"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 20:32:11 on Wed, 9 Nov 2016,
tim... remarked:
Yes, I know that we can enforce a set of minimum conditions, but
experience is that it is hard for TPTB to enforce them. IMHO it's oh
so much easier to make sure that conditions improve by taking away the
supply of workers willing to work like slaves.

Unless, of course, freeing ourselves from Brussels Red Tape allows us
to have even worse minimum conditions.

which I believe that it wont

come back in 10 years to prove me wrong

Yawn.

well it was your decision to rerun a discussion we have already had

You brought up the minimum conditions (09 Nov 17:37:54)

but you mentioned this ridiculous, unproven plan, that the Tories are going
to do away with all employee protection as soon as we leave

they are not

tim

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 08:57:25 -0000, "tim..." wrote:


"Paul Cummins" wrote in message
. uk...
In article , (Roland
Perry) wrote:

So you can't get housed faster - you need to wait at least six
months,
already live in the district and be able to bid ...

If your need is greater at the six month milestone than a local,
you'll get housed after six months, and the local sometime never,
having waited years. That's faster.

But surely your need is greater at the zero-day milestone, since you have
no housing at that stage. And. apparently can't get any, even though
locals at the zero-day stage can.


but your need is only greater as you have made yourself intentional homeless
by leaving a perfectly good house back in your home country to move
somewhere where you couldn't afford the local rate for accommodation.

if a Brit did that, intra-UK, he would be barred from getting on the list at
all.

tim

I recall this issue came up forty-odd years ago in Tower Hamlets. The Liberals (remember them?)
said, quite reasonably in my view, that local people born in the borough should be prioritised for
social housing over immigrants from Bangladesh who had left their homes there.

The Liberals were of course attacked as racists and the social housing went to the migrants. The
irony is that years later their descendants used the same argument to try to stop eastern European
migrants getting housed.

My own view is that there should be a minimum qualifying period for residency in the UK (10 years?)
to get help with housing and other benefits.

In message , at 08:57:25 on Fri, 11 Nov
2016, tim... remarked:
So you can't get housed faster - you need to wait at least six
months,
already live in the district and be able to bid ...

If your need is greater at the six month milestone than a local,
you'll get housed after six months, and the local sometime never,
having waited years. That's faster.

But surely your need is greater at the zero-day milestone, since you have
no housing at that stage. And. apparently can't get any, even though
locals at the zero-day stage can.

but your need is only greater as you have made yourself intentional
homeless by leaving a perfectly good house back in your home country to
move somewhere where you couldn't afford the local rate for
accommodation.

It's more likely that the worker had perfectly affordable accommodation,
five to portakabin in some farmer's back yard. The problems arise when
his wife and family arrive later. You are very likely to get into
trouble under the HRA if you refuse to house them if they have enough
points.

if a Brit did that, intra-UK, he would be barred from getting on the
list at all.

Perhaps for a permanent home (I don't have a cite) but the council has a
duty to temporarily house the homeless (in B&B if necessary, but if
they've got a house available they may regard that as the cheaper
solution for the local taxpayers).
--
Roland Perry

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 09:34:08 +0000
Optimist wrote:
I recall this issue came up forty-odd years ago in Tower Hamlets. The
Liberals (remember them?)
said, quite reasonably in my view, that local people born in the borough
should be prioritised for
social housing over immigrants from Bangladesh who had left their homes there.

The Liberals were of course attacked as racists and the social housing went to

I never ceases to amaze me why anyone has listened to the small minority of
loud mouthed clowns who have screamed racist or other "ist" or "ism". Hasn't
anyone in politics got the balls to tell them to go shove it?

--
Spud

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time), (Paul Cummins)
wrote:

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

(2) England has a population density of 420 per sq. km. - few
countries are more densely populated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

England is not a country. It has no international recognition from any
other countries, it has no government, it has no armed forces, ruler etc.

Yes it is. Try telling Scots that Scotland is not a country!


The United Kingdon has a population densiry of 268 per kilometre, which
makes it the 51st most populous contry.

England is the country where I live and where most of the UK's population growth is occurring.


Even if your figure were accurate, it would make England the 30 most
populated territory. After such densly populated places as South Korea,
Lebanon and Taiwan/

Then build the new cities for the burgeoning population in the underpopulated parts of the UK, such
as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland instead of concreting over the English countryside.


So no, sorry, your facts are incorrect.

Wrong.

In message , at 10:18:00
on Fri, 11 Nov 2016, Paul Cummins
remarked:
(2) England has a population density of 420 per sq. km. - few
countries are more densely populated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

England is not a country. It has no international recognition from any
other countries, it has no government, it has no armed forces, ruler etc.

The United Kingdon has a population densiry of 268 per kilometre, which
makes it the 51st most populous contry.

Even if your figure were accurate, it would make England the 30 most
populated territory. After such densly populated places as South Korea,
Lebanon and Taiwan/

So no, sorry, your facts are incorrect.

Are you suggesting all the migrant workers should be heading for Wales
and Scotland? What work is there for them there?

--
Roland Perry

On 11/11/16 08:25, Optimist wrote:
Who pays those wages and pensions for the duration of the discussions?
We continue paying as now until the date we actually leave.

Like the UK the EU does not have a pension fund therefore we will have a
liability at termination.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:44:04 +0000
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Paul Cummins)
wrote:

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

(2) England has a population density of 420 per sq. km. - few
countries are more densely populated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

England is not a country. It has no international recognition from any
other countries, it has no government, it has no armed forces, ruler etc.

Yes it is. Try telling Scots that Scotland is not a country!

He's getting confused between a country and a soveriegn state. They're not the
same thing.

Also isn't it strange how everywhere else is allowed to have its own recognised
culture and indiginous people except England?

--
Spud

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 11:13:19 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:

On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:44:04 +0000
Optimist wrote:
On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 10:18 +0000 (GMT Standard Time),
(Paul Cummins)
wrote:

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

(2) England has a population density of 420 per sq. km. - few
countries are more densely populated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England

England is not a country. It has no international recognition from any
other countries, it has no government, it has no armed forces, ruler etc.

Yes it is. Try telling Scots that Scotland is not a country!

He's getting confused between a country and a soveriegn state. They're not the
same thing.

Also isn't it strange how everywhere else is allowed to have its own recognised
culture and indiginous people except England?

England should also have its parliament and government, just as the other countries of the UK do.
The UK (union) parliament should be unicameral and much smaller, say 100 MPs. The House of Lords is
a waste of space and should be abolished.

On 10/11/2016 23:58, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Thu, 10 Nov 2016 22:33:41 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

On 09/11/2016 23:19, Optimist wrote:
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 19:47:10 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 11:42:30 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:


wrote in message
news On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 08:52:13 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



I see that you snipped the bit where I explained that that is not caused
by
the actual act of leaving but by the Remoaners not accepting the
situation,

The people who have not "accepted the situation" are the Brexiteers
who organised the Leave campaign based greatly on fear and loathing of
foreigners and who promptly buggered off and left others to clear up
the resultant mess when the vote actually went their way.

What nonsense. "Brexit" is not about "fear and loathing of foreigners" but about reverting to being
self-governing like most other countries in the world. Also the exit process is being deliberately
drawn out by the current PM who was a Remainer. Had the government started the exit process
straight away, as Cameron said he would during the campaign, we could have the whole thing sewn up
in months not years.


It takes two years, not shorter, not longer.

It could be a lot longer than two years to sort out all the
consequential matters. At the end of 2y the danger is that the UK will
out on its arse without important matters all being settled. HMG's
version as repeated (and apparently not disputed) by the Daily Diana
[http://www.express.co.uk/news/politi...-negotiations]
is "up to a decade or more of uncertainty".


For once the Dead Princess charlatans have got it right, more august
commentators reckon at least 10 years. The basics though are, once May
invokes Article 50 it is two years to exit regardless of what has or
hasn't been sorted. Won't be any quicker just because Liam says it will.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.