On 12/06/2016 21:21, Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 12 Jun 2016 20:49:18 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I've tended to think kippers are evil or mad. This falls into the mad
variety.

A 'Vote to leave' leaflet posted through my door from Gerard Batten,
UKIP MEP for London.

Under 'how much does EU membership cost' :-

'The total combined cost (direct and indirect) have been calculated as
about £190 billion per annum'

Somebody has their Bs and their Ms confused...

Yes, you.

That figure can be justified.

Do go on...

But, hey, it's only a factor of a thousand away from reality.

No, its probably a factor of around 5.

Oh, well. There we go, then.

Only a factor of five out. So even you acknowledge that it's exaggerated
by one hundred and sixty billion pounds. £160bn. £160,000,000,000... Or,
to put it another way, one pound in every four and a half quid the
government spends.


According to Daily Politics, our net contribution of £10 Billion is the
equivalent of a 7% tariff on our exports to the EU. However we have
imported about 3 million from mostly poorer EU countries who either
send money back home, or they start have kids here which means what
ever little tax they pay is massively outweighed by the tax-credits,
housing benefit, free education (£65,000 per child) and free NHS.

So that 7% figure is a conservative estimate. QED we already have
to pay a hefty tariff to access the 'single market'.

Meanwhile, we have exported an army of older and retired people
to Southern Europe and elsewhere, and many of these people have
massive unfunded final salary pensions that still have to be paid
by UK taxpayers. We also *have* to pay their healthcare costs. Last
year the UK taxpayer paid £660 million to EU countries for providing
healthcare to retired UK nationals living in the EU. But we only
collect a tiny fraction of that amount from EU countries for th cost
of 'free' NHS care for EU nationals.

And those UK pensions are boosting the GDP of other EU countries, not
ours. 40 years ago the actuarial calculations relating to pensions
never envisaged the possibility that large numbers of better-off
British people would retire *outside* the UK (depriving us of their
spending power). Some of the windrush generation were assumed to go
back, and that's it.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:29:35 +0100, Andrew wrote:

According to Daily Politics, our net contribution of £10 Billion

£8.5bn. But who's arguing over 17.5%?

is the equivalent of a 7% tariff on our exports to the EU.

Half that - 3.5%. UK exports to the EU were £229bn in 2014.
https://fullfact.org/europe/do-half-...rts-go-europe/

On 13/06/2016 12:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bless!

The purpose of this referendum is to see off the UKIP threat and put pay
to the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party.

We aren't supposed to vote to leave.

If we do, its a big conundrum.


If we do the Germans will krap themselves.

It's a big reason for Dave to go back to Angela and demand proper
reforms of the EU, not the least being more financial transparency

On 13/06/2016 09:49, Nightjar wrote:
On 12-Jun-16 7:59 PM, Fredxxx wrote:
On 12/06/2016 19:56, Adrian wrote:
...
You mean if we stay in the EU

We are very unlikely to leave, even if the first referendum results in a
leave win. The government and a large majority of MPs want us to stay.

and a wake of Turks depress wages even more?

I'm thinking of my children, not having to compete with immigrants from
developing countries.

The evidence from 50 years of Turkish workers in Germany is that it is
the immigrants who struggle to get the jobs.

80% of all the much-fabled jobs created in this country since 2010 have
gone to non-UK nationals.

A meat-processing plant in Mythyr Tydfil employs mostly Portuguese and
Brazilians. The agency supplying them is run by Portuguese and the
locals never see vacancies in the local job centre. The same happens
all across East Anglia where farm and food factory workers are employed
in large numbers.

Why so many Brazilians (and elsewhere in the UK) ?. Brazil was never
a British Colony, but is was a Portuguese colony. Somehow large numbers
of South Americans have been given Spanish or Brazilian passports, then
whoosh, it's straight to Blighty.

Odd that nationals of actual former British colonies seem to have a more
difficult time coming here to work.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:51:53 +0100, Andrew wrote:

80% of all the much-fabled jobs created in this country since 2010 have
gone to non-UK nationals.

Got any evidence for that?

Why so many Brazilians (and elsewhere in the UK) ?. Brazil was never a
British Colony, but is was a Portuguese colony. Somehow large numbers of
South Americans have been given Spanish or Brazilian passports

Presuming you mean "Spanish or Portuguese", you do know that means
they're not Brazilians any more, but are Spaniards or Portuguese...?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Fredxxx wrote

I'm thinking of my children, not having to compete
with immigrants from developing countries.

Then educate them. And instil in them a desire to work and succeed.

It's difficult with schools now as they keep
changing the way they teach and what,

The schools don't keep changing things.

Corse they do with how they teach stuff.

They are told to by a government who always thinks
it knows more about teaching kids than teachers.

Bull**** with the basics.

then you have a mass influx on non english speakers, so the
teachers end up having to help them more than anyone else.

If they can't speak English, no point in them being in an
ordinary school. They should be in a special language
class until up to the same sort of standard as their peers.

In fact kids pick up a new language so quickly that
its much better to just throw them in at the deep
end unless there are so many of them in a particular
school that they don’t need to speak english.

Most know that unless you can get a high level of
education your chances of a job is limited because the
attitute is we can get them from overseas almost immediatley
rather than having to wait for them to be trained up.

Right. So down to employers rather than immigrants?
Odd then to blame immigrants for stealing jobs.

He doesn’t.

Odd, isn't it? The right wing little Englanders consider themselves
the master race - but can't compete for a job with ill educated
foreigners who can't even speak English. In their own country.

They can compete on a level field, but when you have lots
of peole willing to work for far less than the minium wage
because even at that level it's higher than a good wage in
their country they are prepared to live 5 to a single room.

Isn't it illegal to pay under the minimum wage?

Corse it is, but that doesn’t mean that there aren't plenty
of foreigners who arent happy to be paid much more than
they can get back where they are coming from even when
it is less than the minimum wage in Britain.

So we now have our government to blame
for not enforcing their own legislation

Not feasible to do that if the employee doesn’t complain.

and employers for taking the easiest route.
But let's just blame the EU instead.

He wasn’t doing that either.

Whatever your skill is there's someone in another country that's
willing to do it for less. As I said it's happened to a friend of mine
and it will continue to happen, bur not everyone can ignore it.

Isn't that simply excellent capitalism? Competition bringing
down prices? Everyone on here thinks it's a flawless system.

More of your lies.

Except, of course, when it has a direct impact on them.

More of your lies.

On 14/06/2016 21:34, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:29:35 +0100, Andrew wrote:

According to Daily Politics, our net contribution of £10 Billion

£8.5bn. But who's arguing over 17.5%?

is the equivalent of a 7% tariff on our exports to the EU.

Half that - 3.5%. UK exports to the EU were £229bn in 2014.
https://fullfact.org/europe/do-half-...rts-go-europe/


If Andrew Neil says its £10 Billion, then it IS £10 Billion.

On 14/06/2016 21:56, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:51:53 +0100, Andrew wrote:

80% of all the much-fabled jobs created in this country since 2010 have
gone to non-UK nationals.

Got any evidence for that?

Why so many Brazilians (and elsewhere in the UK) ?. Brazil was never a
British Colony, but is was a Portuguese colony. Somehow large numbers of
South Americans have been given Spanish or Brazilian passports

Presuming you mean "Spanish or Portuguese", you do know that means
they're not Brazilians any more, but are Spaniards or Portuguese...?

No they are still South Americans who have managed to acquire
passports issued by Spain or Brazil, by virtue of some remote
colonial link. These people should only be issued with
residency permits for Brazil or Spain, not EU passports allowing
them to move anywhere.

On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 22:53:25 +0100, Andrew wrote:

80% of all the much-fabled jobs created in this country since 2010
have gone to non-UK nationals.

Got any evidence for that?

hollow echo

Why so many Brazilians (and elsewhere in the UK) ?. Brazil was never a
British Colony, but is was a Portuguese colony. Somehow large numbers
of South Americans have been given Spanish or Brazilian passports

Presuming you mean "Spanish or Portuguese", you do know that means
they're not Brazilians any more, but are Spaniards or Portuguese...?

No they are still South Americans who have managed to acquire passports
issued by Spain or Brazil, by virtue of some remote colonial link. These
people should only be issued with residency permits for Brazil or Spain,
not EU passports allowing them to move anywhere.

People aren't "just issued" with EU passports. They apply for - and are
granted - citizenship. At that point, they are Spanish (or Portuguese or
wherever) nationality.

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
According to Daily Politics, our net contribution of £10 Billion is the
equivalent of a 7% tariff on our exports to the EU. However we have
imported about 3 million from mostly poorer EU countries who either
send money back home, or they start have kids here which means what
ever little tax they pay is massively outweighed by the tax-credits,
housing benefit, free education (£65,000 per child) and free NHS.

I just love the idea of free education and free NHS. Wonder who pays for
it? I'd just like to say thanks to them. Is it some massively rich
benefactor like Donald trump?

--
*I must always remember that I'm unique, just like everyone else. *

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

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
80% of all the much-fabled jobs created in this country since 2010 have
gone to non-UK nationals.

In your view, all doing jobs which contribute zero to the economy, then?

A meat-processing plant in Mythyr Tydfil employs mostly Portuguese and
Brazilians. The agency supplying them is run by Portuguese and the
locals never see vacancies in the local job centre. The same happens
all across East Anglia where farm and food factory workers are employed
in large numbers.

Local employers get fed up sending details to the job centre when they
know they'll not get anyone suitable from them, by experience. More to the
point if one of the farmers who was on TV is to be believed, they give a
job to one sent from the job centre, and they don't come back the next
day. Work is too hard or too boring for them.

There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.

--
*HOW IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A CIVIL WAR?

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

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
80% of all the much-fabled jobs created in this country since 2010 have
gone to non-UK nationals.

In your view, all doing jobs which contribute zero to the economy, then?

A meat-processing plant in Mythyr Tydfil employs mostly Portuguese and
Brazilians. The agency supplying them is run by Portuguese and the
locals never see vacancies in the local job centre. The same happens
all across East Anglia where farm and food factory workers are employed
in large numbers.

Local employers get fed up sending details to the job centre when they
know they'll not get anyone suitable from them, by experience. More to the
point if one of the farmers who was on TV is to be believed, they give a
job to one sent from the job centre, and they don't come back the next
day. Work is too hard or too boring for them.

There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.

There is. They don’t get to put their hand out to the state
for anything like the same level of benefits back where
they are coming from than the locals in Britain can do.

On 14-Jun-16 9:51 PM, Andrew wrote:
On 13/06/2016 09:49, Nightjar wrote:
On 12-Jun-16 7:59 PM, Fredxxx wrote:
On 12/06/2016 19:56, Adrian wrote:
...
You mean if we stay in the EU

We are very unlikely to leave, even if the first referendum results in a
leave win. The government and a large majority of MPs want us to stay.

and a wake of Turks depress wages even more?

I'm thinking of my children, not having to compete with immigrants from
developing countries.

The evidence from 50 years of Turkish workers in Germany is that it is
the immigrants who struggle to get the jobs.

80% of all the much-fabled jobs created in this country since 2010 have
gone to non-UK nationals.

80% of all statistics given without supporting evidence are made up. I
will accept that 77% of the jobs were in low paid work, but that does
not mean that they all went to foreign workers.

A meat-processing plant in Mythyr Tydfil employs mostly Portuguese and
Brazilians. The agency supplying them is run by Portuguese and the
locals never see vacancies in the local job centre. The same happens
all across East Anglia where farm and food factory workers are employed
in large numbers.

Having employed temporary Portuguese workers myself, I found them to be
very hard working. Unlike many British temporary workers I have
employed, they were nearly as good as my long term workers.

Why so many Brazilians (and elsewhere in the UK) ?.

No idea, but, unless they are coming for less than six months, they will
have to get a work visa to work in the UK.

Brazil was never
a British Colony, but is was a Portuguese colony.

Which is not relevant, so far as I can see. It is not a former colony
that retains any rights to Portuguese citizenship.

Somehow large numbers
of South Americans have been given Spanish or Brazilian passports, then
whoosh, it's straight to Blighty.

The only way they can get a Spanish passport is to qualify for Spanish
citizenship, for example by being legally resident in Spain for at least
ten years. For Portugal, the residency requirement is six years. There
are other criteria, but they mainly involve being born of existing
citizens, or of foreign nationals legally resident in the country.

Odd that nationals of actual former British colonies seem to have a more
difficult time coming here to work.

The same rules apply to all non-EU citizens, although Commonwealth
citizens with a grandparent born in the UK have the additional option of
getting an ancestry visa.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 14-Jun-16 10:49 PM, Andrew wrote:
On 14/06/2016 21:34, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:29:35 +0100, Andrew wrote:

According to Daily Politics, our net contribution of £10 Billion

£8.5bn. But who's arguing over 17.5%?

is the equivalent of a 7% tariff on our exports to the EU.

Half that - 3.5%. UK exports to the EU were £229bn in 2014.
https://fullfact.org/europe/do-half-...rts-go-europe/


If Andrew Neil says its £10 Billion, then it IS £10 Billion.

Not according to this, quite detailed analysis:

https://fullfact.org/europe/our-eu-m...ee-55-million/



--
--

Colin Bignell

On 14-Jun-16 9:29 PM, Andrew wrote:
....
According to Daily Politics, our net contribution of £10 Billion is the
equivalent of a 7% tariff on our exports to the EU. However we have
imported about 3 million from mostly poorer EU countries who either
send money back home, or they start have kids here which means what
ever little tax they pay is massively outweighed by the tax-credits,
housing benefit, free education (£65,000 per child) and free NHS....

According to a UCL report, in the period 2001-2011, immigrants from the
EU-15 countries paid 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits.
Immigrants from the central and eastern European countries (A10
countries) paid 12% more. European immigrants who arrived since 2000 are
also generally better educated - in 2011 24% of UK natives had a
university degree, compared to 25% from the A10 and 62% from the EU-15
countries. The saving of this to the UK education system over the period
1995 to 2011 is estimated at £49bn.

... Last
year the UK taxpayer paid £660 million to EU countries for providing
healthcare to retired UK nationals living in the EU. But we only
collect a tiny fraction of that amount from EU countries for th cost
of 'free' NHS care for EU nationals...

That is a failing in the NHS systems for identifying those who are not
entitled to free treatment and is nothing to do with the EU itself.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 15/06/16 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
According to a UCL report, in the period 2001-2011, immigrants from the
EU-15 countries paid 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits.

That is the ones that you actually know about.


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
wrote:

80% of all the much-fabled jobs created in this country since 2010 have
gone to non-UK nationals.

In your view, all doing jobs which contribute zero to the economy, then?


A meat-processing plant in Mythyr Tydfil employs mostly Portuguese and
Brazilians. The agency supplying them is run by Portuguese and the
locals never see vacancies in the local job centre. The same happens
all across East Anglia where farm and food factory workers are employed
in large numbers.

Local employers get fed up sending details to the job centre when they
know they'll not get anyone suitable from them, by experience. More to the
point if one of the farmers who was on TV is to be believed, they give a
job to one sent from the job centre, and they don't come back the next
day. Work is too hard or too boring for them.

There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.


Yes, they are cheaper. That's why UK wages have been depressed
by 10% over recent years. Vote remain for lower wages, higher taxes and
higher UK unemployment coming to your area next!

On 15-Jun-16 10:52 AM, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
....
There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.


Yes, they are cheaper.

There is a legal limit on how little workers may be paid.

That's why UK wages have been depressed
by 10% over recent years. ...

In the period 2011-2013, it was wage earners in the top 10% who saw the
big drops in income. Those in the bottom 10% were least affected. In the
past year, incomes have risen by 2.3%, which has been attributed in part
to the living wage.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 15/06/16 11:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Jun-16 10:52 AM, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
....
There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.


Yes, they are cheaper.

There is a legal limit on how little workers may be paid.

That is easily circumvented.

What do you think zero hour contracts are for?


That's why UK wages have been depressed
by 10% over recent years. ...

In the period 2011-2013, it was wage earners in the top 10% who saw the
big drops in income. Those in the bottom 10% were least affected. In the
past year, incomes have risen by 2.3%, which has been attributed in part
to the living wage.




--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

On 15/06/2016 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/06/16 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
According to a UCL report, in the period 2001-2011, immigrants from the
EU-15 countries paid 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits.

That is the ones that you actually know about.



We control our own borders so any illegal ones are the UK governments
responsibility not the EU.

On 15/06/16 11:48, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/06/16 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
According to a UCL report, in the period 2001-2011, immigrants from the
EU-15 countries paid 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits.

That is the ones that you actually know about.



We control our own borders so any illegal ones are the UK governments
responsibility not the EU.

Legal immigrants can be just as invisible as illegal ones dennis.

If I were to say - wander over to Germany, and stand there begging in
the streets - I very much doubt that I could or would be deported, or my
income would appear in any government statistics. Even more so if I
simply embarked on a life of crime.


--
"In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is
true: it is true because it is powerful."

Lucas Bergkamp

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 15-Jun-16 10:52 AM, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
...
There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.


Yes, they are cheaper.

There is a legal limit on how little workers may be paid.

Plenty of immigrants ignore that.

That's why UK wages have been depressed
by 10% over recent years. ...

In the period 2011-2013, it was wage earners in the top 10% who saw the
big drops in income. Those in the bottom 10% were least affected. In the
past year, incomes have risen by 2.3%, which has been attributed in part
to the living wage.

But that is just the official stuff, not what actually happens in the real
world.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 15/06/2016 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/06/16 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
According to a UCL report, in the period 2001-2011, immigrants from the
EU-15 countries paid 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits.

That is the ones that you actually know about.

We control our own borders

Not with EU citizens.

so any illegal ones are the UK governments responsibility not the EU.

dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/06/16 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
According to a UCL report, in the period 2001-2011, immigrants from the
EU-15 countries paid 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits.

That is the ones that you actually know about.



We control our own borders so any illegal ones are the UK governments
responsibility not the EU.
Not with the human rights act!

On 15/06/2016 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/06/16 11:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Jun-16 10:52 AM, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
....
There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants
with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.


Yes, they are cheaper.

There is a legal limit on how little workers may be paid.

That is easily circumvented.

What do you think zero hour contracts are for?

Supply teachers, NHS staff on the bank, anyone else that wants a zero
hours contract and some other people where the work is not available all
the time and where the job wouldn't exist if they had to pay someone a
fixed number of hours.

On 15/06/2016 12:33, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 10:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/06/16 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
According to a UCL report, in the period 2001-2011, immigrants from the
EU-15 countries paid 64% more in taxes than they received in benefits.

That is the ones that you actually know about.



We control our own borders so any illegal ones are the UK governments
responsibility not the EU.
Not with the human rights act!

The human rights act does not make an illegal immigrant legal despite
what leavers claim.

On 15/06/16 12:44, dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/06/16 11:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Jun-16 10:52 AM, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
....
There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants
with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.


Yes, they are cheaper.

There is a legal limit on how little workers may be paid.

That is easily circumvented.

What do you think zero hour contracts are for?

Supply teachers, NHS staff on the bank, anyone else that wants a zero
hours contract and some other people where the work is not available all
the time and where the job wouldn't exist if they had to pay someone a
fixed number of hours.


Bless!


--
"I am inclined to tell the truth and dislike people who lie consistently.
This makes me unfit for the company of people of a Left persuasion, and
all women"

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:
There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.

There is. They don’t get to put their hand out to the state
for anything like the same level of benefits back where
they are coming from than the locals in Britain can do.

Oddly enough, some people prefer to earn their living, even when
'benefits' if not working at all might be similar.

That so many from the rancid right seem to think they'd be mad to work if
they can get benefits says more about the rancid right thinking than
anything else.

--
*The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist

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

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/06/16 11:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Jun-16 10:52 AM, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
....
There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants
with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.


Yes, they are cheaper.

There is a legal limit on how little workers may be paid.

That is easily circumvented.

What do you think zero hour contracts are for?

Supply teachers, NHS staff on the bank, anyone else that wants a zero
hours contract and some other people where the work is not available all
the time and where the job wouldn't exist if they had to pay someone a
fixed number of hours.

The 'minimum wage' is an hourly rate. No surprise Turnip doesn't
understand what that is.

It applies to those employed for a day - or whatever. Not just those
working normal weekly hours.

All a zero hours contract does allow the number of hours worked per week
or whatever to be varied. It does not effect the legal requirement to pay
the minimum hourly rate.

--
*If God dropped acid, would he see people?

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

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

There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.


There is. They don’t get to put their hand out to the state
for anything like the same level of benefits back where
they are coming from than the locals in Britain can do.

Oddly enough, some people prefer to earn their living, even when
'benefits' if not working at all might be similar.

That so many from the rancid right seem to think they'd be mad to work if
they can get benefits says more about the rancid right thinking than
anything else.



Mirror again?

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 13:56:40 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 15/06/2016 11:48, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 15/06/16 11:41, Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Jun-16 10:52 AM, Capitol wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
....
There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants
with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.


Yes, they are cheaper.

There is a legal limit on how little workers may be paid.

That is easily circumvented.

What do you think zero hour contracts are for?

Supply teachers, NHS staff on the bank, anyone else that wants a zero
hours contract and some other people where the work is not available all
the time and where the job wouldn't exist if they had to pay someone a
fixed number of hours.

The 'minimum wage' is an hourly rate. No surprise Turnip doesn't
understand what that is.

It applies to those employed for a day - or whatever. Not just those
working normal weekly hours.

All a zero hours contract does allow the number of hours worked per week
or whatever to be varied. It does not effect the legal requirement to pay
the minimum hourly rate.

But it does alter the amount a person gets paid per week which is what is importent when it comes to paying bills.

On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 17:00:55 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Monday, 13 June 2016 00:47:11 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
I'm thinking of my children, not having to compete with immigrants
from developing countries.

Then educate them. And instil in them a desire to work and succeed.

It's difficult with schools now as they keep changing the way they teach
and what,

The schools don't keep changing things. They are told to by a government
who always thinks it knows more about teaching kids than teachers.

The schools have to make the changes that is the point.


then you have a mass influx on non english speakers, so the teachers
end up having to help them more than anyone else.

If they can't speak English, no point in them being in an ordinary school..

Where are these non ordinary schools with places for them.
They don't exist.




They should be in a special language class until up to the same sort of
standard as their peers.

And poverty shouldn't exist and pain should be something only experienced in festish sex, yes we know the ideals.


I started school in the January after the september I should have started in due to an asian influx in the mid 1960s. They were short of classrooms so had to build a porta classroom in teh playground.
I was then immedailty put in the lowere achivers/remedail before the end of teh year the teachers even said I should be in that class but they didnl;t have anywhere
In the early 70s there was another problem occured my school, had a large influx which resulted in 3 studetns sitting at two desks and shared two chairs we had ONE book between us Kes which we shared.
It's not easy sharing a book one between 3 having to wait unbtil everyone had finished the page before turning. It only lasted a couple of weeks and we had a chair each but only two desks all term.




Most know that unless you can get a high level of education your chances
of a job is limited because the attitute is we can get them from
overseas almost immediatley rather than having to wait for them to be
trained up.

Right. So down to employers rather than immigrants? Odd then to blame
immigrants for stealing jobs.

I'm not blaming the immigrants I'm blaming the system that gets set up to deal with them.


Odd, isn't it? The right wing little Englanders consider themselves
the master race - but can't compete for a job with ill educated
foreigners who can't even speak English. In their own country.

They can compete on a level field, but when you have lots of peole
willing to work for far less than the minium wage because even at that
level it's higher than a good wage in their country they are prepared to
live 5 to a single room.

Isn't it illegal to pay under the minimum wage?

In theory, and only for those above 21 which rarely includes school leavers.
The minium wage there is £.30 for an appretnice for others it;'s a little higher. So all you have to do is say your employee is an apprentice.

government to blame for not enforcing their own legislation and employers
for taking the easiest route. But let's just blame the EU instead.

Who is the EU ?
Why are people leaving EU countires to work in other EU countries is not a fault in the system when they feel they have to to make a living.

What happens if the EU allows all the health workers to leave a country to work in another country, is this the idea behind the EU.



Whatever your skill is there's someone in another country that's willing
to do it for less. As I said it's happened to a friend of mine and it
will continue to happen, bur not everyone can ignore it.

Isn't that simply excellent capitalism?

I thought the EU was about socialism and fair play or perhaps that only applies to the EU leaders and their friends in industry

Competition bringing down prices?

No they are maintaining prices with tarrifs isn't that the threat.

Everyone on here thinks it's a flawless system. Except, of course, when it
has a direct impact on them.

Same for any system but I'll be alright I work for the system.


--
*Procrastinate now

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

On Wednesday, 15 June 2016 00:59:31 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
80% of all the much-fabled jobs created in this country since 2010 have
gone to non-UK nationals.

In your view, all doing jobs which contribute zero to the economy, then?

A meat-processing plant in Mythyr Tydfil employs mostly Portuguese and
Brazilians. The agency supplying them is run by Portuguese and the
locals never see vacancies in the local job centre. The same happens
all across East Anglia where farm and food factory workers are employed
in large numbers.

Local employers get fed up sending details to the job centre when they
know they'll not get anyone suitable from them,

is it from the job centre or a private compnay like A4e.

by experience. More to the
point if one of the farmers who was on TV is to be believed, they give a
job to one sent from the job centre, and they don't come back the next
day. Work is too hard or too boring for them.

or what happened (as it has to friends) they ask you what sort of job you want get you to fill out the forms they ignore them and send you on the first job they find even if it's not suitabale. For every person they do that for they get about £3k. If thre person leaves than all very well they have yet another unemployed person to find a job for so thats' another £3k.

http://feweek.co.uk/2014/10/20/trial...ces-under-way/

http://feweek.co.uk/2015/04/01/ex-a4...axpayer-fraud/


There has to be a fundamental reason why poorly educated immigrants with
poor English can get and keep this sort of job so easily.

Because they won't complain if they get a low wage as they can still live on that wage because they are sharing a two bed house with 10 others.
and it;s still better than the EU place they came from so why aren't the EU spending money in their country where building is much cheaper a house for £8k ?

Reason because a lot of people are making more money from them than anyone else is.

On 15/06/2016 00:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Andrew wrote:
According to Daily Politics, our net contribution of £10 Billion is the
equivalent of a 7% tariff on our exports to the EU. However we have
imported about 3 million from mostly poorer EU countries who either
send money back home, or they start have kids here which means what
ever little tax they pay is massively outweighed by the tax-credits,
housing benefit, free education (£65,000 per child) and free NHS.

I just love the idea of free education and free NHS. Wonder who pays for
it? I'd just like to say thanks to them. Is it some massively rich
benefactor like Donald trump?

That's why the cost of the 'free' education, per child is shown in
brackets. A couple with just 2 kids would need a family income that, if
earned by one person would put them just into higher rate tax. have
move kids, or earn less (and most DO earn less) and that family is
being subsidised by other taxpayers, mostly the top 25% of
private-sector taxpayers, and still a heck of a lot of borrowing (some
£75 Billion per year) to make up the gap between tax receipts and spending.

So that means future generations of private sector taxpayers are going
to get a nasty surprise at some point.

Andrew Neil challenged Dianne Abbott on 'This Week' about 18 months ago
and she admitted that you cannot tell the voters the truth (about public
spending) because they wouldn't like it and might vote for someone else
(who is content to lie).

On 15/06/2016 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 14-Jun-16 9:29 PM, Andrew wrote:

last year the UK taxpayer paid £660 million to EU countries for providing
healthcare to retired UK nationals living in the EU. But we only
collect a tiny fraction of that amount from EU countries for th cost
of 'free' NHS care for EU nationals...

That is a failing in the NHS systems for identifying those who are not
entitled to free treatment and is nothing to do with the EU itself.



It is *everything* to do with the EU and free movement of people !!!.
British people can and do retire all over the EU and because they
receive the state pension, their host country provides them with
health care, just as they would their own citizens. But the cost
(and some!!) is charged back to the UK government.

British people who are not retired but living in the EU must or
should have medical insurance.

However, because the NHS never charges anyone up front, any health
care costs attributed to EU nationals living in the UK are
difficult to identify and charge back to their host countries.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
If they can't speak English, no point in them being in an ordinary
school.

Where are these non ordinary schools with places for them.
They don't exist.

Right. There are places for them in an ordinary class. But not possible to
group them together in a special class. Must be a lot fewer immigrant kids
around, then.

--
*Where do forest rangers go to "get away from it all?"

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

In article ,
Andrew wrote:
I just love the idea of free education and free NHS. Wonder who pays
for it? I'd just like to say thanks to them. Is it some massively rich
benefactor like Donald trump?

That's why the cost of the 'free' education, per child is shown in
brackets. A couple with just 2 kids would need a family income that, if
earned by one person would put them just into higher rate tax. have move
kids, or earn less (and most DO earn less) and that family is being
subsidised by other taxpayers, mostly the top 25% of private-sector
taxpayers, and still a heck of a lot of borrowing (some £75 Billion per
year) to make up the gap between tax receipts and spending.

Do just love this back of a fag packet accounting. No wonder you believe
the outers.

--
*Elephants are the only mammals that can't jump *

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

On 15-Jun-16 3:50 PM, Andrew wrote:
On 15/06/2016 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 14-Jun-16 9:29 PM, Andrew wrote:

last year the UK taxpayer paid £660 million to EU countries for
providing
healthcare to retired UK nationals living in the EU. But we only
collect a tiny fraction of that amount from EU countries for th cost
of 'free' NHS care for EU nationals...

That is a failing in the NHS systems for identifying those who are not
entitled to free treatment and is nothing to do with the EU itself.



It is *everything* to do with the EU and free movement of people !!!.
British people can and do retire all over the EU and because they
receive the state pension, their host country provides them with
health care, just as they would their own citizens. But the cost
(and some!!) is charged back to the UK government.

British people who are not retired but living in the EU must or
should have medical insurance.

However, because the NHS never charges anyone up front, any health
care costs attributed to EU nationals living in the UK are
difficult to identify and charge back to their host countries.

As I said, that is a failing of the NHS systems, not a fault that can be
laid at the door of the EU. We've been in the EU long enough that they
should have sorted it out by now.

--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 15-Jun-16 3:50 PM, Andrew wrote:
On 15/06/2016 09:53, Nightjar wrote:
On 14-Jun-16 9:29 PM, Andrew wrote:

last year the UK taxpayer paid £660 million to EU countries for
providing
healthcare to retired UK nationals living in the EU. But we only
collect a tiny fraction of that amount from EU countries for th cost
of 'free' NHS care for EU nationals...

That is a failing in the NHS systems for identifying those who are not
entitled to free treatment and is nothing to do with the EU itself.



It is *everything* to do with the EU and free movement of people !!!.
British people can and do retire all over the EU and because they
receive the state pension, their host country provides them with
health care, just as they would their own citizens. But the cost
(and some!!) is charged back to the UK government.

British people who are not retired but living in the EU must or
should have medical insurance.

However, because the NHS never charges anyone up front, any health
care costs attributed to EU nationals living in the UK are
difficult to identify and charge back to their host countries.

As I said, that is a failing of the NHS systems, not a fault that can be
laid at the door of the EU. We've been in the EU long enough that they
should have sorted it out by now.

They've probably worked out that the admin side would cost more that the
money raised.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On 15-Jun-16 6:36 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:
....
As I said, that is a failing of the NHS systems, not a fault that can
be laid at the door of the EU. We've been in the EU long enough that
they should have sorted it out by now.

The NHS would have to put a charging mechanism in place from top to
bottom, in order to be able to work out costs. Can you imagine them
doing that in order to charge back foreign nationals who, although
possibly a largish number, are a small number compared to the UK people
who use the NHS.


Judging from all the notices around the local hospital informing people
that they may not be eligible for free treatment, they do seem to be
trying to do something about it. As it wasn't applicable to us, I
haven't read the notices in detail, to find out exactly what.

--
--

Colin Bignell