Jump to content

More Tory lies


aussieh

Recommended Posts

jack D and coke
28 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Why not LibDem?  

Cos they’d never get in and I can’t stand that wee tosser Rennie. 

3 minutes ago, JamboX2 said:

 

The Tories are utterly and totally morally bankrupt atm.

 

It is a massive shame for the LibDems that they're ignored now. Any other time we'd be looking at them perhaps pushing over 100 seats.

Yes they are, they’re the worst government of my lifetime without a shadow of a doubt. 

Faced with the two choices though it’s the tories. 

Edited by jack D and coke
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 26.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • The Mighty Thor

    1556

  • Victorian

    1432

  • JudyJudyJudy

    1354

  • Cade

    1160

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

jack D and coke
1 minute ago, XB52 said:

The right wing media have been carrying out a campaign for ages now, to try and make Corbyn unelectable. It is an affront to our so-called democracy

I get that, they demonise the SNP daily also, most of it downright lies but Corbyn has hand picked McDonnell and Abbot. He’s made his own bed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
29 minutes ago, jack D and coke said:

I get that, they demonise the SNP daily also, most of it downright lies but Corbyn has hand picked McDonnell and Abbot. He’s made his own bed. 

take the tories out the picture, I'm not sure that any democracy can  be lead by a man who simply will not condemn Hezbollah, the IRA etc

and continues to peddle the Venezuela success myth

Corby is a student activist who has managed to get into a position of power

he has the politics of a child

The Tories are utterly screwing this  country up

and the ONLY reason Labour cannot get elected is Corbyn and his gang, but his party cannot get rid of him- and they have tried

I would vote Tory to keep him out

voting libdem or green would  be too risky, as it may inadvertently result in a Corbyn government,

at which point  you're looking at tax apocalypse for the middle classes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
2 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

With you on this one

we now have a generation of pensioners- a fair number very well off- who are beyond touchable and their gold plated benefits are being sustained at the cost of the workers who are seeing drops in income , low wages, rising costs

the working poor are stuffed

the middle classes are stuffed

those with kids are stuffed

anyone paying tax is stuffed

now into year 10 of real terms pay cuts

and people wonder why there are no feckin GP's left

and the new GP contract is utterly cack

Gp work is now so poorly paid relative to consultants (we have fallen so far behind its not even in the same ball park) that no-one wants to be a GP anymore

Ayrshire has had 4 surgeries taken over by the health board as there are no GP's left

recruitment has utterly collapsed, everyone is retiring as soon as they can to get out due to falling wages and spiralling hours, workload and stress

games a bogey

 

Deeside referred to this as a benefit for the “super-rich”. It is not; this will impact on (as a random selection) senior teaching staff, pilots, air-traffic controllers, the skipper of a submarine, even senior nursing staff. In fact, quite a number of professional staff in senior positions who have accrued a good pension after a long working life. 

 

Taking it below the current limit will impact on significantly larger numbers of individuals than those above who have saved for retirement via a pension fund. 

 

In addition to the above, GPs could easily fall above the LTA (currently £1.03m). Yes, salaried GPs might not reach that amount and but the law of supply and demand to address the issues you mentioned will only force GP salaries upwards (if Robison can get herself sufficiently energised to act). 

 

Any pension accrued over a lengthy working life and designed to give at least 50% of salary plus a lump sum and a modest AVC could exceed the LTA and that portion would be taxed at 55%.

 

£80k salary @ 50% (for a £40k pension) * 20 (the LTA multiplier) = £800k LTA. Add lump sums and AVCs and, boom, you have burst the limit and face a hefty tax bill. 

 

It is also worth noting that Trades Unions refer to pensions as “delayed earnings” - a form of salary sacrifice in return for a good pension to provide for retirement.

 

Those paying into a pension would be better served by limiting tax-relief on contributions than changes to outright limits that only emerge after decades of saving. 

 

This is not a “Tory bad” change. It is quite the opposite as main losers from change are, I would suggest, more likely than not to vote Tory. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jack D and coke said:

 

Faced with the choice of the two id pick the nasty tories. 

 

3 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

 

I would vote Tory to keep him out

 

 

Then you are, whether you like it or not, condoning the actions of this government and will be responsible for future Tory policy implimentations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
38 minutes ago, XB52 said:

The right wing media have been carrying out a campaign for ages now, to try and make Corbyn unelectable. It is an affront to our so-called democracy

 

The “right wing media” don’t have to try too hard, do they? Corbyn and his band of scamps are doing a perfectly good job of trying to be unelectable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
1 minute ago, Boris said:

 

 

Then you are, whether you like it or not, condoning the actions of this government and will be responsible for future Tory policy implimentations.

No, no I'm not.

 

I am condemning both of them

BUT until you remove Corbyn then there will be some protectionist voting

maybe even the SNP as they set tax rates now up here- could be a bulwark against the shafting Corbyn would pile on everyone

At present top tax band in Scotland of 46% + NI = 47 %

so if you earn £1, you "get" 53pence ( - pension contributions of 14% that actually means that for every £100 you make you actually have enough in your pocket to take your wife to the cinema, but leaving your kids at home- not a great return for £100 worth of labour, would you not say?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

No, no I'm not.

 

I am condemning both of them

BUT until you remove Corbyn then there will be some protectionist voting

maybe even the SNP as they set tax rates now up here- could be a bulwark against the shafting Corbyn would pile on everyone

At present top tax band in Scotland of 46% + NI = 47 %

so if you earn £1, you "get" 53pence ( - pension contributions of 14% that actually means that for every £100 you make you actually have enough in your pocket to take your wife to the cinema, but leaving your kids at home- not a great return for £100 worth of labour, would you not say?)

 

No, you are.  If you vote for them and they win you are, like it or not, govong them the mandate.

 

As for the tax, isn't the top rate only on earnings over a certain amount?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
13 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Deeside referred to this as a benefit for the “super-rich”. It is not; this will impact on (as a random selection) senior teaching staff, pilots, air-traffic controllers, the skipper of a submarine, even senior nursing staff. In fact, quite a number of professional staff in senior positions who have accrued a good pension after a long working life. 

 

Taking it below the current limit will impact on significantly larger numbers of individuals than those above who have saved for retirement via a pension fund. 

 

In addition to the above, GPs could easily fall above the LTA (currently £1.03m). Yes, salaried GPs might not reach that amount and but the law of supply and demand to address the issues you mentioned will only force GP salaries upwards (if Robison can get herself sufficiently energised to act). 

 

Any pension accrued over a lengthy working life and designed to give at least 50% of salary plus a lump sum and a modest AVC could exceed the LTA and that portion would be taxed at 55%.

 

£80k salary @ 50% (for a £40k pension) * 20 (the LTA multiplier) = £800k LTA. Add lump sums and AVCs and, boom, you have burst the limit and face a hefty tax bill. 

 

It is also worth noting that Trades Unions refer to pensions as “delayed earnings” - a form of salary sacrifice in return for a good pension to provide for retirement.

 

Those paying into a pension would be better served by limiting tax-relief on contributions than changes to outright limits that only emerge after decades of saving. 

 

This is not a “Tory bad” change. It is quite the opposite as main losers from change are, I would suggest, more likely than not to vote Tory. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80k salary to me is super-rich!

 

So lets say someone on 80k gets a pension of 40k per annum..   Plus 6.5k or whatever it is as state pension    If they have a partner also on pension thats another 6.5k if we assume the parent has no workplace or personal pension, putting the total at over 50k.  To me their pension is already more than most people earn today as salaries anyway.   And it is NIC-free.

 

I just think anyone on 80k would afford and be willing to contribute a bit more tax for Social justice.

 

So thats why I'm with Corbyn, although I agree his stance on global issues is not strong .

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

doctor jambo
43 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

 

80k salary to me is super-rich!

 

So lets say someone on 80k gets a pension of 40k per annum..   Plus 6.5k or whatever it is as state pension    If they have a partner also on pension thats another 6.5k if we assume the parent has no workplace or personal pension, putting the total at over 50k.  To me their pension is already more than most people earn today as salaries anyway.   And it is NIC-free.

 

I just think anyone on 80k would afford and be willing to contribute a bit more tax for Social justice.

 

So thats why I'm with Corbyn, although I agree his stance on global issues is not strong .

 

 

 

 

I know loads of folk on 80k +

and they are not super rich

Deeside- once you get over the tax humps you see less and less of what you earn, and working becomes less and less worth it.

that is partially why working GP out of hours is really struggling

by the time you have paid pensions, top rate tax ( all at source now - no exceptions) and NI then many are doing a calculation that they don't need the hassle/stress for working the extra hours

don't get me wrong- many of the populace would love the remuneration of Dr's - of course they would,

but when the pay slip comes through and your top-line is £100, but you have £40 drop into your back account for giving up your weekends and nights, then that's why folks aren't doing it

the more hours you work the less "worth it" your labour becomes

the more hours you work the less you get paid

I don't submit tax returns then feel all warm and fuzzy that I'm doing good things

at least not when in £ per hour I'm earning less than tradesmen

but I cannot hide my income

 

not like we're tradesmen doing homers where £100 bill means £100 in yer pocket

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
4 minutes ago, doctor jambo said:

I know loads of folk on 80k +

and they are not super rich

Deeside- once you get over the tax humps you see less and less of what you earn, and working becomes less and less worth it.

that is partially why working GP out of hours is really struggling

by the time you have paid pensions, top rate tax ( all at source now - no exceptions) and NI then many are doing a calculation that they don't need the hassle/stress for working the extra hours

don't get me wrong- many of the populace would love the remuneration of Dr's - of course they would,

but when the pay slip comes through and your top-line is £100, but you have £40 drop into your back account for giving up your weekends and nights, then that's why folks aren't doing it

the more hours you work the less "worth it" your labour becomes

the more hours you work the less you get paid

I don't submit tax returns then feel all warm and fuzzy that I'm doing good things

at least not when in £ per hour I'm earning less than tradesmen

but I cannot hide my income

 

not like we're tradesmen doing homers where £100 bill means £100 in yer pocket

The average UK salary is £27,600 p.a.

 

So anyone on 80k is, in my view, super-rich.

 

But unless I'm mistaken I read (or it was posted here) that around 40% of earners now are in the higher tax band.

 

This might explain why people greet about the evil Tories, but silently vote for them.

 

Your statement the more you work the less you are paid is wrong.  The increment does reduce, but it doesn't become negative.  The increased tax is only taken on the increment above the earnings thresholds, not the total.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's break down that £80,000 salary.

First £11,851 pays no income tax.

£11,851-£13,850 pays 19%, which is £379.81
£13,851-£24,000 pays 20%, which is  £2,029.80

£24,001-£44,273 pays 21%, which is £4,257.12
£44,274-£80,000 pays 41%, which is £14,647.66

Total tax payable £21,314.39
Which is 26.64% of the original £80,000.

So after all the whining about "40p in the pound", in reality you only pay 26.64p in the pound.
:greggy: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
Just now, Cade said:

Let's break down that £80,000 salary.

First £11,851 pays no income tax.

£11,851-£13,850 pays 19%, which is £379.81
£13,851-£24,000 pays 20%, which is  £2,029.80

£24,001-£44,273 pays 21%, which is £4,257.12
£44,274-£80,000 pays 41%, which is £14,647.66

Total tax payable £21,314.39
Which is 26.64% of the original £80,000.

So after all the whining about "40p in the pound", in reality you only pay 26.64p in the pound.
:greggy: 

Exactly.    And so it should be.

 

Add in that higher earners can open personal pensions and put away 40k a year into them which qualifies for tax relief.  Once they earn above 100k the amount they can put into their pensions to get tax-relief decreases, but unless Thunderstruck corrects me, those on 80k can reduce the 26.64 by putting it into a personal pension.       

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Exactly.    And so it should be.

 

Add in that higher earners can open personal pensions and put away 40k a year into them which qualifies for tax relief.  Once they earn above 100k the amount they can put into their pensions to get tax-relief decreases, but unless Thunderstruck corrects me, those on 80k can reduce the 26.64 by putting it into a personal pension.       

Not just pensions.

Shares and other savings are deductable too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
35 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Exactly.    And so it should be.

 

Add in that higher earners can open personal pensions and put away 40k a year into them which qualifies for tax relief.  Once they earn above 100k the amount they can put into their pensions to get tax-relief decreases, but unless Thunderstruck corrects me, those on 80k can reduce the 26.64 by putting it into a personal pension.       

 

Tax relief on pension contributions is available on up to 100% of salary or £40k, whichever is the lower. 

 

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/tax-relief-on-pension-contributions

 

Correction to something I said earlier - any income taken that exceeds the LTA is taxed at 25%. That is 25% extra on top of highest rate of tax paid. 

 

As doctor jambo said earlier, this is a tax rule that will, in the main, affect the taxpayers inside PAYE. The real super-rich and anyone in business or self employed will have access to a wider range of tax avoidance schemes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel
8 hours ago, JamboX2 said:

 

Well aye it is. 

 

Take it you've never had to go elsewhere for work and gone for a pint after the work stuff has been done?

 

Imagine this had been a SNP MP or MSP, what would you say?

 

What would you think BBC Reporting Scotland say? :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Imagine this had been a SNP MP or MSP, what would you say?

 

What would you think BBC Reporting Scotland say? :) 

 

Nothing different from what I said above. 

 

The paranoia is off the scale with some folk  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
21 minutes ago, Space Mackerel said:

 

Imagine this had been a SNP MP or MSP, what would you say?

 

What would you think BBC Reporting Scotland say? :) 

Spacey - it would be nothing at all.    You are overdo-ing the paranoia.

 

Relax a bit - young people are human and do silly things.  If it was an SNP spud I would have no problem at all.  

 

btw he is my MP and so far I'm not impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
1 hour ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

Tax relief on pension contributions is available on up to 100% of salary or £40k, whichever is the lower. 

 

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/tax-relief-on-pension-contributions

 

Correction to something I said earlier - any income taken that exceeds the LTA is taxed at 25%. That is 25% extra on top of highest rate of tax paid. 

 

As doctor jambo said earlier, this is a tax rule that will, in the main, affect the taxpayers inside PAYE. The real super-rich and anyone in business or self employed will have access to a wider range of tax avoidance schemes. 

Thanks,

 

So to make sure I get my seethe right - anyone earning, say 80k a year can put 40k into a pension pot which gets full tax relief, leaving 40k of their salary which is taxable and below the higher rate threshold, i.e. they pay an overall tax rate of well below 20%.  I just dont get DrJambos seethe that he is being fleeced.

 

As for self-employed - what tax avoidance do they get in addition to the above>?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thunderstruck
7 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Thanks,

 

So to make sure I get my seethe right - anyone earning, say 80k a year can put 40k into a pension pot which gets full tax relief, leaving 40k of their salary which is taxable and below the higher rate threshold, i.e. they pay an overall tax rate of well below 20%.  I just dont get DrJambos seethe that he is being fleeced.

 

As for self-employed - what tax avoidance do they get in addition to the above>?

 

 

 

 

 

They could but would burst the LTA in short order.

 

There would be better ways to invest for retirement if they had that amount of disposable income. For example, property which can be rented out to generate more become or, to use US slang, “fixed and flipped”. Tax is due on rental income and on sale (CGT). Devotees of “Homes Under The Hammer” will be aware of rental yields and cost/benefit relationship in “fix and flip”.

 

The self employed have a lot more room for manoeuvre. Here’s a couple of examples -

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/smallbusiness/article-2323791/Ten-legal-ways-avoid-overpaying-tax-youre-self-employed.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
11 minutes ago, Thunderstruck said:

 

They could but would burst the LTA in short order.

 

There would be better ways to invest for retirement if they had that amount of disposable income. For example, property which can be rented out to generate more become or, to use US slang, “fixed and flipped”. Tax is due on rental income and on sale (CGT). Devotees of “Homes Under The Hammer” will be aware of rental yields and cost/benefit relationship in “fix and flip”.

 

The self employed have a lot more room for manoeuvre. Here’s a couple of examples -

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/smallbusiness/article-2323791/Ten-legal-ways-avoid-overpaying-tax-youre-self-employed.html

OK but doesn't this support my point that increasing the LTA gives the rich 30k more leeway?

 

Put another way, the LTA gives them 30k more tax allowance, so if the excess is taxed at 25% then they are getting 25% of 30k free of the LTA tax, i.e. £7500k extra?

 

I guess I see anyone earning 80k a year as "rich" while others see them as having more normal incomes.

 

ach Im just jealous, but I do see the gap between "Rich" (in my world anyone earning 80k) and poor (in my world anyone earning less than 30k) widening, as the 80k folk will get the extra £7500 tax relief that others wont.

 

And while I seethe, I note another scam.  Lets say as a hypothetical example, a spud is doing personal appearances, after-dinners, game shows, paid TV broadcasts, Edinburgh Festival appearances etc.  That spud can set up a Limited Company and charge from that, ending up liable only to Corporation Tax at 19%.  But wait, to offset that, he can employ a family member, lets say a spouse, and pay him/her a wage of, lets say £11,500 per year, thus offsetting Corporation tax.   And if said spouse is paid over £11,500 by spud, said spouse can pay into a personal pension also hence offsetting the whole lot.   And yes, if the spud also is below the LTA he could also pay himself a salary hence offsetting against his personal tax allowance, and if below the LTA, can pay into a pension hence getting tax relief on that also.

 

So imo its possible for spuds with Limited Companies to earn, say 50k a year and not pay any tax at all.

 

Individuals who's only selling point is themselves should not be allowed to set up Limited Companies.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Government falling over backwards to sort out the Windrush shambles.    Only one conceivable reason why.     Because they realised just how much they've been shown up.    This is pure image fire fighting.    Other than that they would still not be giving a ****.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
8 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

it was labour who ordered the destruction of boarding cards (pretty disgusting)

 

Lie. Please stop swallowing and repeating disgusting Tory lies. Many thanks.

 

Incidentally, the Immigration Bill of 2014 was what made so much of these horrors possible. Corbyn spoke against it for reasons which have been completely borne out. And Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott all voted against it - while almost everyone else in our joke of a Parliament paid no attention at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
52 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Lie. Please stop swallowing and repeating disgusting Tory lies. Many thanks.

 

Incidentally, the Immigration Bill of 2014 was what made so much of these horrors possible. Corbyn spoke against it for reasons which have been completely borne out. And Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott all voted against it - while almost everyone else in our joke of a Parliament paid no attention at all. 

Shaun.   It was you who posted that thousands ofWindrush people have already been deported.

 

That is not true.  I know you are a passionate hater ofTories but posting misinformation yourself does t help your credibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
4 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Shaun.   It was you who posted that thousands ofWindrush people have already been deported.

 

That is not true.  I know you are a passionate hater ofTories but posting misinformation yourself does t help your credibility.

 

Nope. That's false as well. I have never said "thousands of Windrush people have already been deported". I said "some have"; the immigration minister confirmed this.

 

Your response was to initially deny everything and suggest it was being taken care of. The usual complacent nonsense which you share with much of the British electorate, in other words.

 

And yesterday, Theresa May lied to Parliament. Her lies were instantly repeated by her press backers; and resurfaced on here. That's how it works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Nope. That's false as well. I have never said "thousands of Windrush people have already been deported". I said "some have"; the immigration minister confirmed this.

 

Your response was to initially deny everything and suggest it was being taken care of. The usual complacent nonsense which you share with much of the British electorate, in other words.

 

And yesterday, Theresa May lied to Parliament. Her lies were instantly repeated by her press backers; and resurfaced on here. That's how it works. 

Your right.  My bad.     But there are still no confirmed Windrush deportees as far as I know.

 

And I didn't deny anything - I acknowledged that an issue has been identified and is being dealt with.   It is of course Govt incompetence but I dont accept that the evil Tories are deliberately choosing to deport Windrush migrants for the hell of it.     The root cause of Tory policy is the popularity in little England of going after immigrants, as evidenced by the rise, then fall of UKIP (post Brexit)

 

Once the figures come out we will see - do you know of any who have been deported yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People justifying May and the rest of her shitehouse government over this?     Jeez.       They've utterly ruined lives.     People have had their lives turned upside down for no more than a fool's errand policy.    That's the ones who are still here before even considering any who have been deported.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

People justifying May and the rest of her shitehouse government over this?     Jeez.       They've utterly ruined lives.     People have had their lives turned upside down for no more than a fool's errand policy.    That's the ones who are still here before even considering any who have been deported.

 

 

Nobody is justifying May - its a royal screw-up.  A fools-errand policy is a good way to describe it, but no more than that.     btw it will probably be popular down in Little England.  

 

But the hysteria over it is silly.     Identify how many, if any, have been deported.  If none, then calm down.   If some are identified, then you have cause.      

 

And on the issue of Labour complicity in 2009 - is that true or not?      May says it is, but presumably the facts are now known -so what are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

Nobody is justifying May - its a royal screw-up.  A fools-errand policy is a good way to describe it, but no more than that.     btw it will probably be popular down in Little England.  

 

But the hysteria over it is silly.     Identify how many, if any, have been deported.  If none, then calm down.   If some are identified, then you have cause.      

 

And on the issue of Labour complicity in 2009 - is that true or not?      May says it is, but presumably the facts are now known -so what are they?

 

Don't tell me to calm down.     If you care to actually research the story you'll see that the major issue is the people who are still here.    Lives ruined beyond recovery.    Jobs lost.    Houses lost.     Many,  many thousands of pounds worth of debt incurred.    Families sick with worry and stress.

 

**** all to do with deportations.     Sadly there are people who are too myopic to see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
Just now, Victorian said:

 

Don't tell me to calm down.     If you care to actually research the story you'll see that the major issue is the people who are still here.    Lives ruined beyond recovery.    Jobs lost.    Houses lost.     Many,  many thousands of pounds worth of debt incurred.    Families sick with worry and stress.

 

**** all to do with deportations.     Sadly there are people who are too myopic to see.

I get that many people have been affected and I've read their stories but I was responding to the claim that some have already been deported, which in my view is not true.   None have been identified as deported as far as I can see.   

 

As I posted, this is a screw-up due to the immigration policies of recent years which has tightened up scrutiny of migrants and has inevitably ended up as a mess, unless you are a UKIP supporter.

    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
5 minutes ago, Victorian said:

No Labour government official directed the destruction of documents.    Departmental staff did it.

 

Who initially authorised it?    I'm genuinely trying to get to the veracity of it all.        Did departmental staff just take it upon themselves, without authority, to start destroying records?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

I get that many people have been affected and I've read their stories but I was responding to the claim that some have already been deported, which in my view is not true.   None have been identified as deported as far as I can see.   

 

As I posted, this is a screw-up due to the immigration policies of recent years which has tightened up scrutiny of migrants and has inevitably ended up as a mess, unless you are a UKIP supporter.

    

 

Actually no,   you responded to my post which did not focus on deportations.

 

People being affected is one way to put it.      People have been shafted and seriously ****ed up.      People who are British and who have lived,  worked and paid taxes here for decades.     One day they're approached by employers and required to prove they have the right to hold the life they hold and are subsequently destroyed.     This scandal is still being understated and the full scale of the carnage is still to come.

Edited by Victorian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

 

Who initially authorised it?    I'm genuinely trying to get to the veracity of it all.        Did departmental staff just take it upon themselves, without authority, to start destroying records?

 

 

 

Yes.  Within the Home Office management.    Civil servants.    You are aware that the day to day operations of a government department are not directly managed by a government minister?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

 

Who initially authorised it?    I'm genuinely trying to get to the veracity of it all.        Did departmental staff just take it upon themselves, without authority, to start destroying records?

 

 

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/18/europe/uk-windrush-documents-destroyed-intl/index.html

 

They were destroyed by direction of ministers in 2010. This was confirmed by the Home Office on Tuesday night. For reasons known only to herself, May decided to lie about it at PMQs the following day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
9 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/18/europe/uk-windrush-documents-destroyed-intl/index.html

 

They were destroyed by direction of ministers in 2010. This was confirmed by the Home Office on Tuesday night. For reasons known only to herself, May decided to lie about it at PMQs the following day. 

So why have Labour or other opposition parties not called this out?   If it is, as you suggest, proven that she is lying to Parliament then one of the opposition parties should callfor her immediate resignation.

 

Why has this not happened?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think Corbyn will ask about this again.     May did not say it was a Labour government who ordered it.    She said "under a Labour government".     Labour will have it clarified but she didn't lie about Labour directing it.     She may have lied about which government was in power at the time but it could be excused as an error.

Edited by Victorian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
2 minutes ago, deesidejambo said:

So why have Labour or other opposition parties not called this out?   If it is, as you suggest, proven that she is lying to Parliament then one of the opposition parties should callfor her immediate resignation.

 

Why has this not happened?

 

 

 

They have. It's just not been reported much on the outlets (the BBC?) you watch. Immediately following PMQs, Dawn Butler submitted a Point of Order and wrote to the PM in consequence.

 

DbFmn8sW4AAou_f.jpg

 

DbFmpKQWsAAFYdk.jpg

 

Following her Point of Order, the Speaker responded that he hoped May would return to the Commons to explain herself - but wouldn't be holding his breath.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

I would think Corbyn will ask about this again.     May did not say it was a Labour government who ordered it.    She said "under a Labour government".     Labour will have it clarified but she didn't lie about Labour directing it.     She may have lied about which government was in power at the time but it could be excused as an error.

 

Given the records were destroyed in October 2010, I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tuesday, 22nd October 2013.
Parliament is debating the Immigration Act 2014.

Theresa May, Home Secretary at the time, said the following:

"I will set out the elements of the Bill in context. First, the Bill will cut abuse of the appeal process. It will streamline the labyrinthine legal process, which at present allows appeals against 17 different Home Office decisions—17 different opportunities for immigration lawyers to cash in.....by limiting the grounds for appeal to four—only those that engage fundamental rights—we will cut that abuse."
"Secondly, we will extend the number of non-suspensive appeals so that.......we can deport first and hear appeals later."

:gfy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, shaun.lawson said:

 

Given the records were destroyed in October 2010, I doubt it.

 

The facts are the facts.    It comes down to whether or not May knew the full facts when she said what she said.    

 

At the very least,    this must be clearly addressed in the commons.     If can't pass without an official clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
4 minutes ago, Cade said:

"we can deport first and hear appeals later."

 

Civilised country, my arse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a huge window of opportunity to hound the government over this.     Labour might try but they could benefit from an allied approach with the SNP.    The Lib Dems are desperately trying to hide under the bed.     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo

So it’s simple.  If she lied asShaun asserts, she is toast.    If she didn’t then whatever.

 

Its a big mess no doubt but I’m pointing out that the claims on here that some Windrush migrants have been deported are not substantiated (yet) and claims that May lied are also wrong, otherwise she would be gone by now.

 

Not much point in accusing the BBC of spreading lies if it’s also done on here.

 

imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
1 minute ago, Victorian said:

There's a huge window of opportunity to hound the government over this.     Labour might try but they could benefit from an allied approach with the SNP.    The Lib Dems are desperately trying to hide under the bed.     

It’s easy.     Did she lie to Parliament as Shaun asserts or didn’t she?   That should be very easily proven.  

 

  So Labour and SNP have an open goal if she did.  She would have to resign.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

So it’s simple.  If she lied asShaun asserts, she is toast.    If she didn’t then whatever.

 

Its a big mess no doubt but I’m pointing out that the claims on here that some Windrush migrants have been deported are not substantiated (yet) and claims that May lied are also wrong, otherwise she would be gone by now.

 

Not much point in accusing the BBC of spreading lies if it’s also done on here.

 

imo

 

It isn't clear if she lied.   Less clear if she can be shown to have lied.    But the incorrect statement can be used to cause embarrassment.    The wider story and the history of her policies can be developed and used for a major attack on the government.     The opportunity is right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It isn't clear if she lied.   Less clear if she can be shown to have lied.    But the incorrect statement can be used to cause embarrassment.    The wider story and the history of her policies can be developed and used for a major attack on the government.     The opportunity is right there.

That’s where I’m at.    This is an opportunity to really hold the Govt over a flame.  So where are the SNP?     Corbyn has had a go but failed to land a killer blow.   So the SNP have an opportunity to show their worth.

 

But beware little England who may tacitly support the policy.   Perhaps not for bona-fire Windrush  migrants but for those who maybe did come in illegally.

 

what would you do with those in the Calais camps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, deesidejambo said:

That’s where I’m at.    This is an opportunity to really hold the Govt over a flame.  So where are the SNP?     Corbyn has had a go but failed to land a killer blow.   So the SNP have an opportunity to show their worth.

 

But beware little England who may tacitly support the policy.   Perhaps not for bona-fire Windrush  migrants but for those who maybe did come in illegally.

 

what would you do with those in the Calais camps?

 

May has been very suspiciously keen to bend over backwards to apologise and completely reverse the whole policy.    It's blatantly obvious this is to avert attention away.     The point of attack is to dig deeper into how policies were formed,   who approved what,  etc etc.     A whole chronological timeline of events and paper trail.    Opposition parties can have a lot of fun and there's every opportunity to cause a lie or two to be blurted out.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

shaun.lawson
3 minutes ago, Victorian said:

Opposition parties can have a lot of fun and there's every opportunity to cause a lie or two to be blurted out.    

 

They can, but Corbyn's Labour are really, really, really bad at that sort of thing. They usually prefer to parrot slogans instead of doing the kind of effective, forensic opposition work you suggest. The amount of times he's missed open goals in PMQs... he's like the John Sutton of Westminster at times.

Edited by shaun.lawson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...