Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Why does it matter where someone was born? If they're a British citizen, they're a British citizen. We shouldn't exclude people for being foreign-born, like, say, Prince Philip, Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Bradley Wiggins, Cliff Richard, Chris Foome, Freddie Mercury, Emma Watson, Edward de Bono, Richard Grant, Hugo Weaving, Eddie Izzard, Paddy Ashdown, Floella Benjamin, Gyles Brandreth, etc.
Should the US deny rights to its foreign-born, like Donald Trump's third wife, Donald Trump's first wife, Donald Trump's mother, Ted Cruz, Amy Adams, etc.
There are rights and there are rights. Everyone has an equal right to a fair trial, but not everyone has any equal claim on the resources of the state.
They do if the State has accepted them as citizens. We don't distinguish between British citizens born here, born here of foreign parents and not born here. Under the law all of those are of equal value, just as it should be.
If you are British then you deserve just as much, or as little, as the next person, no matter where you or your parents were born. That is what being granted citizenship means.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Why does it matter where someone was born? If they're a British citizen, they're a British citizen. We shouldn't exclude people for being foreign-born, like, say, Prince Philip, Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Bradley Wiggins, Cliff Richard, Chris Foome, Freddie Mercury, Emma Watson, Edward de Bono, Richard Grant, Hugo Weaving, Eddie Izzard, Paddy Ashdown, Floella Benjamin, Gyles Brandreth, etc.
Should the US deny rights to its foreign-born, like Donald Trump's third wife, Donald Trump's first wife, Donald Trump's mother, Ted Cruz, Amy Adams, etc.
There are rights and there are rights. Everyone has an equal right to a fair trial, but not everyone has any equal claim on the resources of the state.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Why does it matter where someone was born? If they're a British citizen, they're a British citizen. We shouldn't exclude people for being foreign-born, like, say, Prince Philip, Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Bradley Wiggins, Cliff Richard, Chris Foome, Freddie Mercury, Emma Watson, Edward de Bono, Richard Grant, Hugo Weaving, Eddie Izzard, Paddy Ashdown, Floella Benjamin, Gyles Brandreth, etc.
Should the US deny rights to its foreign-born, like Donald Trump's third wife, Donald Trump's first wife, Donald Trump's mother, Ted Cruz, Amy Adams, etc.
There are rights and there are rights. Everyone has an equal right to a fair trial, but not everyone has any equal claim on the resources of the state.
All citizens do.
Not just citizens born in the country.
Are you opposed to all means testing?
'Means' testing should be based on income and wealth (the clue is in the name), not on where one happens to have been born.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
I note you said foreign-born, not foreign citizens.
So would you want to pressure citizens who were born abroad, such as my wife, to "self-deport"?
Or are we safe, since I was born here and we live in our own home and aren't in social housing?
Good evening
It leaves me cold at just how callous the right are, they need to be shamed for some of their divisive language
The question of your wife is simply unacceptable in any society
To be fair, William didn't mention Barty's wife.
So it's OK if he makes an exception for Barty's family ?
To be fair.
Absolutely nothing has been said that could remotely be applied to Barty's family - even the hypothetical 'fallen on hard times' family that he has had to invent in order to be offended on their behalf would only be offered an incentive that they would clearly refuse. Pity's sake.
All Bart has done is applied Reductio ad absurdum to William's suggesting.
And the thing is it is absurdum because if we replace Bart with Sandpit he has the opposite problem, stuck in Dubai (memory I may have picked the wrong gulf state) because he couldn't bring his Ukrainian partner to the UK...
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
Bessent really is away with the fairies on his attempts to fellate Trump.
Bessent: "Newspapers like the Wall Street Journal are not used to a high-functioning executive president. They are used to perhaps President Obama, who was not as economically sophisticated as President Trump." https://x.com/atrupar/status/1947319594307170460
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
The only person misprepresenting someone else's words is once again you...
Went to see the Tall Ships in Aberdeen. Was fekkin rammed. I hate rammed these days, especially when its very noisy and you can't move much faster at times than a shuffle.
I know I am on the spectrum, though obviously functioning. Was *really* struggling. And then realised that I was stimming.
Wowsers. Never done that before.
I'm glad that you came through OK. Things that don't happen very often can catch anyone out. I got a bug one day that did something to by insulin function, and I walked back home like a zombie and just said "ambulance" when my mum (for whom I was carer) opened the door. It's only ever happened once in 25 years, so it was a touch unexpected.
On "rammed", I though the Mexican Tall Ship was still in New York being repaired .
In San Diego though, there was a collision between some Drunker Yanker's fishing boat and a aircraft carrier.
He must have been quite well gone, as it was a museum ship aircraft carrier - USS Midway.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
If we prioritised social housing for people born in the local area then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about.
Most places do.
From the parish, first dibs. Then adjacent. Then wait a month. Then the next ring of parishes. Etc. wait. Etc Connections of five years or even ten are sometimes needed. Just living somewhere isn’t enough.
The way many things in local government are designed to work, surprisingly reasonable.
Feel free to absorb this and then review your assumptions.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Why does it matter where someone was born? If they're a British citizen, they're a British citizen. We shouldn't exclude people for being foreign-born, like, say, Prince Philip, Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Bradley Wiggins, Cliff Richard, Chris Foome, Freddie Mercury, Emma Watson, Edward de Bono, Richard Grant, Hugo Weaving, Eddie Izzard, Paddy Ashdown, Floella Benjamin, Gyles Brandreth, etc.
Should the US deny rights to its foreign-born, like Donald Trump's third wife, Donald Trump's first wife, Donald Trump's mother, Ted Cruz, Amy Adams, etc.
There are rights and there are rights. Everyone has an equal right to a fair trial, but not everyone has any equal claim on the resources of the state.
All citizens do.
Not just citizens born in the country.
Are you opposed to all means testing?
'Means' testing should be based on income and wealth (the clue is in the name), not on where one happens to have been born.
Hypothetically, if you as a couple have property or some kind of financial support abroad then you're not in the same position as someone who has nowhere else to go. Should the state aim to keep you here no matter what?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The most corrupt administration in history, example 689...
Cantor Fitzerland, the company being ran by Howard Lutnick’s 2 sons, is now buying rights to tariff refunds from small companies that cannot afford to wait a year for either the courts or Trump himself to overrule these tariffs.
Poor people selling their hard earned money for pennies on the dollar to the son of a billionaire who literally gets to decide these policies himself.
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
The chronic lack of social housing is one of the aspects of the housing “problem” which rarely gets mentioned. It’s not “affordable housing” - this is about places to live for individuals and families for whom the housing ladder might as well be a housing mountain.
These are people who have little or nothing - if they can go into rental accommodation, housing benefit pays their rent but it’s often in the worst accommodation in the private rental market.
Yes, there are those who fight the system for something better and having spoken to Housing Officers over the years, it’s an unending tale of misery for an often forgotten group in our society.
If those in hotels like the Bell in Epping were from council waiting lists in Newham, Redbridge or Tower Hamlets and they were being fed and watered by the Government, would there be crowds outside? I suspect not but Starmer, like everyone else, is playing to the populist gallery.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
It does make you wonder why, if taking over hotels and turning them into HMOs is the only way forward for immigrants, the same could not be done for those who are homeless.
As in those living in grotesquely shitty accommodation, and close to sleeping on the streets.
In the old days, there was a class of hotels that was essentially solely for the homeless. Presumably they simply doesn't exist any more?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Why does it matter where someone was born? If they're a British citizen, they're a British citizen. We shouldn't exclude people for being foreign-born, like, say, Prince Philip, Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Bradley Wiggins, Cliff Richard, Chris Foome, Freddie Mercury, Emma Watson, Edward de Bono, Richard Grant, Hugo Weaving, Eddie Izzard, Paddy Ashdown, Floella Benjamin, Gyles Brandreth, etc.
Should the US deny rights to its foreign-born, like Donald Trump's third wife, Donald Trump's first wife, Donald Trump's mother, Ted Cruz, Amy Adams, etc.
There are rights and there are rights. Everyone has an equal right to a fair trial, but not everyone has any equal claim on the resources of the state.
All citizens do.
Not just citizens born in the country.
Are you opposed to all means testing?
'Means' testing should be based on income and wealth (the clue is in the name), not on where one happens to have been born.
Hypothetically, if you as a couple have property or some kind of financial support abroad then you're not in the same position as someone who has nowhere else to go. Should the state aim to keep you here no matter what?
You were talking about people who were not born in Britain. Now you're talking about people who own property overseas (or some other kind of financial support). Which is it? I'm a British-born British citizen. If I buy a flat in downtown Košice, is that it? The state should then kick me out?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
It didn't seem to bother you that this was also a question.
"So it's OK if he makes an exception for Barty's family ?"
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I still don't see your issue with people being entitled to a financial incentive to return to their country of origin. Clearly those for whom it's more important to remain in the UK would stay, and that's great, and those for whom the immediate financial reward was more important would go, and that's also great in its own way.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Why does it matter where someone was born? If they're a British citizen, they're a British citizen. We shouldn't exclude people for being foreign-born, like, say, Prince Philip, Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Bradley Wiggins, Cliff Richard, Chris Foome, Freddie Mercury, Emma Watson, Edward de Bono, Richard Grant, Hugo Weaving, Eddie Izzard, Paddy Ashdown, Floella Benjamin, Gyles Brandreth, etc.
Should the US deny rights to its foreign-born, like Donald Trump's third wife, Donald Trump's first wife, Donald Trump's mother, Ted Cruz, Amy Adams, etc.
There are rights and there are rights. Everyone has an equal right to a fair trial, but not everyone has any equal claim on the resources of the state.
All citizens do.
Not just citizens born in the country.
Are you opposed to all means testing?
'Means' testing should be based on income and wealth (the clue is in the name), not on where one happens to have been born.
Hypothetically, if you as a couple have property or some kind of financial support abroad then you're not in the same position as someone who has nowhere else to go. Should the state aim to keep you here no matter what?
If you are suggesting that all British citizens who are using social housing should self deport then that is a 'courageous' position to take.
But there should be no distinction based on where they were born. If they are British citizens then they should be treated the same no matter what their place of birth. Under the law they are all British.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
If we prioritised social housing for people born in the local area then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about.
Most places do.
From the parish, first dibs. Then adjacent. Then wait a month. Then the next ring of parishes. Etc. wait. Etc Connections of five years or even ten are sometimes needed. Just living somewhere isn’t enough.
The way many things in local government are designed to work, surprisingly reasonable.
Feel free to absorb this and then review your assumptions.
Which has its own downsides- on yer bike becomes a lot harder, for a start. It highlights the very human hypocrisy at the heart of somewhereism; it sucks when Yourtown changes around you, and it sucks if newcomers price you out of living there. But trying to stop that by cutting internal migration would suck even more. People have always wanted to move away, as much and as fast as the technology allows. Whereas what most of us would really like is for everyone else to stay put and build the somewheres that we can flit around freely.
The answer to the social housing issue is mainly to have more social housing available, though.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Why does it matter where someone was born? If they're a British citizen, they're a British citizen. We shouldn't exclude people for being foreign-born, like, say, Prince Philip, Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Bradley Wiggins, Cliff Richard, Chris Foome, Freddie Mercury, Emma Watson, Edward de Bono, Richard Grant, Hugo Weaving, Eddie Izzard, Paddy Ashdown, Floella Benjamin, Gyles Brandreth, etc.
Should the US deny rights to its foreign-born, like Donald Trump's third wife, Donald Trump's first wife, Donald Trump's mother, Ted Cruz, Amy Adams, etc.
There are rights and there are rights. Everyone has an equal right to a fair trial, but not everyone has any equal claim on the resources of the state.
If citizenship doesn’t give you the same rights as everyone else then it’s worthless. You really have become an absolute weapon
The chronic lack of social housing is one of the aspects of the housing “problem” which rarely gets mentioned. It’s not “affordable housing” - this is about places to live for individuals and families for whom the housing ladder might as well be a housing mountain.
These are people who have little or nothing - if they can go into rental accommodation, housing benefit pays their rent but it’s often in the worst accommodation in the private rental market.
Yes, there are those who fight the system for something better and having spoken to Housing Officers over the years, it’s an unending tale of misery for an often forgotten group in our society.
If those in hotels like the Bell in Epping were from council waiting lists in Newham, Redbridge or Tower Hamlets and they were being fed and watered by the Government, would there be crowds outside? I suspect not but Starmer, like everyone else, is playing to the populist gallery.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
It does make you wonder why, if taking over hotels and turning them into HMOs is the only way forward for immigrants, the same could not be done for those who are homeless.
As in those living in grotesquely shitty accommodation, and close to sleeping on the streets.
In the old days, there was a class of hotels that was essentially solely for the homeless. Presumably they simply doesn't exist any more?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
[Terminator voice] "I cannot self-deport. You must help me."
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
The country would be better if we could deport nasty little Trumpets like WilliamGlenn. I expect he would feel more at home in Serbia or Russia.
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
There is a difficulty with that position when the party in question (unfortunately) has a 10 point lead in the polls.
If we followed your suggestion then there would be a massive, built in, bias towards the established parties and new and insurgent parties, even if they had overwhelming support, would not get air time.
I don't know what the answer is to this but I would suggest that, if current polling is at all accurate, then Reform deserve just as much, if not more, air time than the formal opposition.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
On the corroboration of the Trump pubetoon discussed by the WSJ, and leading to the $10bn lawsuit, the article itself says the journalists have reviewed "the letter". I had not picked that up.
The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.
I picked it up from here, which is a Meidas Touch Popok video with a dive into some of the details of the case, and some speculation:
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
The country would be better if we could deport nasty little Trumpets like WilliamGlenn. I expect he would feel more at home in Serbia or Russia.
Can't agree with you I'm afraid (unsurprisingly I suppose). I may disagree whoelheartedly with William's views on this matter but I don't think anyone should be punished for holding views that we disagree with.
Indeed I am a firm believed in the idea that we should let people like William spout as much drivel as they like as eventually the weasel words fall away and the true beliefs are revealed.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Why does it matter where someone was born? If they're a British citizen, they're a British citizen. We shouldn't exclude people for being foreign-born, like, say, Prince Philip, Boris Johnson, Joanna Lumley, Bradley Wiggins, Cliff Richard, Chris Foome, Freddie Mercury, Emma Watson, Edward de Bono, Richard Grant, Hugo Weaving, Eddie Izzard, Paddy Ashdown, Floella Benjamin, Gyles Brandreth, etc.
Should the US deny rights to its foreign-born, like Donald Trump's third wife, Donald Trump's first wife, Donald Trump's mother, Ted Cruz, Amy Adams, etc.
There are rights and there are rights. Everyone has an equal right to a fair trial, but not everyone has any equal claim on the resources of the state.
All citizens do.
Not just citizens born in the country.
Are you opposed to all means testing?
'Means' testing should be based on income and wealth (the clue is in the name), not on where one happens to have been born.
Hypothetically, if you as a couple have property or some kind of financial support abroad then you're not in the same position as someone who has nowhere else to go. Should the state aim to keep you here no matter what?
I don't think many people in social housing in this country own a property abroad.
We don't have any properties overseas. My wife moved to the country when she was 18, we met not long after that. She's given up the passport of her birth and only has a connection now to the country she chose to move to, which is where she now has a passport for as well as kids here.
But she's not a real Brit in your eyes as she wasn't born here?
All citizens here should be equal under the law. There aren't and shouldn't be two classes of citizenship, those born here and those born elsewhere.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
The country would be better if we could deport nasty little Trumpets like WilliamGlenn. I expect he would feel more at home in Serbia or Russia.
Can't agree with you I'm afraid (unsurprisingly I suppose). I may disagree whoelheartedly with William's views on this matter but I don't think anyone should be punished for holding views that we disagree with.
Indeed I am a firm believed in the idea that we should let people like William spout as much drivel as they like as eventually the weasel words fall away and the true beliefs are revealed.
Oh their true beliefs are obvious from the sheer repetitive nature of their comments...
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
On the corroboration of the Trump pubetoon discussed by the WSJ, and leading to the $10bn lawsuit, the article itself says the journalists have reviewed "the letter". I had not picked that up.
The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.
I picked it up from here, which is a Meidas Touch Popok video with a dive into some of the details of the case, and some speculation:
It's funny how much the MAGA crowd are now denying Trump has ever doodled in this manner, despite the extensive evidence of Trump doodling in this manner.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
No.
The percentage occupied by non-citizens might be, but all citizens are equal under the law.
Though your proposal was for the percentage to be zero, not to have a discussion on what the percentage is.
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
Would you disregard opinion polling in terms of how much exposure a party gets?
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
They lead every opinion poll, and won hundreds of seats at the last set of elections, which is obviously quite big news in the world of politics. I can’t understand why people are complaining, it would be ludicrous if they weren’t dominating political reports
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
[Terminator voice] "I cannot self-deport. You must help me."
So you are asking me to buy you a ticket? Which mode of transport would you pref...oh.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Given that the criteria for social housing for the past 20+ years has been based on a points system where those with the greatest need get the most points - not really.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
No.
The percentage occupied by non-citizens might be, but all citizens are equal under the law.
Though your proposal was for the percentage to be zero, not to have a discussion on what the percentage is.
It was a question, not a proposal. If the answer is that, yes, it would substanially increase the availability of social housing, then wouldn't it be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
No.
The percentage occupied by non-citizens might be, but all citizens are equal under the law.
Though your proposal was for the percentage to be zero, not to have a discussion on what the percentage is.
It was a question, not a proposal. If the answer is that, yes, it would substanially increase the availability of social housing, then wouldn't it be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea?
Nope it was your views wrapped up as a question in the hope that people wouldn't see your views for what they really are?
Thankfully most people on here have seen through the racism that creeps into your posts...
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
So which "country of origin" should my household live in?
This one, that my kids and I were born in, and that the entire household has citizenship of?
Or the one my wife was born in, that she has renounced her citizenship to, and that the kids and I have never been to?
There are plenty of blended households, which is why its absurd to ask where an individual was born. It doesn't matter.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
No.
The percentage occupied by non-citizens might be, but all citizens are equal under the law.
Though your proposal was for the percentage to be zero, not to have a discussion on what the percentage is.
It was a question, not a proposal. If the answer is that, yes, it would substanially increase the availability of social housing, then wouldn't it be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea?
If single men were not allowed in social housing, it would substantially increase the availability of social housing, but that doesn't mean it would be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea. If Jews were not allowed in social housing, it would substantially increase the availability of social housing, but that doesn't mean it would be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea. If redheads were not allowed in social housing, it would substantially increase the availability of social housing, but that doesn't mean it would be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Not once those people have been granted British citizenship. It is pointless. Because when it comes down to it you only have to go back a few generations and millions of us are from foreign born families. But our grandparents or their parents took British citizenship - hundreds of thousands of them after having fought for this country in our many wars - and we galdly granted that to them.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Not once those people have been granted British citizenship. It is pointless. Because when it comes down to it you only have to go back a few generations and millions of us are from foreign born families. But our grandparents or their parents took British citizenship - hundreds of thousands of them after having fought for this country in our many wars - and we galdly granted that to them.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
You have to prove proficiency in English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) to get British citizenship. Do you feel the test is insufficiently rigorous?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
Would you disregard opinion polling in terms of how much exposure a party gets?
I think we can come up with a formula for how much coverage the Beeb gives a party:
C = (P x Ch x Sc) + 100I - GP
Where C = coverage, P is current polling, Ch is an index of the relative charisma of the party leader, Sc = the proportion of news relating to the party involving scandal or controversy, I = incumbency in Westminster or devolved government, and G = being the Green Party or Plaid.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
[Terminator voice] "I cannot self-deport. You must help me."
So you are asking me to buy you a ticket? Which mode of transport would you pref...oh.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
[Terminator voice] "I cannot self-deport. You must help me."
So you are asking me to buy you a ticket? Which mode of transport would you pref...oh.
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
Maybe because they've led about 57 opinion polls in a row?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Not once those people have been granted British citizenship. It is pointless. Because when it comes down to it you only have to go back a few generations and millions of us are from foreign born families. But our grandparents or their parents took British citizenship - hundreds of thousands of them after having fought for this country in our many wars - and we galdly granted that to them.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
You have to prove proficiency in English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) to get British citizenship. Do you feel the test is insufficiently rigorous?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
No.
The percentage occupied by non-citizens might be, but all citizens are equal under the law.
Though your proposal was for the percentage to be zero, not to have a discussion on what the percentage is.
It was a question, not a proposal. If the answer is that, yes, it would substanially increase the availability of social housing, then wouldn't it be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea?
If single men were not allowed in social housing, it would substantially increase the availability of social housing, but that doesn't mean it would be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea. If Jews were not allowed in social housing, it would substantially increase the availability of social housing, but that doesn't mean it would be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea. If redheads were not allowed in social housing, it would substantially increase the availability of social housing, but that doesn't mean it would be worth seeing whether policies designed to reduce the number (not to zero) might be a good idea.
In the first of your examples, maybe a place where young men could go when they're short on their dough would be prefererable. I'm sure they would find many ways to have a good time in such an establishment.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a comment you are willing to protect.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
I didn't care much either way about the original question - a fairly standard piece of William Glennery I thought.
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
The strongest argument against it from my perspective, but one that some will doubtless dismiss as woke snowflakery, is that such a policy would stigmatise foreign born citizens, make them feel second class and unwanted, and encourage nationalist thugs to ram that feeling down their throats at every opportunity.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Not once those people have been granted British citizenship. It is pointless. Because when it comes down to it you only have to go back a few generations and millions of us are from foreign born families. But our grandparents or their parents took British citizenship - hundreds of thousands of them after having fought for this country in our many wars - and we galdly granted that to them.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
On your last paragraph, I helped a Brazilian friend (through coaching) to get through the UK citizenship test - they get long lists of sample questions on British culture, institutions etc. I was actually surprised at how challenging it was, and embarrassed that I didn't know all the answers.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Not once those people have been granted British citizenship. It is pointless. Because when it comes down to it you only have to go back a few generations and millions of us are from foreign born families. But our grandparents or their parents took British citizenship - hundreds of thousands of them after having fought for this country in our many wars - and we galdly granted that to them.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
You have to prove proficiency in English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) to get British citizenship. Do you feel the test is insufficiently rigorous?
Yes. If I am being brutally honest.
If you want to gain Norwegian citizenship then you need to take 300 hours of compulsory taught face to face lessons in Norwegian language and culture and then pass exams at the end. Norway has one of the highest proportions of immigrants in the Western world and yet they are also the most integrated. They also pursue settlement policies which prevent the creation of ethnic ghettos. I think we should move much more in that direction.
But I do emphasise that this is not an argument for treating anyone who is already here with British citizenship as anything less than fully British. They have no control over what the Government of the day asks for to obtain citizenship and so should not be penalised for that.
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
They lead every opinion poll, and won hundreds of seats at the last set of elections, which is obviously quite big news in the world of politics. I can’t understand why people are complaining, it would be ludicrous if they weren’t dominating political reports
They were also dominating the reports when they had zero MP's and zero councillors. I think that's the ongoing problematic picture. It's just not a good look. If "Radical Trotskyites For the Abolition of Felt" in the same situation were being invited onto every other episode of Question Time, or the Today programme - then I'd be equally annoyed.
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
Would you disregard opinion polling in terms of how much exposure a party gets?
BBC guidelines:
"Deciding respective levels of coverage for different political parties, who have varying levels of political support, requires – primarily – good and impartial editorial judgement, rather than mathematical formulae . Evidence of past electoral support and of current electoral support should be taken into account in making judgements about appropriate levels of coverage and prominence."
Past electoral support for Reform: next to zero.
"impartial editorial judgement" does not mean "get mini-Trump Nigel on as much as we can because we have some deluded fantasy that he makes us seem relevant to anyone who doesn't go to North London dinner parties and we are desperate for that as the licence fee is under threat"
On topic, the voters hate freedom. This is the most important fundamental essential core fact about British politics.
Did you stop posting for a while? Glad you're back.
Thanks. I didn't consciously stop but I'm mainly on Bluesky nowadays. Aside from that I've been learning Chinese so I've been trying to make my internet as Chinese-language as I can. So if everybody could do their posting in Chinese from now on that would help, thanks in advance.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
“With this latest order, the area of Gaza under displacement orders or within Israeli-militarised zones has risen to 87.8%, leaving 2.1 million civilians squeezed into a fragmented 12% of the strip, where essential services have collapsed,” the UN said..
On topic, the voters hate freedom. This is the most important fundamental essential core fact about British politics.
Did you stop posting for a while? Glad you're back.
Thanks. I didn't consciously stop but I'm mainly on Bluesky nowadays. Aside from that I've been learning Chinese so I've been trying to make my internet as Chinese-language as I can. So if everybody could do their posting in Chinese from now on that would help, thanks in advance.
On topic, the voters hate freedom. This is the most important fundamental essential core fact about British politics.
Did you stop posting for a while? Glad you're back.
Thanks. I didn't consciously stop but I'm mainly on Bluesky nowadays. Aside from that I've been learning Chinese so I've been trying to make my internet as Chinese-language as I can. So if everybody could do their posting in Chinese from now on that would help, thanks in advance.
You've probably missed the news that Bluesky is dead, then.
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
They lead every opinion poll, and won hundreds of seats at the last set of elections, which is obviously quite big news in the world of politics. I can’t understand why people are complaining, it would be ludicrous if they weren’t dominating political reports
They were also dominating the reports when they had zero MP's and zero councillors. I think that's the ongoing problematic picture. It's just not a good look. If "Radical Trotskyites For the Abolition of Felt" in the same situation were being invited onto every other episode of Question Time, or the Today programme - then I'd be equally annoyed.
I don’t think they were dominating the reports before the GE. But it’s fair enough that they are dominating political new shows now .The fact the same bloke is on most of them is because there aren’t many Reform politicians, and Farage is probably the most charismatic/news worthy of all MPs.
Why shouldn’t the party you cite be on every QT or Today programme if they were leading the polls and winning most of the current elections? If anything, the number of seats won by Farage parties has misrepresented how popular they are in the country in terms of votes for about a decade. Why should the electoral system’s bugs carry over to news coverage?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
Would you disregard opinion polling in terms of how much exposure a party gets?
BBC guidelines:
"Deciding respective levels of coverage for different political parties, who have varying levels of political support, requires – primarily – good and impartial editorial judgement, rather than mathematical formulae . Evidence of past electoral support and of current electoral support should be taken into account in making judgements about appropriate levels of coverage and prominence."
Past electoral support for Reform: next to zero.
"impartial editorial judgement" does not mean "get mini-Trump Nigel on as much as we can because we have some deluded fantasy that he makes us seem relevant to anyone who doesn't go to North London dinner parties and we are desperate for that as the licence fee is under threat"
Plenty of evidence if current electoral support though.
I get people despise Reform and Farage. Me too. But they are the political story right now, and not just because the BBC talks to them quite a lot.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
If we prioritised social housing for people born in the local area then you wouldn’t have anything to worry about.
Most places do.
From the parish, first dibs. Then adjacent. Then wait a month. Then the next ring of parishes. Etc. wait. Etc Connections of five years or even ten are sometimes needed. Just living somewhere isn’t enough.
The way many things in local government are designed to work, surprisingly reasonable.
Feel free to absorb this and then review your assumptions.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Not once those people have been granted British citizenship. It is pointless. Because when it comes down to it you only have to go back a few generations and millions of us are from foreign born families. But our grandparents or their parents took British citizenship - hundreds of thousands of them after having fought for this country in our many wars - and we galdly granted that to them.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
On your last paragraph, I helped a Brazilian friend (through coaching) to get through the UK citizenship test - they get long lists of sample questions on British culture, institutions etc. I was actually surprised at how challenging it was, and embarrassed that I didn't know all the answers.
I have sponsored/refereed two colleagues - one Vietnamese and one Venezuelan - along with their families to become British citizens. Their English was excellent, probably unsurprising given the industry they work in. But at the same time I have Pakistani friends with mothers who have been here for decades and who still speak little or no English. Just from a perspective of isolation I think that is an issue. There is certanly a cultural issue there (related to the way some cultures regard women) which needs to be addressed.
The most corrupt administration in history, example 689...
Cantor Fitzerland, the company being ran by Howard Lutnick’s 2 sons, is now buying rights to tariff refunds from small companies that cannot afford to wait a year for either the courts or Trump himself to overrule these tariffs.
Poor people selling their hard earned money for pennies on the dollar to the son of a billionaire who literally gets to decide these policies himself.
On topic, the voters hate freedom. This is the most important fundamental essential core fact about British politics.
Yes. It's striking from the poll that the proposal has >50% support from the supporters of all four of the largest parties. Although the Tories stick out a bit (presumably because of their geriatric vote), it is the consistency of the support that is most notable.
On topic, the voters hate freedom. This is the most important fundamental essential core fact about British politics.
Did you stop posting for a while? Glad you're back.
Thanks. I didn't consciously stop but I'm mainly on Bluesky nowadays. Aside from that I've been learning Chinese so I've been trying to make my internet as Chinese-language as I can. So if everybody could do their posting in Chinese from now on that would help, thanks in advance.
日本語だけでは物足りなかったの？中国語も勉強しなきゃいけなかったの？マゾヒストなの？
话说，你难道不能让你的浏览器把所有东西都翻译成中文吗？我敢打赌，北京的军事情报人员肯定已经知道了。
That first sentence is in Japanese... and indeed begins "The Japanese language..." Oh, and the second sentence begins "The Chinese language..."
But that second sentence is probably some sort of Chinese?
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Not once those people have been granted British citizenship. It is pointless. Because when it comes down to it you only have to go back a few generations and millions of us are from foreign born families. But our grandparents or their parents took British citizenship - hundreds of thousands of them after having fought for this country in our many wars - and we galdly granted that to them.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
You have to prove proficiency in English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) to get British citizenship. Do you feel the test is insufficiently rigorous?
Yes. If I am being brutally honest.
If you want to gain Norwegian citizenship then you need to take 300 hours of compulsory taught face to face lessons in Norwegian language and culture and then pass exams at the end. Norway has one of the highest proportions of immigrants in the Western world and yet they are also the most integrated. They also pursue settlement policies which prevent the creation of ethnic ghettos. I think we should move much more in that direction.
But I do emphasise that this is not an argument for treating anyone who is already here with British citizenship as anything less than fully British. They have no control over what the Government of the day asks for to obtain citizenship and so should not be penalised for that.
I don't think we have that big of a problem of people not speaking English.
The ghetto issue is probably the better one we could learn from.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
Have you ever written an apparently witty article about being abroad though? That is the real test of whether you are deserving of housing.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
I was born abroad.
Have you ever written an apparently witty article about being abroad though? That is the real test of whether you are deserving of housing.
I could squat in Leon's flat while he's away? I dunno.
This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks (in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks (in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks (in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
The most corrupt administration in history, example 689...
Cantor Fitzerland, the company being ran by Howard Lutnick’s 2 sons, is now buying rights to tariff refunds from small companies that cannot afford to wait a year for either the courts or Trump himself to overrule these tariffs.
Poor people selling their hard earned money for pennies on the dollar to the son of a billionaire who literally gets to decide these policies himself.
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
Not once those people have been granted British citizenship. It is pointless. Because when it comes down to it you only have to go back a few generations and millions of us are from foreign born families. But our grandparents or their parents took British citizenship - hundreds of thousands of them after having fought for this country in our many wars - and we galdly granted that to them.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
You have to prove proficiency in English (or Welsh or Scottish Gaelic) to get British citizenship. Do you feel the test is insufficiently rigorous?
Yes. If I am being brutally honest.
If you want to gain Norwegian citizenship then you need to take 300 hours of compulsory taught face to face lessons in Norwegian language and culture and then pass exams at the end. Norway has one of the highest proportions of immigrants in the Western world and yet they are also the most integrated. They also pursue settlement policies which prevent the creation of ethnic ghettos. I think we should move much more in that direction.
But I do emphasise that this is not an argument for treating anyone who is already here with British citizenship as anything less than fully British. They have no control over what the Government of the day asks for to obtain citizenship and so should not be penalised for that.
I don't think we have that big of a problem of people not speaking English.
The ghetto issue is probably the better one we could learn from.
It is language and culture. The latter is just as important.
This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks (in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
Interesting.
Why is it interesting? Leon is always spewing far right conspiracy theories with no evidence (beyond mysterious friends). This tells us that Leon is far right. It doesn't tell us much about the reality outside his head.
This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks (in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
Perhaps he should write an article?
He has. Written several
I’d link to them but I don’t want to expose him as a drinking partner! Certainly not without his permission
Even if every illegal immigrant were deported tomorrow, we would still have a huge problem with homeless people.
How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?
Are you advocating the deportation, re-migration or voluntary repatriation (I’ll leave you to choose your preferred jargon or terminology) of non-British born people in general or just those who have been given permission to stay and are in social housing?
I think the incentive structure should make it more attractive for people in that position who are a net fiscal drain to self-deport than it does at present.
Carefully worded response. There are repatriation schemes in some countries where they offer foreign born nationals money to, as you say, self-deport.
Should we, for example, offer someone who has arrived here legally money to go “home” and, if so, how much? Should we offer a Sri Lankan Tamil and his family who have come here and are living in East Ham, for example, £50,000 to go back to Sri Lanka and renounce all future claim to UK residency?
It’s a fiscal calculation. I don’t know if that policy itself would be a good idea but you have to admit that it would make a meaningful difference to the availability of social housing if you subtracted foreign-born occupants.
If we were in a position where we needed social housing, would you want my wife to 'self-deport' by herself? Or should I go with her? What about our children, born in this country and only carrying this country's passport? Can they stay or do they need to go to a country they've never been to, that their mother was born in?
This is rather ridiculous. As you admit William's policy wouldn't even apply to someone in your wife's position anyway!
Stop feigning some sort of affront - it's worse than an SNP supporter.
Only because we own our own home, so don't need social housing, not because he views her equally to anyone else who is a citizen of this country like she is. If we were to fall on hard times and need social housing, she shouldn't be eligible based on his proposals.
She would be eligible, and she would also be eligible for an incentive which she would not take due to her not wanting to. So I don't see the issue.
He wanted "every foreign-born occupant of social housing" to "self-deport".
Not just non-citizen occupants. No, every one of them.
You don't see an issue with that?
She's a British citizen, who has given up the passport of the country she was born in, and raises her children here. As is the case with plenty of other people just like her, many of whom yes do live in social housing, but william suggests "every" one of them should "self-deport".
I never see the point in misrepresenting someone's words in this way - you do realise we can read what he actually said?
No one has misrepresented them.
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
I have never claimed the word 'every' wasn't used.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
The fact is that William is happily channeling Enoch Powell and you are defending him.
Sorry but that's a weaselly statement in itself. I am sticking to what has actually been said, not who people are alledgedly 'channelling'.
So it's the question mark in "How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?" that makes it a question and gives you (and William) your pretend we're not racists get out clause...
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
Is the percentage of social housing occupied by foreign-born people not a worthy topic of discussion?
More importantly, nobody born abroad should get social housing in zone 1 of London. It is utterly absurd that large Somalian families can waltz into £3m townhouses that native Brits can only dream of, in their wildest dreams
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
Would you disregard opinion polling in terms of how much exposure a party gets?
No. But it is one factor.
The BBC own guidelines say this. Another major factor is existing electoral support.
So if Farage wins Wales next year and another ton of council seats then he can demonstrate more of that and should get more coverage.
This is pure coincidence - I insist - but today I had drinks (in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
Interesting.
Why is it interesting? Leon is always spewing far right conspiracy theories with no evidence (beyond mysterious friends). This tells us that Leon is far right. It doesn't tell us much about the reality outside his head.
Comments
If you are British then you deserve just as much, or as little, as the next person, no matter where you or your parents were born. That is what being granted citizenship means.
And the thing is it is absurdum because if we replace Bart with Sandpit he has the opposite problem, stuck in Dubai (memory I may have picked the wrong gulf state) because he couldn't bring his Ukrainian partner to the UK...
He said
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Note the use of the word 'every' that you claim was not used.
I suggest you learn to read before criticising others
Bessent: "Newspapers like the Wall Street Journal are not used to a high-functioning executive president. They are used to perhaps President Obama, who was not as economically sophisticated as President Trump."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1947319594307170460
https://x.com/GreekAnalyst/status/1947251118909604014
On "rammed", I though the Mexican Tall Ship was still in New York being repaired
In San Diego though, there was a collision between some Drunker Yanker's fishing boat and a aircraft carrier.
He must have been quite well gone, as it was a museum ship aircraft carrier - USS Midway.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e3Tog3qcdY
From the parish, first dibs.
Then adjacent.
Then wait a month.
Then the next ring of parishes. Etc. wait. Etc
Connections of five years or even ten are sometimes needed. Just living somewhere isn’t enough.
The way many things in local government are designed to work, surprisingly reasonable.
Feel free to absorb this and then review your assumptions.
"How about every foreign-born occupant of social housing?"
Is a question, not a recommendation. You may find William's words weaselly, but let's stick to facts.
Cantor Fitzerland, the company being ran by Howard Lutnick’s 2 sons, is now buying rights to tariff refunds from small companies that cannot afford to wait a year for either the courts or Trump himself to overrule these tariffs.
Poor people selling their hard earned money for pennies on the dollar to the son of a billionaire who literally gets to decide these policies himself.
How much more obvious can they make it for you all?
https://x.com/SpencerHakimian/status/1947380186942742748
Chris Mason introduces the BBC news package on Farage and crime (only 14 mins into the news) by saying it is worth reflecting on how extraordinary it is that there is so much interest in the new policy of a party with four MPs.
That's right Chris it is f£cking extraordinary and your bosses and your channel are a massive part of the problem. Sunday he gets set piece with Laura K. Monday night he gets 5 mins of bbc news.
Stop platforming the guy over the other minor parties. He wont thank you and in the end he will merely close you down just as his lodestar Trump plans to do in America.
"So it's OK if he makes an exception for Barty's family ?"
Which, weaselly or otherwise, you didn't answer.
But there should be no distinction based on where they were born. If they are British citizens then they should be treated the same no matter what their place of birth. Under the law they are all British.
The answer to the social housing issue is mainly to have more social housing available, though.
If we followed your suggestion then there would be a massive, built in, bias towards the established parties and new and insurgent parties, even if they had overwhelming support, would not get air time.
I don't know what the answer is to this but I would suggest that, if current polling is at all accurate, then Reform deserve just as much, if not more, air time than the formal opposition.
Which tells the rest of us that you fully agree with the statement but love any get out clause you can find to avoid revealing your inner Enoch..
The letter bearing Trump’s name, which was reviewed by the Journal, is bawdy—like others in the album. It contains several lines of typewritten text framed by the outline of a naked woman, which appears to be hand-drawn with a heavy marker. A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.
I picked it up from here, which is a Meidas Touch Popok video with a dive into some of the details of the case, and some speculation:
https://youtu.be/_RAfnJwu_Bs?t=514
Indeed I am a firm believed in the idea that we should let people like William spout as much drivel as they like as eventually the weasel words fall away and the true beliefs are revealed.
We don't have any properties overseas. My wife moved to the country when she was 18, we met not long after that. She's given up the passport of her birth and only has a connection now to the country she chose to move to, which is where she now has a passport for as well as kids here.
But she's not a real Brit in your eyes as she wasn't born here?
All citizens here should be equal under the law. There aren't and shouldn't be two classes of citizenship, those born here and those born elsewhere.
The percentage occupied by non-citizens might be, but all citizens are equal under the law.
Though your proposal was for the percentage to be zero, not to have a discussion on what the percentage is.
(ducks)
I am interested in policy - and the only actual policy discussed that I am aware of is one of a financial incentive to return to the country of origin - which I am yet to read a convincing argument against, or even an opinion on, from Barty, BigG, Nigel, or yourself.
Thankfully most people on here have seen through the racism that creeps into your posts...
This one, that my kids and I were born in, and that the entire household has citizenship of?
Or the one my wife was born in, that she has renounced her citizenship to, and that the kids and I have never been to?
There are plenty of blended households, which is why its absurd to ask where an individual was born. It doesn't matter.
They are now British. That is all that matters. That gives every one of them just as many rights and responsibilities as me, you or anyone else who is British by birth.
Now as I have said many times in the past, I would certainly tighten up on the requiements to gain British citizenship - more along the lines of Norway with the need to properly learn the language and the cultures of these islands. But that is a separate argument. If people show long term commitment to this country by taking citizenship then we should treat them as equals in all matters.
C = (P x Ch x Sc) + 100I - GP
Where C = coverage, P is current polling, Ch is an index of the relative charisma of the party leader, Sc = the proportion of news relating to the party involving scandal or controversy, I = incumbency in Westminster or devolved government, and G = being the Green Party or Plaid.
(ducks)
(scuds)
Popularity 37%
Disliked 40%
Neutral 19%
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/explore/public_figure/Nigel_Farage
56% either popularity or neutral is a major improvement for Farage compared to the previous figures, although I can't recall the exact numbers. Maybe because they've led about 57 opinion polls in a row?
If you want to gain Norwegian citizenship then you need to take 300 hours of compulsory taught face to face lessons in Norwegian language and culture and then pass exams at the end. Norway has one of the highest proportions of immigrants in the Western world and yet they are also the most integrated. They also pursue settlement policies which prevent the creation of ethnic ghettos. I think we should move much more in that direction.
But I do emphasise that this is not an argument for treating anyone who is already here with British citizenship as anything less than fully British. They have no control over what the Government of the day asks for to obtain citizenship and so should not be penalised for that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43R9l7EkJwE
"Deciding respective levels of coverage for different political parties, who have varying levels of political support, requires – primarily – good and impartial editorial judgement, rather than mathematical formulae . Evidence of past electoral support and of current electoral support should be taken into account in making judgements about appropriate levels of coverage and prominence."
Past electoral support for Reform: next to zero.
"impartial editorial judgement" does not mean "get mini-Trump Nigel on as much as we can because we have some deluded fantasy that he makes us seem relevant to anyone who doesn't go to North London dinner parties and we are desperate for that as the licence fee is under threat"
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:nb6uhiglzowsdcbgwv2itwa7/post/3luilsio34k2o
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/21/israel-launches-air-ground-offensive-deir-al-balah-central-gaza
..The latest Israeli assault followed forced evacuation orders for between 50,000 and 80,000 people in Deir al-Balah, in the centre of the Gaza Strip, leaving almost 88% of the territory under such orders.
“With this latest order, the area of Gaza under displacement orders or within Israeli-militarised zones has risen to 87.8%, leaving 2.1 million civilians squeezed into a fragmented 12% of the strip, where essential services have collapsed,” the UN said..
话说，你难道不能让你的浏览器把所有东西都翻译成中文吗？我敢打赌，北京的军事情报人员肯定已经知道了。
「你可能唔知，Bluesky 而家基本上冇乜人用，死晒啦。」
Why shouldn’t the party you cite be on every QT or Today programme if they were leading the polls and winning most of the current elections? If anything, the number of seats won by Farage parties has misrepresented how popular they are in the country in terms of votes for about a decade. Why should the electoral system’s bugs carry over to news coverage?
I get people despise Reform and Farage. Me too. But they are the political story right now, and not just because the BBC talks to them quite a lot.
But that second sentence is probably some sort of Chinese?
The ghetto issue is probably the better one we could learn from.
"Weak password allowed hackers to sink a 158-year-old company"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx2gx28815wo
(in a rather worryingly quiet Soho) with a young journalist friend
He’s quite right wing for his age. I asked him why. He told me he was red pilled by doing court reporting in various London courts, where he realised how social housing has been captured by various ethnic groups in London Borough councils, who work as clans, and almost openly favour their own ethnicity/clan, as social housing is doled out
I’d link to them but I don’t want to expose him as a drinking partner! Certainly not without his permission
The BBC own guidelines say this. Another major factor is existing electoral support.
So if Farage wins Wales next year and another ton of council seats then he can demonstrate more of that and should get more coverage.
But at the moment...