The story on the above... https://www.standard.co.uk/news/pol...derpayment-property-hove-labour-b1245937.html
PM condemns graffiti on Angela Rayner's property in Hove Sir Keir Starmer has condemned vandalism at Angela Rayner's seaside flat in Hove after she admitted underpaying stamp duty on the property. A Downing Street spokesman said: "Some of you may have seen the photos of the vandalism of the Deputy Prime Minister's home this morning. "The Prime Minister condemns this vandalism in the strongest possible terms. "Whatever scrutiny our parliamentarians may face, it is appalling that their private homes should be targeted in this way."
Putin desperately needs China but China doesn't really care about Putin, he's probably after a loan or something. Or selling a bit or cheap oil for a cash injection, he's petrified of the economy failing.
I'm on the fence with it, happy to wait to see what evidence she provides. If what she has said in an interview is true, she should be able to prove it, and I'm not that confident she is clever enough to know about this ****. That's not saying she didn't try and evade tax, we all do if we ask the question on how to pay less. But not going to hang her just yet, metaphorically speaking.
It's because need to stop forming groups for and against in reality and come to solutions instead. What I see particularly with the use of hotels and migrants, is a lack of debate....talking and coming to solutions with communities, sometimes it only needs one or two people to get onside with something, and that can influence the mass. It's like Angela's gaff, ok, you've had your say, now back the **** off and give her space to produce the evidence for her claims. She's not the birghtest spark in the box and she's prone to being gobby, so I get it, she even gets it now, the message is clear for her, now back up what you say with material evidence.
Yep I agree, it's all become very polarised and social media feeds it, because the algorithms just show people more and more of what they already believe, whatever side you're on. And so you end up with groups of people who both think they are right, and there's no middle ground for reasonable debate. Like you say, it seems to be more about who can shout down the other, rather than 'can we come up with a solution to this together ?' For me, and I know it's not an overnight fix. But I think the time it takes to process asylum cases is what causes a lot of the problems. Also because Asylum seekers aren't allowed to work, therefore they have no income and no means to support themselves, so Govt have to put them somewhere in the meantime and because we don't have big detention centres in this country, they get put in hotels. It will cost money, but the Home Office needs to employ more people to process the claims, and I'd let Asylum seekers work. I mentioned it the other day, that there must be some permitted work schemes that the gov could set up where you don't need full UK citizenship. I think my ultimate money saving solution the other day also was to get the asylum seekers to work as home office asylum processors, two birds one stone
Disagree. We shouldn't be allowing illegal migration. In regards to illegal migrants working, they can't and shouldn't as they have no documentation with them, so they can't be security checked. Delivery drivers deliver to all sorts of people, elderly, vulnerable, young women who live alone, would you want an unchecked migrant turning up at your home, while your wife or daughter is on their own. I doubt very few of the illegals could have an adequate DBS check. It's all these little things that people forget to include in their equasions. Maybe some companies aren't carrying out the checks, fair enough but it's irresponsible if that is the case. Let alone making easy target customers identifiable for any future fraud. There was a case recently where people were identified via the phone directory, they were pinned as easy targets, because they must be old or vulnerable to have a landline still registered.
Asylum seekers aren't illegal immigrants. And that's why I mentioned that there could be some Govt sanctioned work schemes where you don't need full UK citizenship to work, so you wouldn't be putting vulnerable people at risk. Imo it would drastically reduce the need to house people in hotels and give them benefits, whilst it takes upwards of a year to process their claims.
You are putting people at risk, which just goes to show you don't know what you are talking about. If you don't know who someone is you can't check them, until their claim is processed, and creating government works schemes, costs time and money, neither of which we have in regards to them. And yes they are illegal in my eyes, even if you don't see it that way - if you came across the channel on a dinghy sponsored by criminal gangs, you are illegal., you had plenty of safe countries before you came to us.
By definition of the law, somebody seeking Asylum isn't illegal. Also, you could have work schemes where people don't work with the public, so something like factory work, agriculture, roads infrastructure etc. In a lot of countries, Asylum seekers work, and pay their own way whilst they are awaiting their case to be settled. Surely that has to be cheaper than sticking people in hotels on benefits for up to 2 years at a time
You should have made it clearer sooner what sort of work you meant. Although you need to remember we've not long done away with cheap labour, ie farmworkers and lorry drivers that we exploited in the past. Although I can see benefit from it, it's how you prevent that benefit from becoming exploitation once again. All these ideas are great in theory, but when it actually comes to the practise I er on the side of caution. But yeah I think I could see it working in somewhere like Thanet Earth. So you need land to set up prefabs somewhere between Dover and Thanet, and then transportation (coaches) for work.....I'm coming round to the idea....
I think various European countries have their own rules on what type of work the permit for Asylum seekers to do and how longer after they've made their claim it is before they are allowed to work. Take the point about cheap labour, but if it's managed properly, then you could reasonably expect minimum wage. And yep, you don't want undocumented people working in care homes, hospitals or other areas where they will be exposed to vulnerable people. But it's doesn't seem like an insurmountable problem to arrange work in groups in factories, agriculture etc under supervision. I just see it taking away a massive problem that seems to get some folk steaming out of their ears about migrants being put up in Hotels at taxpayer expense (and to the huge profit of individual hotel owners) and being given benefits, whilst we have a massive backlog of Asylum claims to process.
Speculation from me but I wonder if the vandals if given the chance avoid paying for things? TV licence, buying dodgy sticks and things like that. It doesn't excuse her if she's in the wrong but it just highlights once again the hypocrisy of large groups who are out there making a noise right now.
