On 30 May 2009 at 9:38am Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
This morning I was scanning though the list candidates for next Thursday's elections and my eye was caught by the surnames of the BNP candidates. Closer inspection reveals that their names do not reflect a WASP heritage. Namely,
Rait (Scottish origin)
Bailey (Scottish, French or English)
Burke (English & Irish-Norman)
Emerson (English but deriving from Germanic origins, introduced by Normans)
Mozar (Not a clue - but does not sound too "British")
Little (An ancient English name)
Lane (English, French and Irish origins)
Horne (English Scottish & Dutch origins)
McBride (Irish & Scottish orgins)
On 30 May 2009 at 2:00pm And Your Point Is? wrote:
Typical left wing scaremongering. The people are clever enough to work out the BNP for themseves, dear. If they're as nasty as you would have them, then they'll get no where. Left wing media seem to be frothing at the mouth at the thought of, God forbid, a democraticaly elected candidate they don't like. That's democracy for ya.
On 30 May 2009 at 3:19pm Toque wrote:
The BNP aren't a white anglo-saxon protestant party though. There are a British Unionist party, not an English nationalist party, and you will find that their members are fond of Celtic imagery as they are of fascist and Germanic/Anglo-Saxon symbols.
On 30 May 2009 at 4:41pm Geoff wrote:
I don't care where their names are from they are nasty devisive examples of mental illness. (no offence to other mentally ill people) Pressumably that is why even the Queen (the ultimate British symbol) has told them to F Orf.
On 30 May 2009 at 11:50pm Rozzer wrote:
The BNP are playing a smart game, keeping the lid on their nasty little world view, like a man holding in a f*rt in church. But they'll show themselves for what they are soon - the heirs of the Nazis.
On 31 May 2009 at 4:26am Wilhelm wrote:
Did I hear someone mention the war?
On 31 May 2009 at 9:07am Spinster Of This Parish wrote:
"Typical left wing scaremongering" - brilliant! LOL
On 31 May 2009 at 12:20pm Your friend In the North wrote:
Spinster, looks like you have finally reached 'Guardian Reader' status. congratulations! Any recipes for french patisserie, I have a bag of fresh organic kumquats that I need to use up.
On 31 May 2009 at 4:28pm pikelet wrote:
Second the congrats, Spinny! Kumquats? A nice smoothie, methinks, perhaps sprinkled with class warfare and PolitiKal Korrectness.
On 31 May 2009 at 5:58pm Northern Bigot wrote:
The name Farage sounds exotic? Vote UKIP! Biggest disaster ever joining this EU. They treat us with contempt yet we as a net contributor are paying for it!
On 1 Jun 2009 at 10:20am Frak wrote:
Re UKIP. What is the point in voting in someone against the EU to work with the EU? Are they just going to sit there with their fingers in their ears going lalalalala not listening?
On 1 Jun 2009 at 8:32pm Northern bigot wrote:
75% of the legislation the decisions affecting our everyday lives are now taken by the EU. We need people there who are not rubber stamps for this expensive pro French /German axis. We play by the rules and suffer!
Thanks to them we are an island without a fishing industry to speak of.
On 2 Jun 2009 at 12:49pm LTR wrote:
On 2 Jun 2009 at 2:50pm Ed Can Do wrote:
Actually, we've got a reduced fishing industry but thanks to cut backs in the amount of fish the fishermen are allowed to catch, we'll still have a reduced fishing industry for years to come, rather than having a big industry now and no fishing industry in the future thanks to barren oceans when they've pulled all the fish out.
All this crap about the EU leading to job losses because of cheaper labour really annoys me. It's not that foreign workers are cheaper, it's that they're willing to do the jobs that British workers don't want to for the money, prefering to live off enormous handouts from the benefits office.
Jogging on the EU and losing all the free trade benefits that come with it would be great if this country was anything like self-sufficient but we're not. We rely heavily on imports of pretty much everything, including these days electricity. Leaving the EU would make life far, far more expensive for normal people, the benefits of cross-border free trade in the EU far outweigh the costs of membership, otherwise we wouldn't be members. I know some of our politicians come across as a bit dense from time to time but they do occasionally know what they're doing. Leaving the EU would only be a benefit to a small percentage of the population, primarily business owners and farmers, hence the Tories' desire to get out, that's their key support demographic.
On 2 Jun 2009 at 3:19pm Rozzer wrote:
Ed Can Do wrote: 'It's not that foreign workers are cheaper, it's that they're willing to do the jobs that British workers don't want to for the money, prefering to live off enormous handouts from the benefits office.'
That's what workers being 'cheaper' means. Big business believes in 'supply and demand', with higher prices reflecting a shortage of supply. But funnily enough that doesn't seem to apply to labour - so when they can't get workers because the pay is so lousy instead of raising it they snout around for someone desperate to do the work at low pay. If you think the 'benefits office' gives 'enormous handouts' perhaps you need a spell on the dole.
On 2 Jun 2009 at 7:07pm Footloose wrote:
I must reply to the post above. Unfortunately I work with people who claim benefits and the amount that the experienced claimant can earn is obscene. They call it "the benefit trap" and, because it is so well paid, the bone-idle have no desire to return to work as their take home pay would be less than their combined benefits. A single person claiming some "disability" can scrounge an income of up to £1200 per month?
On 2 Jun 2009 at 7:48pm Rozzer wrote:
Footloose wrote: 'They call it "the benefit trap" and, because it is so well paid, the bone-idle have no desire to return to work as their take home pay would be less than their combined benefits.'
The 'benefit trap' exists because some wages are far too low. And if the people you talk about do get a job then we - the taxpayer - subsidise the employer by having the worker paid tax credits, sp perpetuating low wages but keeping the employer's profits up.
On 2 Jun 2009 at 7:51pm How so? wrote:
I am intrigued .£1200 a month? I wish.I am genuinly disabled,I must be doing something wrong!
On 2 Jun 2009 at 9:28pm Northern bigot wrote:
I love this myth about doing jobs we Brits wont do? You never see these jobs in any job centre. These Eastern Europeans get these jobs through agencies who dont care where they are from, as long as they are cheap!
If America tommorrow offered Brits a similiar offer to that on offer to the Poles here, wages 5or 10 times at least what they can get at home. Many here would go. And the American middle class like our own would be cooing over how inexpensive it was to hire foreigners to do their housework and look after their children! Vote UKIP and put Sir Andrew Green of migrationwatch uk in to sort out the mess!
On 2 Jun 2009 at 9:32pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Middle rate care + lower rate mobility DLA, topped up by income support or ESA, will give a single person a net income of around £200pw + full council tax and housing benefit (up to the local housing allowance threshold). If you're payng 600 a month rent, that's way over 1200 a month altogether.
It's not easy to "claim" a disabilty any more though. The new rules for ESA (the new benefit taking the place of incapacity benefit) are very stringent and unless you know what answers they want you can stitch yourself right up when you fill in the medical questionnaire.
Without the disability additions, you get a measly 64.50 a week, hardly enough to keep anyone in idleness and luxury.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 2:14am LTR wrote:
As it is apparently so easy to live life on benefits, and some of you are truly resentful, then the answer is simple. Give up your jobs,and live on benefits yourself. I am quite happy for you to do it, so let us know when you have, and how you are getting on.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 7:40am Footloose wrote:
Some of us value pride and dignity - we are the ones that will not be scrounging off the state
On 3 Jun 2009 at 7:57am Rozzer wrote:
Does Footloose think unemployment has gone up in every advanced industrialised country, including Britain, because millions of people have suddenly decided they'd like to be 'scroungers'?
On 3 Jun 2009 at 9:31am expat two wrote:
Footloose, tell us, of those 'experieced claimants' what proportion do you suppose are Eastern European?
Anybody else remember the fuss the racists kicked up about the Ugandan Asians Idi Amin kicked out in the '70's? Turns out they're the racial sector of UK with the lowest unemployment rates - and I've never met one that isn't a rabid Thatcherite, like Keith Vaz. But to be fair, I've only known 4 or 5.
And before anybody corrects me, I don't care what party Keith Vaz claims to represent, he's as fervent a Thatcherite as Blair.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 12:02pm LTR wrote:
I look forward to footnoted citations for Footloose's bold claims, so I can verify their accuracy.
What I do know is that there is a lot of interest at the moment in a bunch of professional people claiming benefits to which they are not morally entitled, and all of them have good well paid jobs in London..
On 3 Jun 2009 at 12:14pm How So? wrote:
Something is very wrong somewhere then.As a disabled person I had to fight for what the law says I am entitled to,even though I am visibly disabled.My experience seems worlds away from what I am hearing.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 12:33pm Ed Can Do wrote:
I think a lot of the resentment people have against benefits claimants comes from the behaviour of a small but noticable minority. I don't think anyone would begrudge money given to people with disabilities who need financial support and the level of public pensions these days is scandalously low.
However, one can't help but notice that many long term unemployed (And I'm not generalising, I mean actual people I know) seem to find the money to spend all day in the pub, have satellite tv and their kids have more toys and designer clothes than they know what to do with. I work damn hard and earn a decent wage, around the national average in fact and after I've paid my rent and bills, I'm left with about £20 for spending on non-essential stuff. I can't afford Sky, I can't afford to go to the pub more than once a week and I certainly couldn't afford to buy computer games and toys for my kids if I had any.
I know people though who'd be financially worse off if they got a job rather than claiming benefits, it's a nonsense of a system. Either the minimum wage needs to increase, meaning higher prices passed on to everyone else, or benefits need to be provided in the form of food vouchers and stuff, ensuring that parents spend the money on decent food for their kids rather than pissing it all up the wall and demonstrating that the benefits of getting of your arse and getting a job, even if it's something you don't want to do like cleaning, are actual benefits. The current system offers unemployment as a viable lifestyle option to some whereas it should offer a lifeline to those who genuinely need it.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 3:54pm Rozzer wrote:
Just to ensure there is no misunderstanding, Keith Vaz (spit) is not a Ugandan Asian. He was born in the then British colony of Aden (now Yemen) and his father came from Goa. Not that Expart two doesn't make a valid point about how hardworking the Ugandan Asians who came to this country were and are.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 4:31pm Footloose wrote:
If I were to become unemployed, I'm sure that I would be able to find a job within 24 hours if I so wished. If I can do it, I do not see why others cannot.
Are you trying to turn this into a racist post as I never mentioned Eastern European labour? But as you have asked, I imagine that very few Eastern Europeans form the "experienced claimants" as they have good work and family ethics. The problem lies with the lazy "I'm not working for that" attitude which appears to be quintessentially British.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 5:24pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I think another problem is that not all disabilities are visible ones. Mental illness, learning disability, even physical problems like chronic heart disease or the remitting/relapsing form of MS may show no outward signs whatsoever, but still render people too ill to work.
It's easy to assume that because you see these people looking apparently well in a pub, they have nothing wrong with them. People hear "disabled" and immediately think of someone in a wheelchair, or walking with crutches, when they're just as likely to have an autistic spectrum disorder or uncontrolled epilepsy.
On 3 Jun 2009 at 8:54pm Disabled through ilness. wrote:
Annette...You talk a lot of sense.
Annette for Mayor!!
On 4 Jun 2009 at 11:18am Expat Two wrote:
Sorry Rozzer, I stand corrected - I was led to understand Keith Vaz was indeed one of the Ugandan Asian diaspora, are you sure he wasn't? - the history you cite doesn't preclude it, in fact it looks like a classic Ugandan Asian background. But, just to clarify, I said UAs are thatcherites, not 'hard working', thats not the same thing.
I also apologise to Footloose - my query was raised in the context of the posts preceding yours, which you appeared to support. I don't for a second believe eastern europeans to be scroungers, quite the opposite, and I totally agree that the laziest scroungers I've ever encountered are British.
On 5 Jun 2009 at 3:10pm Rozzer wrote:
Footloose wrote: 'If I were to become unemployed, I'm sure that I would be able to find a job within 24 hours if I so wished. If I can do it, I do not see why others cannot.'
So you still believe that the millions who have lost their jobs throughout the industrialised world because of the economic crisis choose to be unemployed. There's only two words for people who think like that - economic illiterates. Have you noticed there have been regular economic crises when unemployment rose? 1880s, 1930s, 1980s, all varying in intensity but all leading to reduced demand for labour? Are you suggesting that people just decided they wanted a rest from work?