the nursing staff.

My mother, who died in the last century, ended up aged 90 in a
geriatric
hospital due to severe dementia. Very well looked after by caring
staff,
and free. These days, they expect severely ill old folk to pay for
their
own care. And in theory, in a more prosperous country. But the NHS
is
safe in their hands...

My M-i-L spent her last few years in a similar home. Most of the staff
were from various corners of Africa or the subcontinent.

(I idly wonder whether our marinaded friend thinks Mauritius is part
of
the EU)

I really don't see why council tax payers should subsidise the next
generation's inheritance, though.

I'd agree if simply old age. But when someone is so ill they can't do
anything for themselves or even communicate, is a commercially run care
home the best answer?

Depends on what assets that family has.

it would also depend on how yuo see the family.


IMO it makes no sense for the state to be providing
free care so the children or whatever can inherit
large amounts of assets when that individual dies.

Does it make more sense if that person is an ecomomic
migrant or anyone esle coming from another country,

Nope.

as half of those on the top floor of the home aren't
UK born according to the staff as I ask them.

Then they must have bad genes given that nothing even
remotely like half of those in Britain weren't born there.

The one shouting out Nruse warden please every 10-15min
was born in banledesh and never has any visitors, maybe
he is paying for himself but it doesn't seem very likely.

My mum and dad both encouraged me to save for a rainy
day or my future, which they did throught their lives and
as my mum was a housewife and then was a part time
school kitchen assistant until she retired. The last time
they went on holiday was in the 70s to ramsgate, they
have never been out of teh country and never had a car.

Must be in the genes then.

It does seem starnge that we have limitles funs to support those
coming from other countries that haven't a home or a job in the UK.

Why arent they entitled to the same funs you lot are ?

So like a true socialsist I'm gonna spend
my money on me rather than save up.

Great, you'll be dead even quicker.