Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Ashamed to be British ....

66 replies

twiglett · 27/11/2003 11:42

message withdrawn

OP posts:
GeorginaA · 27/11/2003 16:04

I'm sorry, but when Labour is more right wing than the conservatives, what can you do?

ks · 27/11/2003 16:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

twiglett · 27/11/2003 16:21

message withdrawn

OP posts:
Davros · 27/11/2003 16:48

Ooops, didn't realise it was £3000pa, that's still a lot less than £30,000 though.

marsup · 27/11/2003 16:56

If it makes you feel any better about being British, I am Australian; Australia has been imprisoning asylum-seekers, including children, in barbed-wire concentration camps in the middle of the desert where it can reach up to 50degrees C, for years. The rate of attempted suicide is incredibly high. (We have a right-wing prime-minister called Howard...does that ring any bells? not that I'm about to defend Blair on anything at all...)

GeorginaA · 27/11/2003 17:05

Davros - that's £9000 on top of other costs. Accomodation - I don't know how much it costs now in Halls of Residences but when I was at uni my grant (I was in the lucky days!) only just covered accomodation so it would have been what... £3000pa for that? Must be more than that now I would have thought, especially in the South East. So that's up to £18-£20k for a 3 year course. I don't think an extra £10k for books, course materials, groceries for three years is excessive. I can see how it hits £30k easily.

I dunno. I can see a lot of kids thinking sod this, why bother working hard to try and better myself and getting myself deep in debt for the effort, when I can just go on the dole and get paid for doing sod all. It's hardly encouraging further education for all like they profess, is it?!

ks · 27/11/2003 17:15

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

twiglett · 27/11/2003 17:17

message withdrawn

OP posts:
zebra · 27/11/2003 17:29

Back to the deportation/into care theme....

If an asylum claimer has children in the UK, fails in their claim for asylum, but refuses to leave the UK... Should they still be given benefits and support so that they can afford to house themselves and children until the child is 18? Even though they are only resident in this country illegally? Presumably this is what happens now? Would the parent continue to have no right to work? And have all benefits suddenly withdrawn as soon as the child is 16 or 18? I don't understand what the alternative is to the Govt. proposal, otherwise.

SenoraPostrophe · 27/11/2003 17:34

twiglett you do have a point - sort of.

But degrees do help you get a better job. The graduates I know have (on the whole) better jobs than non-graduates I know. There are obviously exceptions to this, but a degree is not a waste of time.

However, too many resources are being ploughed into universities in preference to vocational education and this stems from a terrible snobbery about vocational qualifications - A level 3 NVQ is supposedly equivalent to 2 A levels, but very few people actually consider it that. Equality will only come when attitudes change and, actually, part of that would include making more vocational subjects available as A levels and degrees.

I agree the 50% target is silly, but the govt is right to try to increase participation in higher education. Students don't have to get into debt for a degree in hairdressing, you know - they could just not go to university.

Finally (I could probably rant more but am tired) it's all very well to say that "social standing or the high school you went to should have no bearing on acceptance" but the fact is that it does have an effect: where positive descrimination policies do not exist, kids from the upper middle classes and private schools do get more places at university. But (and here's the rub) they don't actually perform any better (in fact, if you compare students who got the same grades at A level, they perform worse) at university because it turns out all that drilling and coaching through exams does not increase intelligence or ability to work hard. We do actually need a small amount of positive discrimination.

SenoraPostrophe · 27/11/2003 17:41

zebra - actually that is the part I don't understand, because the government can deport failed assylum seekers. I think it may be that families get benefits while seeking leave to appeal/ appealing?

zebra · 28/11/2003 05:11

Right, but when their leave to appeal runs out, there must be a current rules that says if they have children their benefits will not be withdrawn. Regardless of how illegal their status in the UK may be. And if benefits were withdrawn, the children would be in danger of becoming homeless, which we all agree would be unacceptable.

So, Govt. devises a proviso that says if parents lose asylum appeal & thus benefits, it may be possible to authorise that the the children be taken into care. And Govt. gets pilloried, for bothering to think the kids shouldn't suffer dangers of homelessness, just because of stubbornness of the parents!

Someone tell me I've got it wrong...?

twiglett · 28/11/2003 08:04

message withdrawn

OP posts:
SenoraPostrophe · 28/11/2003 09:43

Yes, this would be a case of punishing the kids for the parents' behaviour and that can never be right.

But more practically I don't like it because it wouldn't actually save the country any money - putting kids in care costs a lot more than benefits. The whole thing smacks of political posturing for the sake of it.

zebra · 28/11/2003 12:25

So the conclusion is that if a failed Asylum seeker (fAs) has children, they should still be allowed to retain housing and other benefits in the UK until their children are 16 or 18. Does it matter if the child is born long after, even possibly years after, the fAs enters the UK [FYI: such children are not automatically British subjects]? And do we just withdraw the benefits suddenly at age 16/18? Will the children have any right to continued housing, domicile, work, education, etc.? I wonder how politically palatable any of that would be, either!

suedonim · 28/11/2003 12:40

I agree it's political posturing, SA. I think it's appalling and tbh I'd have more respect for this govt if they were honest and had the courage of their convictions and said outright "We don't want asylum seekers here, we're gonna get rid of them by dragging them to the airport and force them on board planes with a gun to their heads," because that in effect is what they're proposing.

And as I'm in a ranting mood today - what do people think of the idea of removing free school transport for most children so as to improve congestion?? How's that going to work, then? 50 cars take up less space than one bus?? Indeed, this govt is having a major brain f*rt.

GeorginaA · 28/11/2003 13:00

I had to laugh this morning when the "Big Conversation" was announced.

a) Tony Blair doesn't listen to his own backbenchers or the electorate, what makes him think we'll believe he'll listen to us in this latest consultation.

b) It's supposed to be used to form the new Labour Manifesto. Ah, okay, it's a party thing then. So, I trust that the Labour Party are paying for this then and not the tax payer? Oh, silly me...

Clarinet60 · 28/11/2003 13:09

Both ideas are mental, IMO.
As for uni fees, if you look upon it as paying more tax when you graduate (and remove the word debt), it does become more palatable. Having said that, I can well understand those who would prefer the money to come from increased taxes across the board.

dadslib · 28/11/2003 13:15

Message withdrawn

SenoraPostrophe · 28/11/2003 13:19

droile - the original plan was for graduates to py slightly more tax. If they actually did that, it would be much fairer because the people who gain most from university education (eg. lawyers) would pay more. Those who use their degrees for something less well paid would pay less (eg. legal aid lawyers, teachers etc.)

But no.

The consultation thing is a bit scary - I'm fully braced for hanging to be included in the manifesto!

SenoraPostrophe · 28/11/2003 13:21

Dadslib

don't have much time, but Germany accepts more asylum seekers than the UK and the rest of Europe do take their fair share.

And Pakistan is a dictatorship.

Zebra - the benefits don't get paid until the child is 18 as far as I am aware - the families eventually get deported. It's just that there can be delays with deportation.

SenoraPostrophe · 28/11/2003 13:22

But I am patriotic. Never was when I lived in the UK though.

ks · 28/11/2003 13:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

hmb · 28/11/2003 13:30

I have no problem with asylum seakers coming to the UK. I was interested by the information that Germany Accepts more than we do. Information from the BBC on this issue stated that in 2002 there were 430,000 asylum applications made to Europe as a whole and of these 103,080 were made to Britain. There was a graph that gave the relative contributions of the rest of Europe, and from that it would seem that there were around 70,000 application made to Germany. see news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/asylum_day/default.stm#

For details (you have to click on asylum facts to get to the data)

Not an argument, but how are these facts so different, are we explelling over 30,000 asylum seakers each year more than Germany is?

dadslib · 28/11/2003 13:34

Message withdrawn