Advanced search

To think taxpayers shouldn't pay for people to learn English?

(292 Posts)
angelos02 Mon 18-Jan-16 09:09:17

£20 million to be spent on this. If you move to a country you ensure you can speak the language surely? It is being spent on female muslims not that I think this is relevant.

mummylollypop Mon 18-Jan-16 09:12:45

if it helps with intergaration maybe it will be worth it

TheCatsMeow Mon 18-Jan-16 09:13:24

YABU it's a great idea

Oysterbabe Mon 18-Jan-16 09:13:44


WeeHelena Mon 18-Jan-16 09:13:55

I think it's a small price to pay if it allows people to intigrate easier, alot of people who come here don't plan it years in advance and and most likely didn't have the means to learn English before coming over through nessecity.

maybebabybee Mon 18-Jan-16 09:13:55

It is being spent on female muslims not that I think this is relevant

Why mention it then?

A matter of opinion, however, in answer to your question, as I personally am quite happy for my taxes to go on this. My Dad, for instance, came here in the seventies as a refugee not speaking a word of English. If he'd stayed in his home country he would certainly have been killed. Would you have begrudged him English lessons, which would enable him to get a job and make a contribution to society?

Secondly, I work in DV. We see a lot of young asian females who have been moved to this country to marry. Imagine that. No family, no friends, no language, then your husband turns into a shit and you end up in a refuge. Do you begrudge these women English lessons? Really?

MissBattleaxe Mon 18-Jan-16 09:14:37

I don't think refugees and asylum seekers have access to Linguaphone courses and evening classes before escaping oppression and danger. if they speak English they can work. If they don't they can't.

sotiredofthis1 Mon 18-Jan-16 09:16:36

It is being spent on female muslims what a weird and offensive way of putting things confused. These women must come from a lot of different countries which surely is a lot more relevant than their religion?

MrsGradyOldLady Mon 18-Jan-16 09:17:28

I don't think 20 million is that much really in the grand scheme of things. And if it helps people integrate and find employment it's actually a really good investment. I think you're being very short sighted.

etttvatre Mon 18-Jan-16 09:18:57

YABVU it will benefit everyone.

CoraPirbright Mon 18-Jan-16 09:20:02

The NHS alone spends £23m on translators, let alone other public bodies/organisations so, in the long run it will save money. In France you have to speak French - they are really tough about it apparently. I think it is time we took a similar line. I don't think anyone is expecting migrants to be able to discuss nuclear physics but just ordinary stuff like talking to your childs teacher, be able to talk to your GP or passing the time of day with the cashier. It will make for a more harmonious society I think.

TheGreenTriangle Mon 18-Jan-16 09:20:21

In theory, I agree that lessons should be offered and people (both men and women) should be encouraged to take them.

Having heard Cameron on the radio this morning, what I object to is the prospect of women not being allowed to stay if their English doesn't improve.

How many people are good at languages? It is much harder to learn a new language as an adult, will we really expel people because they're not linguistically able?

Cameron dodged this question "will you repatriate women who have had children in this country, if they don't learn English?" on the radio interview hmm

angelos02 Mon 18-Jan-16 09:23:41

Why wouldn't you do everything yourself to learn the language of the country in which you live? Or are we pretending there isn't the 'cultural' reason of certain parts of society not wanting women to integrate with Western society?

scarlets Mon 18-Jan-16 09:24:04

It's money well spent. The days of monoglot immigrant women being isolated at home with no independent access to public services are over, and not before time. I think that immigrants who fail to learn basic conversational English should not be allowed to stay in the UK - for me, this is a women's rights issue as much as anything.

Hihohoho1 Mon 18-Jan-16 09:25:10

I think it's a great idea but wonder at the practicalities.

If you live with a controlling shit there's not much chance he's going to encourage his wife to learn the language or mix outside of her close community.

How are they going up target these women?

Also I think much closer scrutiny of sharia courts needs to be done to ensure women are not bring coerced or discriminated against.

Mind you let's face it all religions are mysoginistic and controlling. Not just Islam.

Really where do you start?

It's a fucking disgrace that Irish women cannot access abortions in their own country due mainly to pressure from the Catholic Church.

Cavaradossi Mon 18-Jan-16 09:25:46

Can you possibly be as boneheaded as you sound? Especially given the appallingly low level of competency in any foreign language of the average non-BME person in this country, and the enclaves of monoglot resident Brits abroad, with money, time and access to classes, books, youtube tutorials, online lessons etc, unlike many immigrants and/or asylum seekers?

Surely the absolute importance of immigrant women in particular to speak English is obvious in terms of helping them integrate in the world outside the family, and, in the case of Muslim women with children, exposing potentially radicalisable children to as many non-fundamentalist experiences and influences as possible?

SisterMoonshine Mon 18-Jan-16 09:25:55

Why shouldn't tax payers pay? We pay towards our younger citizens eduaction to be more useful members of society.

januarybrown1998 Mon 18-Jan-16 09:26:26

I think it's an excellent plan.

I hope at the same time, these women are also given access to knowledge of the laws we have that protect their rights as women and UK citizens.

I know of several who would have benefitted from such exposure. sad

SeoulSista Mon 18-Jan-16 09:26:44

I think making it easier for people to integrate is better for everyone in the Long run.

Ubik1 Mon 18-Jan-16 09:27:15

It saves the taxpayer money. Translation services cost a fortune and are in short supply.

maybebabybee Mon 18-Jan-16 09:27:25

OK, OP is clearly goady and hasn't actually responded to the reasoned, logical argument on this thread.

I'd like to know however, how you, OP, would go about learning the language without any kind of assistance if you suddenly found yourself in a foreign country with no support network? Assuming you have no money?

ChazsBrilliantAttitude Mon 18-Jan-16 09:27:41

It is good for society to enable people to be more engaged rather than isolated by a lack of language ability. Additionally, it will probably save money in the long term as it will reduce the need for translators and documents produced in multiple languages.

ApocalypseNowt Mon 18-Jan-16 09:28:58

I think it's a great idea. I wonder how many people are taught english for £20m? I'd be happy for them to spend more if more people want to access it.

LindyHemming Mon 18-Jan-16 09:32:07

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ReallyTired Mon 18-Jan-16 09:33:24

I think that immigrants who who make no effort to learn English should not be granted citizenship. It is not realistic to send asylum seekers who struggle with English back to certain death. I would prefer that learning English be a condition of receiving benefits. Most ecomonic migrants have excellent English. Ecomonic migrants usually want to get on.

Maybe we need English courses for the natives with poor literacy skills.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now »

Already registered? Log in with: