But when it comes to young rape victims.

The hashtag and exclamation mark make that look like the use of irony to me. I might be wrong because I haven't seen the whole series of tweets but I think Naz Shah might have been liking somebody who was mocking somebody else who suggested the abused girls should shut up.

ALL politicians are hypocrites, it goes with the territory.
How do you 90% disapprove of Shah?

Yes a clearly ironic ‘like’ but it sums up the toxic mess that is British politics that desperate Tories will try and jump all over something like that. Pathetic stuff. The worst thing is as Snowy alludes to they are all just about as bad as each other I can only see things getting worse. This is now the worst government in living memory though.

As for ‘young rape victims’ the clown who is about to be installed as our Prime Minister said recently (not liked a Tweet, actually said it and meant it) that Police were ‘spaffing’ money up the wall investigating historic sex abuse claims. I mean you can’t really get any more odious than that. It makes you wonder if he is worried about skeletons in his closet....

And for what it's worth, 90% of Labour members recognise Shah as a bad egg.[/quote]
ALL politicians are hypocrites, it goes with the territory.
How do you 90% disapprove of Shah?[/quote]
have less and less time for all politicians of all parties as each year passes. if they tell me i should do one thing i,d do the opposite as i,d have more chance of getting it right. once people discribed em as having more faces than town hall clocks. now the town hall clock would need at least ten faces with an extension about to be built.

So that's why he didn't want his lass touching his laptop...

Is it bollox.

Brown’s shambles were even worse than this shower of shite.

And Callaghan’s lot were worse still.

It is like. Even Brown (cringe) is better than this lot!!!!
Callaghan??? You'll have been about 6!!!!
It's actually scary at the moment....Trump in one house and Johnson could be in the other....no wonder the World hates both nations.

It’s interesting that the massive hand ringing and petitions going on about the free TV Licence was something that Gordon Brown brought in.

Brown was a fairly awful Prime Minister but I don’t remember the country being in the absolute mess it is now. Without even mentioning the Brexit disaster which all this governments doing, from the idiotic referendum itself which was about party politics without for a second contemplating the unthinkable would actually happen.

Lack of basic services, homeless people numbers going through the roof and dying in the streets, knife crime and violence soaring and less police to deal with it, more people living in abject poverty relying on food banks to eat. Appalling scandals like Grenfell Tower and Windrush. This lot are vile on just about every level and have failed the people of the country in just about every level, them creating the Brexit abomination is actually a distraction that’s took the focus away from the multitude of failings. Never have we been represented by people so detached from real people who would rather put self interest ahead of what is best for the country. The fact someone like Boris Johnson is anywhere near Downing Street speaks more than any amount of words. The only people trying to defend them are those with political allegiances and loyalty towards the Tories and they aren’t really saying much because they can’t and deep down know that.

The country has never been so toxic and so divided in my lifetime this government are a disgrace.

I was there and conscious during Callaghan’s time, it was shit, but that said he had powerful unions and political fruitcakes snapping at his ankles so I wouldn’t blame him personally,

I grew up in the 2000s and you're so right. Seeing and hearing kids talk about foodbanks, kids in some towns getting rickets, when I was a kid I didn't know what that term meant, and I'm very sure Billingham didn't even have a foodbank back then.

Not saying Blair and Brown were good, but even they ran it better than the current lot now.

Not saying Blair and Brown were good, but even they ran it better than the current lot now.[/quote]
it certainly shows how bad this lot have become when that is right. the other issues that others have mentioned hardly get a mention nowadays as its all about brexit and hardly anything else. poverty will not go away when this issue is resolved one way or another and this and crime have been shoved well under the sofa due to it. being the cynic i am i wonder if all this brexit talk have taken some peoples eyes off really big issues.

Blair, and even more so Brown, quietly fked the country up in many ways.

Population explosion cos they’ll vote for us? Yes please says Blair, everyone welcome, don’t worry about the strain on public services and infrastructure.

And wasn’t it Brown who presided over the biggest economic crash for decades? Just after he’d flogged all the gold off cheap to fund his vote buying policies?

All politicians are shite hawks. This government is dog shit. But to pretend that the previous few were any good is one-eyed propaganda at its best.

Mr Phil, if we’ve moved on to making shit up then the moon is made of cheese and Gary Coxall had Pools best interests at heart but just made a couple of little mistakes.

I wouldn’t try to argue that any of them are any good, I would take a lot of persuasion to change my mind about the last three years especially being the worst in living memory. They haven’t served anyone except from themselves. Even now the Tories are voting for what’s best for party not the country. Hopefully this finishes them forever.

People ARE living longer, but equally the fact that net UK immigration over emigration started to rise as soon as Blair won the 1997 General Election and has been running at 200,000-300,000 a year since 2004 has definitely had an impact! These are official government statistics, they make the news once a year every time they are released, surely you can't not have noticed?

Ripper is wrong to lay this solely at the door of New Labour because nothing much has changed since the 2010 election. Net immigration was 282,000 last year. By all means argue that immigration is good for the country, but pretending it hasn't had an impact on population growth is the purest bollocks.

It's even more maddening that public services are even worse. As immigrants contribute more net worth than they take out, public services should have seen a boost because of this.

Instead that money has disappeared somewhere.

Like paying off debt that those who cannot be criticised racked up?

How much debt has been paid off?

How much interest has been paid?

You tell me, you have asserted the money has gone to paying off debt. Please back this up with facts. Not block capital facts though.

Saved you both a job:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governme ... cember2018

Assuming you wanted to read all that, which is possibly unlikely, but it's the only way to get away from what one or other party says 'the facts' are.

Successive governments of all persuasions have been building up the National Debt for yonks. When the current shower say they are 'reducing the deficit' what they really mean is that they are borrowing less than they used to - but all borrowing adds to the total debt.

I often see this nonsense statement. It is simply untrue.

Immigrants are typically in low paid jobs so don't pay much tax at all. Those that are married also claim working families tax credits which makes it even worse.

I also pull my hair out when I hear about immigrants not being the cause of NHS pressures and housing shortlists. Sorry but to deny this is just plain stupid. The NHS catering for an extra 5 million people costs more and those people want somewhere to live which puts even more pressure on an already overstretched housing market. Would anyone like to explain why those simple case of economics and maths are not the case?

The next one will be that a lot of the NHS is staffed by immigrants. This is true to a large extend but so what? No one is saying that we should have zero immigration, the argument is that we should choose who comes in based on what they contribute and we should never have an open door. As for refugees; we should have absolutely zero unless France is suddenly taken over by a murderous dictatorship that is executing people. Bad breath is not a valid reason for fleeing a country and as for those crossing the channel, destroy the boat and drop them off back on a French beach.

Delightful.

We shouldn’t have zero refugees, the burden should shared more equally and Countries like France need to take some responsibility and start treating them like people. Countries like Turkey need more help though and the people effected need more help. If that happens you might have less absolutely desperate to get over the Channel in first place. Stop demonising people who just want to be safe and have half a chance in life.

Great deflection by the way away from the current mess created by this abhorrent government!!

The thing with immigrants is that they weren't born here and mostly not educated here. Therefore they have bugger all to pay back into the system like born and bred people. They are a ready-made labour force.

The fact that they are earning a low wage makes them more economically productive than if they were highly paid.

Working tax credits are indeed a piss-take - in effect we are all subsidising the employers for providing a sub-standard wage. For big employers like Tesco I dread to think how many millions of pounds a month this equates to.

As for housing, it has been the tactic of successive governments to make sure supply doesn't meet demand. Rising house prices seem to be the only thing driving our economy.

for the majority of the country its just another 21st. century con.

I love the way people bump their gums about freedom of movement and are for allowing anybody and everybody to walk in and out of the country as and when they please and yet when you ask them if they are willing to take these people into their own homes to house, clothe and feed them, you get the usual blank look.
It's wonderful as long as someone else takes the responsibility.
Sheer hypocracy.
We can't house, feed, educate, keep healthy etc etc etc what we have already got so how does having open doors alleviate the problem??
We need to ditch idealism and replace it with realism.
Mind you if ever Corbyn et al get their way nobody will want to come here, except those who want a free meal ticket from the state, as the wealth creators will have long gone.
Like in most situations there has to be control and the only place where Utopia is present is in a novel.

Who is advocating open doors? The door isn’t open that why they are risking life and limb to open it.

Nearly 7 million people have been displaced from Syria alone so these people exist and for me the only way the situation is manageable is if we work together and share the burden. Turkey is at pretty much breaking point, I don’t think we even in top five of countries for housing refugees to say we shouldn’t have any is wrong. If the situation is dealt with better and collectively across Europe you might see a situation were people are sneaking onto lorries or trying to cross large bodies of water on rubber dinghies, which has resulted in many deaths including young children are not as common. What do you suggest we just close our doors and bury our heads in the sand because it’s not our problem?

Come on Mr Derwent, you're usually argue sensibly even if I don't always agree with you. That point about having people in your house is ridiculous though.

I'm an immigrant and I moved expecting to work, get my own house, pay taxes and so on. I certainly didn't expect some French liberal type to invite me to live in their house and feed me fois gras and champagne as proof of their liberal leanings. There is a huge gap between saying you favour freedom of movement within the EU and standing at a ferry port shouting, "All back to mine!"

You probably get a blank look when you say that because suggesting the two things are linked is a bit of an odd way of looking at things.

Who set the middle east and North Africa alight?
Resulting is displacing millions of people.
Answers on a postcard to Points of View, Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London W1A 1AA

Iraq - Bush and Blair (then Islamic State)

Libya - Cameron and Sarkozy

Syria - Bashar-al-Assad and Putin (then Islamic state)

Most of the migrants intercepted attempting to cross the English Channel by the French and British authorities claim to be Iranians fleeing from their own repressive regime.

What's your point exactly?

Any country using military force has a responsibility for the civilians hence Europe has taken these people and we have to take our share.

I suspect that when you went to France you didn't just walk in, or sneak in on the back of a lorry or pay exhorbitant amounts of money to some crooked organisation to float you there. You more than likely went through a process and probably/possibly had a job waiting for you. I am in favour of immigration but it has to be done properly and be controlled.
If hundreds or even thousands of refugees turn up they haven't got houses or jobs to go to and probably have only the clothes they stand up in, so they need housing, clothing, medical checks, schooling for their children etc etc etc. You were not in that situation so as you have introduced the word "ridiculous", please consider your example in the same category.
Everybody says we have a moral responsibility to look after them and I agree but my point is that everybody wants it done by somebody else. My point is that I don't know anybody who has put themselves out to help these people by whatever means and my example of inviting them into our homes is a valid one. They have to be put somewhere and if not put up by volunteers, how is it to be done.
On the one hand we have a shortage of housing, use food banks, shortage of school places, NHS at breaking point, so where is the spare capacity. The authorities can't cope with what we've got but you don't mind us overloading the system with thousands more.
When I say nobody wants to take them into their homes you say that's ridiculous but you don't mind them coming into our country. Our country is a collection and extension of our homes. What you are actually saying is it is ok for them to come in as long as someone else puts themselves out to accommodate them but not you.
We need a co-ordinated plan to deal with these situations but all we've got is the majority taking the moral high ground and saying what should happen but taking no part in making it happen. That applies across the whole of so called civilised Europe.
As I said before Realism not Idealism.
I would not stand by and watch anyone starve, especially a child, so I would readily offer them a meal or even a piece of my floor to sleep on but it could only be temporary and it would be limited, because there are limits......just like there are limits to how many we can realistically accommodate.

Asylum seekers are usually housed in very poor quality accommodation in the shittiest parts of our towns and cities. Usually loads of them crammed into 1 house. They might simply be held in detention centres for weeks or months.

If they're under 18 they might be lucky and be fostered.

We do have absolutely loads of capacity, but it is not being realised because the bastads in charge of this country are continuing to cut public services to the bone. After giving tax breaks to the richest.

My plan would be to send the buggers back.

Aye we do have loads of capacity......in ordinary folks homes up and down the country......which is the point I'm trying to make but no one wants to go there because, although we all sympathise with these poor unfortunate folk and we all wring our hands at their plight, not very many of us are prepared to go the extra bit to alleviate their suffering. We all preach social justice and that's great but although we're all aware that the Government could do more, we still put these people in their hands, knowing full well what the result will be.
We're great at pontificating, as long as somebody else sorts it out. Some people think it's enough to show sympathy but will not do anything because by occupying the moral high ground we think we've done enough.
Our country is our home and if we're prepared to welcome them into our country we should be prepared to go that bit further, albeit temporarily, until a better solution can be implicated. Either that or we should shut the fuck up.
That is proper socialism and proper neighbourliness.

We have mixed up Freedom of Movement linked to being members of the single market and refugees here.

To counter a couple of the points above on freedom of movement, there is an EU directive which states that after 3 months if a person is not working or able to demonstrate their ability to self finance their life in another member state they can be removed from the member state they have travelled to. Also the Govt's own statistics published stated that EU immigrants in the UK bring a net contribution to the UK economy of £2.3k per person

Loads of people do welcome them, volunteer, teach them English, help them get education, jobs (when they are allowed to work), donate clothes and food etc. You might not see it where you live but pretty much all cities and big towns have these things co-ordinated by volunteer groups.

One thing that seems to be true for the vast majority of asylum seekers is that if they are given refugee status they are not content to sit on their arse and take handouts, they will really graft and give back

Don't give us facts and reason, we want regurgitated right wing 'news'.

A trusted Lieutenant of Corbyn likes a post by Owen Jones then later deletes it..say no more.

You got any proof of this ??

And long may immigrants to this country continue.
The only consideration I put forward is that they have to be approved by our rules, if and when we ever get the chance to make them. I accept the current situation and EU citizens are all welcome. I don't have to agree with it but I accept it. I accepted the will of the people when we went into the common market, I accepted the election of a Tory government but didn't vote for it, and I accepted the referendum result.
If there are other referenda in the future I will accept the result. I can't see the point in having them otherwise.

You got any proof of this ?? [/quote]

Just the ones I have come into contact with through work.

What Dalton's Haircut said above: there's an important distinction, here, between asylum and economic migration. The law on refugees and asylum seekers is international in scope, and our membership of the EU will do nothing to our international obligations here. When it comes to economic migration, there is no open door (for non-EU nationals, at any rate). Criteria, related to economic need, are set and applied. Then there's the EU rules. In a market with free movement of capital and services, it makes perfect (economic) sense to have free movement of people.

I disagree.

Just the ones I have come into contact with through work.[/quote]


Talking to a few colleagues at work about Asylum seekers in Britain doesn't convince me ..Anything to back this up with facts ?? Of course they'd have to be looking for work.it's drilled into them by your sorts at Calais and other ports..

Since when was someone like you bothered by facts? You strike me as the type who would see some made up shite on a right wing hate proganda site like Britain First about Muslims and share it on Facebook without a second thought.

What the fuck are you babbling on about? It’s like trying to solve a riddle reading your posts. An ignorant, racist riddle. Do you ever add anything to conversations on here worth reading?

Shame you haven't started that job you claimed you had PJ . What was that all about blagging Monkeybutt then ??


It was a bold statement he made..let him answer.

Now what are you blabbering on about you obsessive weirdo, what do you know about my job (clearly nothing ) what has it got to do with anything?

I wonder who you actually are, if I was as sad as you clearly are I'd have tried to find out at some point over the years

In most cases these people are just trying to survive literally at first and they have families to support it stands to reason that they probably are willing to graft.