This was sent to me by email Do you think it is racist or even true?
A Somali arrives in London as a new immigrant to England . He stops the first person he sees walking down the street and says, 'Thank you Mr.English man for letting me in this country, giving me free housing, free food stamps, free medical care, free education and all wonderful social monetary benefits!'The passer by says, 'You are mistaken, I am Polish.' The man goes on and encounters another passer by. 'Thank you for having such a beautiful country here in England !' The person says, 'I not English, I am from Croatia ' The new arrival walks further, and the next person he sees he stops, shakes his hand and says, 'Thank you for the wonderful England!'That person puts up his hand and says, 'I am from Iran , I am not English!' He finally sees a nice lady and asks, 'Are you an English?' She says, 'No, I am from Iraq !' Puzzled, he asks her, 'Where are all the English people?' The Iraq lady checks her watch and says...'Probably at work.'
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Do we care for the elderly
Do we care for our elderly?
Last week I watched a programme on TV where two elderly couples were interviewed both received no help from the state helping care for their infirmed Husband and wife. One man had to pay for someone to come and help wash his wife, who has Alzheimer’s twice a day, then I spoke to some one in the street who said they knew of an old lady who had to go into home and the authorities made her sell her house to pay for this. All of this is because they were not poverty stricken, yes that terrible MEANS TEST, some politicians, notably Labour say that it is only fair, why should the state pay for care for those who have savings and assets! Good point if it were coming from taxes BUT NO these people had paid National Insurance contributions, a government Insurance Scheme which was meant to protect them. If they had paid into a private health scheme that renegaded on the benefits, the company would be sued or even arrested, yet this Government refuses to pay SHAME ON THEM. On National TV it was reported that ¾ million elderly are in need of help and care because the Local Councils can no longer afford the costs theyb will get nothing but why should Councils and Council Tax Payers foot the bill? We all contribute to a National Insurance Scheme which is run by the National Government it is their responsibility.
Of Course the Prime Minister and his cronies say the country cannot afford it, the same people who’s expensive travelling jaunts are infamous but lets forget about that, the day that we found out about these ¾ Million elderly British subjects another announcement was made that Polish migrants are claiming £21 million on child benefit for their children who live in Poland, these people have contributed nothing yet get everything, last week it was announced that the BLOODY SUNDAY ENQUIRE has cost £15 million and the beneficiary of that are the fat cat lawyers.
Great Britain should be a wealthy country so why do we not look after the elderly after all they are the ones who helped finance GB.
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
Last week I watched a programme on TV where two elderly couples were interviewed both received no help from the state helping care for their infirmed Husband and wife. One man had to pay for someone to come and help wash his wife, who has Alzheimer’s twice a day, then I spoke to some one in the street who said they knew of an old lady who had to go into home and the authorities made her sell her house to pay for this. All of this is because they were not poverty stricken, yes that terrible MEANS TEST, some politicians, notably Labour say that it is only fair, why should the state pay for care for those who have savings and assets! Good point if it were coming from taxes BUT NO these people had paid National Insurance contributions, a government Insurance Scheme which was meant to protect them. If they had paid into a private health scheme that renegaded on the benefits, the company would be sued or even arrested, yet this Government refuses to pay SHAME ON THEM. On National TV it was reported that ¾ million elderly are in need of help and care because the Local Councils can no longer afford the costs theyb will get nothing but why should Councils and Council Tax Payers foot the bill? We all contribute to a National Insurance Scheme which is run by the National Government it is their responsibility.
Of Course the Prime Minister and his cronies say the country cannot afford it, the same people who’s expensive travelling jaunts are infamous but lets forget about that, the day that we found out about these ¾ Million elderly British subjects another announcement was made that Polish migrants are claiming £21 million on child benefit for their children who live in Poland, these people have contributed nothing yet get everything, last week it was announced that the BLOODY SUNDAY ENQUIRE has cost £15 million and the beneficiary of that are the fat cat lawyers.
Great Britain should be a wealthy country so why do we not look after the elderly after all they are the ones who helped finance GB.
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Cameron right on jobless
“Cameron: Jobless must do community work or lose benefits”
Basically if you do not get a job within 2 years you do community work or lose your benefit, I personally would have said 6 months. Yet until we get rid of immigrant Labour who have driven down wages so much that Building Labourers were earning more 20 years ago under Maggie, with employers paying the low paid £5.50p to £6 an hour on average how will these low paid workers survive unless there is some top up scheme. It has been reported that over the last few years 80% of all new jobs created went to immigrant Labour.
Let me give you an example of a friend of mine he is 55 years of age worked on a building site most of his life, his job came to an end and been on the dole ever since. So what does he live on and what are his expenses:
Rent for his 1 bedroom flat £450 per month £400 is paid by the local council in housing benefit.
Council Tax £60 per month paid for by the local council
Electric Water £60 per month
Unemployment benefit £256.31p
Outgoings £570 per month, Income £716.31p leaving him £146.31 per month or £33.76 to feed, cloth himself plus in his type of work he will need a car which to tax and insure is approx £8 per week.
If he worked for £5.50p per hour doing an average 40 hour week his earning would be £953.33 per month minus Income tax and NI approx £890 per month. His outgoings would be Flat £450, Council Tax £60, Services £60 Petrol/Road Tax Insurance etc £50 be £620 per month leaving him with £333.33, £76.92p per week to feed himself, buy clothes and pay for those incidental things that may occur.
He would be still better of working but would a married man with a couple of kids be better of NO it seems to me that this group of people have access to bottomless pit of welfare benefits. This group has been institutionalised to be lazy and dependant on the state to live, they have been moulded by the state to be feckless, ill disciplined and irresponsible and it is the Welfare state that has made them like it.
So what to do:
1) In a country where there is till a couple of million unemployed why are we importing immigrant labour?
2) Wages need to go up if that means we pay more for food, electrical products so be it. Wealth is not always financial it is pride in one self something some of these people have lost
3) After a period of time stop paying out benefit in money give them vouchers, once they can not buy their fags and booze they will soon chase after a job
4) Top up this is where those who take a low paid job can get help by applying for extra money to meet their basic needs.
I have never been a great fan of the Unions but in the past hundred years or so they have been responsible for improving the work and condition of the working man something they seem to be ignoring today. Although I am against immigrant labour I do not see why they should be abused, this group of people are expected to work extremely long hours sometimes 7 days a week for a pittance, some have to live in accommodation supplied by their employer, it because of these things that English people can not and do not want to do the work. The year is 2008 nobody should need to work more the 40 hours a week to earn a living wage.
What of my friend sadly all he can get is Agency work and they will not guarantee him a weeks works. It has always surprised me that a Labour Government who is supposed to be for the working man even allows these agencies to exist and they only exist so Employers can get round some of the ridiculous employment laws.
This country needs a good shake up and there is only one group who can do that and that is the Conservative Party.
Martin Clarke
Basically if you do not get a job within 2 years you do community work or lose your benefit, I personally would have said 6 months. Yet until we get rid of immigrant Labour who have driven down wages so much that Building Labourers were earning more 20 years ago under Maggie, with employers paying the low paid £5.50p to £6 an hour on average how will these low paid workers survive unless there is some top up scheme. It has been reported that over the last few years 80% of all new jobs created went to immigrant Labour.
Let me give you an example of a friend of mine he is 55 years of age worked on a building site most of his life, his job came to an end and been on the dole ever since. So what does he live on and what are his expenses:
Rent for his 1 bedroom flat £450 per month £400 is paid by the local council in housing benefit.
Council Tax £60 per month paid for by the local council
Electric Water £60 per month
Unemployment benefit £256.31p
Outgoings £570 per month, Income £716.31p leaving him £146.31 per month or £33.76 to feed, cloth himself plus in his type of work he will need a car which to tax and insure is approx £8 per week.
If he worked for £5.50p per hour doing an average 40 hour week his earning would be £953.33 per month minus Income tax and NI approx £890 per month. His outgoings would be Flat £450, Council Tax £60, Services £60 Petrol/Road Tax Insurance etc £50 be £620 per month leaving him with £333.33, £76.92p per week to feed himself, buy clothes and pay for those incidental things that may occur.
He would be still better of working but would a married man with a couple of kids be better of NO it seems to me that this group of people have access to bottomless pit of welfare benefits. This group has been institutionalised to be lazy and dependant on the state to live, they have been moulded by the state to be feckless, ill disciplined and irresponsible and it is the Welfare state that has made them like it.
So what to do:
1) In a country where there is till a couple of million unemployed why are we importing immigrant labour?
2) Wages need to go up if that means we pay more for food, electrical products so be it. Wealth is not always financial it is pride in one self something some of these people have lost
3) After a period of time stop paying out benefit in money give them vouchers, once they can not buy their fags and booze they will soon chase after a job
4) Top up this is where those who take a low paid job can get help by applying for extra money to meet their basic needs.
I have never been a great fan of the Unions but in the past hundred years or so they have been responsible for improving the work and condition of the working man something they seem to be ignoring today. Although I am against immigrant labour I do not see why they should be abused, this group of people are expected to work extremely long hours sometimes 7 days a week for a pittance, some have to live in accommodation supplied by their employer, it because of these things that English people can not and do not want to do the work. The year is 2008 nobody should need to work more the 40 hours a week to earn a living wage.
What of my friend sadly all he can get is Agency work and they will not guarantee him a weeks works. It has always surprised me that a Labour Government who is supposed to be for the working man even allows these agencies to exist and they only exist so Employers can get round some of the ridiculous employment laws.
This country needs a good shake up and there is only one group who can do that and that is the Conservative Party.
Martin Clarke
Monday, January 14, 2008
Derek Wyatt accused of betraying adult learners
Derek Wyatt MP, has been accused of betraying adult learners in Sittingbourne & Sheppey by supporting cuts to university funding.
The accusation was made by his local Tory rival, Gordon Henderson, following a debate last week in the House of Commons.
Mr Wyatt voted against a Conservative motion on second chance education, which criticised the Government’s policy on the issue.
211 MPs, including 86 Labour MPs, had previously signed a cross party early day motion (EDM) expressing concern about the Government’s £100m cuts to second chance education.
These cuts will particularly affect part-time students and mothers returning to work. Despite this, Mr Wyatt joined other Labour MPs (including 63 who had signed the original EDM) in voting against it when it was put to the vote on Tuesday night.
Mr Henderson said:
‘Mr Wyatt has now failed twice to register concern at the £100m cuts in second chance education, which particularly affect part-time students and mothers returning to work.
‘In order to save the Government embarrassment he chose to vote against the interests of people in Sittingbourne & Sheppey who may now find their chance of taking a second university course to improve their prospects has been taken away.’
….ends….
Notes to Editors
John Denham announced in September 2007 that he was ‘asking the Funding Council to phase out the support it gives to institutions for equivalent or lower qualification (ELQ) students, starting from academic year 2008/09. I would like to see the support reduced by around £100 million a year by 2010/11.’ This came out of the blue – there was no prior consultation with the higher education sector.
During a consultation by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce), it became clear that the higher education sector as a whole was strongly opposed to the change. In particular, it was feared that part-time students, lifelong learners and women returning to the labour market would suffer. There is also likely to be a knock-on effect for full-time students, as some courses will cease to be viable. Some key criticisms from the sector are:
Universities UK: ‘we are concerned by the unintended consequences for institutions, for individual students and for certain economically strategic areas. It may damage the Government’s efforts to promote lifelong learning.’ (Parliamentary Brief, 11 December 2007)
University and College Union: ‘The government alleges that these cuts are being made in the cause of ‘fairness’. In reality, they are extremely unfair, not just to students with existing qualifications, but to those first time learners the government claims to be helping.’ (Brief 2, November 2007)
‘Million +’: ‘The decision appears to run counter to the lifelong learning and skills agenda which the Government is seeking to promote, deregulates tuition fees for some higher education students without any advance scrutiny of its likely consequences and has not been the subject of public consultation.’ (Briefing Paper)
Key facts
In 2005/06, 8 per cent of Hefce-funded full-time equivalent student numbers were aiming for an ELQ (Hefce)
20 per cent of part-time students in England will become unfunded from 2008/09 (and 2% of full-time) (Hefce)
25 per cent of the Open University’s students in England and NI will become unfunded and £31.6m or 19 per cent of OU teaching funding will be phased out
One-third of Birkbeck students are ELQ students and the college stands to lose £7.9m
The School of Pharmacy, University of London, could lose 15 per cent of its teaching income (Council of University Heads of Pharmacy)
Ranked by size of the financial loss, 8 of the top 10 institutions are in London (London Higher).
The accusation was made by his local Tory rival, Gordon Henderson, following a debate last week in the House of Commons.
Mr Wyatt voted against a Conservative motion on second chance education, which criticised the Government’s policy on the issue.
211 MPs, including 86 Labour MPs, had previously signed a cross party early day motion (EDM) expressing concern about the Government’s £100m cuts to second chance education.
These cuts will particularly affect part-time students and mothers returning to work. Despite this, Mr Wyatt joined other Labour MPs (including 63 who had signed the original EDM) in voting against it when it was put to the vote on Tuesday night.
Mr Henderson said:
‘Mr Wyatt has now failed twice to register concern at the £100m cuts in second chance education, which particularly affect part-time students and mothers returning to work.
‘In order to save the Government embarrassment he chose to vote against the interests of people in Sittingbourne & Sheppey who may now find their chance of taking a second university course to improve their prospects has been taken away.’
….ends….
Notes to Editors
John Denham announced in September 2007 that he was ‘asking the Funding Council to phase out the support it gives to institutions for equivalent or lower qualification (ELQ) students, starting from academic year 2008/09. I would like to see the support reduced by around £100 million a year by 2010/11.’ This came out of the blue – there was no prior consultation with the higher education sector.
During a consultation by the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce), it became clear that the higher education sector as a whole was strongly opposed to the change. In particular, it was feared that part-time students, lifelong learners and women returning to the labour market would suffer. There is also likely to be a knock-on effect for full-time students, as some courses will cease to be viable. Some key criticisms from the sector are:
Universities UK: ‘we are concerned by the unintended consequences for institutions, for individual students and for certain economically strategic areas. It may damage the Government’s efforts to promote lifelong learning.’ (Parliamentary Brief, 11 December 2007)
University and College Union: ‘The government alleges that these cuts are being made in the cause of ‘fairness’. In reality, they are extremely unfair, not just to students with existing qualifications, but to those first time learners the government claims to be helping.’ (Brief 2, November 2007)
‘Million +’: ‘The decision appears to run counter to the lifelong learning and skills agenda which the Government is seeking to promote, deregulates tuition fees for some higher education students without any advance scrutiny of its likely consequences and has not been the subject of public consultation.’ (Briefing Paper)
Key facts
In 2005/06, 8 per cent of Hefce-funded full-time equivalent student numbers were aiming for an ELQ (Hefce)
20 per cent of part-time students in England will become unfunded from 2008/09 (and 2% of full-time) (Hefce)
25 per cent of the Open University’s students in England and NI will become unfunded and £31.6m or 19 per cent of OU teaching funding will be phased out
One-third of Birkbeck students are ELQ students and the college stands to lose £7.9m
The School of Pharmacy, University of London, could lose 15 per cent of its teaching income (Council of University Heads of Pharmacy)
Ranked by size of the financial loss, 8 of the top 10 institutions are in London (London Higher).
We need Welfare reform
PRESS RELEASE
Date: 13th January 2007
Release date: Immediate
Subject: Gordon Henderson: “Welfare reform must be handled in a way that does not demonise those who are genuinely incapacitated.”
Local Tory Parliamentary Candidate, Gordon Henderson, says that he supports policies that are designed to reduce long-term welfare dependency, tackle long-term poverty and re-create stable families, but is urging that any reform is handled in a way that does not demonise those people who are genuinely incapacitated.
The policy ideas entitled “Work for Welfare” were launched recently by Conservative leader, David Cameron. They aim to help people find fulfilling jobs, while continuing to support those who genuinely cannot work. Currently across Sittingbourne & Sheppey, there are 4170 people on Incapacity Benefit and 1480 on Jobseeker’s Allowance. Under the new Conservative proposals:
· Respect for those who cannot work: Recipients of Incapacity Benefit who really cannot work will receive continued support and will remain outside the return-to-work process.
· Employment for those who can: Every out-of-work benefit claimant will be expected to work or prepare for work. There will be a comprehensive programme of support for job seekers including training, development and work experience. Welfare-to-work services will be provided by the private and voluntary sectors on a payment by results basis.
· Assessments for those claiming benefits: There will be rapid assessments of all new and existing claimants for out-of-work benefits.
· Limits to claiming out of work benefits: People who refuse to join a return-to-work programme will lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits until they do. People who refuse to accept reasonable job offers could lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits.
· Community work: Those who claim for more than two years out of three will be required to help out on community work programmes.
· End Tax Credit discrimination. The savings from these reforms will be used to end the discrimination against couples in the Tax Credits system.
Mr Henderson said:
‘We need real welfare reform that will help reverse the disastrous rise in family breakdown and tackle the persistent and often hidden poverty that shames our nation.
‘The current welfare system is simply not working. Higher numbers of Incapacity Benefit claimants and youth unemployment that is far too high, shows that the policies of the last ten years have failed. It’s time for change.
‘Rather than Whitehall taking responsibility away from people and making them dependent, we need to help people across Sittingbourne & Sheppey take responsibility for themselves and achieve success and independence.
‘However, any welfare reform must be handled in a way that does not demonise those who are genuinely incapacitated and those who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own.’
Notes to Editors
The full ‘Green Paper’ entitled ‘Work for Welfare’was launched on 8 January and can be found at: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=141498
BRITAIN’S FAILING WELFARE SYSTEM
· Failing New Deal: This Government treats people like statistics rather than human beings. Its ‘New Deal’ takes a prescriptive, central government approach, and has cost the taxpayer more than £3 billion. Yet is has become a revolving door back on to benefits: nearly 50 per cent of young job seekers who have left the New Deal for Young People end up back on benefits within a year (Hansard, 10 July 2006, col. 1599W).
· Millions left behind: Whitehall Ministers have no plans to help over 2 million people already claiming Incapacity Benefit. Under Labour, someone on Incapacity Benefit for more than 2 years is more likely to die or retire than get a job (Department of Work and Pensions Press Release, 15 March 2007).
· 4 out of 5 new jobs go to migrant workers: The Government boasts about the millions of new jobs it has ‘created’. But a simple, devastating fact is now clear from all the official statistics: as many as 80 per cent of new jobs created in the past ten years have gone to migrant workers despite having 4.8 million people on out of work benefits (Statistics Commission, Briefing Note – Foreign Workers, December 2007; DWP, Quarterly Statistical Summary, November2007).
· More broken homes than almost anywhere in Europe: The UK has by far the highest proportion of lone parents in Europe, and one of the highest rates of family breakdown in Europe (Social Justice Policy Group, Breakdown Britain, 26 March 2007). Yet we have a couple penalty in the benefits system making families better off if they split up.
LOCAL FIGURES
The table below shows the number of Incapacity Benefit and Job Seekers Allowance claimants in each Parliamentary constituency in Kent, as of May 2007.
Sources: Deparment for Work & Pensions datasets
http://83.244.183.180/100pc/ibsda/ccparlc/ccgor/ccclient/a_carate_r_ccparlc_c_ccgor_p_ccclient_working_age_may07.html
http://83.244.183.180/100pc/jsa/ccparlc/ccgor/a_carate_r_ccparlc_c_ccgor_may07.html
Parliamentary Constituency
Government Region
IB Claimants
JSA Claimants
Great Britain
-
2,643,290
837,460
Ashford
South East
3,350
980
Canterbury
South East
3,500
920
Chatham and Aylesford
South East
3,160
1,330
Dartford
South East
2,890
950
Dover
South East
4,150
1,300
Faversham and Mid Kent
South East
2,790
760
Folkestone and Hythe
South East
4,420
1,670
Gillingham
South East
3,190
1,290
Gravesham
South East
3,460
1,490
Maidstone and The Weald
South East
2,770
790
Medway
South East
3,410
1,480
North Thanet
South East
4,980
1,680
Sevenoaks
South East
1,990
460
Sittingbourne and Sheppey
South East
4,170
1,480
South Thanet
South East
3,780
1,160
Tonbridge and Malling
South East
2,090
540
Tunbridge Wells
South East
2,350
570
ENDS
Date: 13th January 2007
Release date: Immediate
Subject: Gordon Henderson: “Welfare reform must be handled in a way that does not demonise those who are genuinely incapacitated.”
Local Tory Parliamentary Candidate, Gordon Henderson, says that he supports policies that are designed to reduce long-term welfare dependency, tackle long-term poverty and re-create stable families, but is urging that any reform is handled in a way that does not demonise those people who are genuinely incapacitated.
The policy ideas entitled “Work for Welfare” were launched recently by Conservative leader, David Cameron. They aim to help people find fulfilling jobs, while continuing to support those who genuinely cannot work. Currently across Sittingbourne & Sheppey, there are 4170 people on Incapacity Benefit and 1480 on Jobseeker’s Allowance. Under the new Conservative proposals:
· Respect for those who cannot work: Recipients of Incapacity Benefit who really cannot work will receive continued support and will remain outside the return-to-work process.
· Employment for those who can: Every out-of-work benefit claimant will be expected to work or prepare for work. There will be a comprehensive programme of support for job seekers including training, development and work experience. Welfare-to-work services will be provided by the private and voluntary sectors on a payment by results basis.
· Assessments for those claiming benefits: There will be rapid assessments of all new and existing claimants for out-of-work benefits.
· Limits to claiming out of work benefits: People who refuse to join a return-to-work programme will lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits until they do. People who refuse to accept reasonable job offers could lose the right to claim out-of-work benefits.
· Community work: Those who claim for more than two years out of three will be required to help out on community work programmes.
· End Tax Credit discrimination. The savings from these reforms will be used to end the discrimination against couples in the Tax Credits system.
Mr Henderson said:
‘We need real welfare reform that will help reverse the disastrous rise in family breakdown and tackle the persistent and often hidden poverty that shames our nation.
‘The current welfare system is simply not working. Higher numbers of Incapacity Benefit claimants and youth unemployment that is far too high, shows that the policies of the last ten years have failed. It’s time for change.
‘Rather than Whitehall taking responsibility away from people and making them dependent, we need to help people across Sittingbourne & Sheppey take responsibility for themselves and achieve success and independence.
‘However, any welfare reform must be handled in a way that does not demonise those who are genuinely incapacitated and those who find themselves unemployed through no fault of their own.’
Notes to Editors
The full ‘Green Paper’ entitled ‘Work for Welfare’was launched on 8 January and can be found at: http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=141498
BRITAIN’S FAILING WELFARE SYSTEM
· Failing New Deal: This Government treats people like statistics rather than human beings. Its ‘New Deal’ takes a prescriptive, central government approach, and has cost the taxpayer more than £3 billion. Yet is has become a revolving door back on to benefits: nearly 50 per cent of young job seekers who have left the New Deal for Young People end up back on benefits within a year (Hansard, 10 July 2006, col. 1599W).
· Millions left behind: Whitehall Ministers have no plans to help over 2 million people already claiming Incapacity Benefit. Under Labour, someone on Incapacity Benefit for more than 2 years is more likely to die or retire than get a job (Department of Work and Pensions Press Release, 15 March 2007).
· 4 out of 5 new jobs go to migrant workers: The Government boasts about the millions of new jobs it has ‘created’. But a simple, devastating fact is now clear from all the official statistics: as many as 80 per cent of new jobs created in the past ten years have gone to migrant workers despite having 4.8 million people on out of work benefits (Statistics Commission, Briefing Note – Foreign Workers, December 2007; DWP, Quarterly Statistical Summary, November2007).
· More broken homes than almost anywhere in Europe: The UK has by far the highest proportion of lone parents in Europe, and one of the highest rates of family breakdown in Europe (Social Justice Policy Group, Breakdown Britain, 26 March 2007). Yet we have a couple penalty in the benefits system making families better off if they split up.
LOCAL FIGURES
The table below shows the number of Incapacity Benefit and Job Seekers Allowance claimants in each Parliamentary constituency in Kent, as of May 2007.
Sources: Deparment for Work & Pensions datasets
http://83.244.183.180/100pc/ibsda/ccparlc/ccgor/ccclient/a_carate_r_ccparlc_c_ccgor_p_ccclient_working_age_may07.html
http://83.244.183.180/100pc/jsa/ccparlc/ccgor/a_carate_r_ccparlc_c_ccgor_may07.html
Parliamentary Constituency
Government Region
IB Claimants
JSA Claimants
Great Britain
-
2,643,290
837,460
Ashford
South East
3,350
980
Canterbury
South East
3,500
920
Chatham and Aylesford
South East
3,160
1,330
Dartford
South East
2,890
950
Dover
South East
4,150
1,300
Faversham and Mid Kent
South East
2,790
760
Folkestone and Hythe
South East
4,420
1,670
Gillingham
South East
3,190
1,290
Gravesham
South East
3,460
1,490
Maidstone and The Weald
South East
2,770
790
Medway
South East
3,410
1,480
North Thanet
South East
4,980
1,680
Sevenoaks
South East
1,990
460
Sittingbourne and Sheppey
South East
4,170
1,480
South Thanet
South East
3,780
1,160
Tonbridge and Malling
South East
2,090
540
Tunbridge Wells
South East
2,350
570
ENDS
Sunday, January 06, 2008
"I WON'T" to gay weddings
Registrar says 'I won't' to gay weddings and sues council over ceremonies which offend her religious beliefs" article in Mail on Sunday
When this law came out the Government said it was NOT a marriage ceremony it was a CIVIL partnership to help to protect those who wish to live together legal rights. Yet two sisters or two brothers or come to that two Hetro Sexual Friends can not have a CIVIL Partnership to protect them only Homosexuals and Lesbians are allowed a CIVIL partnership that seems some what discriminating!
Surely being a Christian is to help your fellow human being but it is also about condemning and avoiding sin, so logically this Christian Registrar can not condone or promote a sinful act. Whether you like it or not most People believe the Homosexual act is sinful. Should a Council or Government promote Sinful activities?
When this law came out the Government said it was NOT a marriage ceremony it was a CIVIL partnership to help to protect those who wish to live together legal rights. Yet two sisters or two brothers or come to that two Hetro Sexual Friends can not have a CIVIL Partnership to protect them only Homosexuals and Lesbians are allowed a CIVIL partnership that seems some what discriminating!
Surely being a Christian is to help your fellow human being but it is also about condemning and avoiding sin, so logically this Christian Registrar can not condone or promote a sinful act. Whether you like it or not most People believe the Homosexual act is sinful. Should a Council or Government promote Sinful activities?
Friday, January 04, 2008
MEANS TESTING FOR MS IS A DISGRACE
A friend of mines wife has very bad MS so much so she can not walk, he will most probably have to finish work to become her carer. So as some one who has worked since he left school 35 years ago he has paid his National Insurance and taxes with out fail with little or no complaint. His wife needs a lift for the bedroom, invalid toilet and shower facilities, now as someone who paid into an insurance scheme all his life you would think he and his wife would be entitled to this free of charge? OH NO he is means tested this is where they have a look how much money he has in the bank, what property he earns and then they decide how much help he will get. In his case very little he has estimated he will have to get an extra mortgage £300 per month on what he is now paying to cover the extra facilities couple this with the fact that when he has to quit his job his income will fall by 50% his future is not very rosy. Now compare his plight with someone who may live a few streets away in a similar position, this family only worked intermittently over the last 40 years, when then they did have money they spent it on fags, booze, drugs and expensive holidays, they always rented. Now thy have nothing and everything is given to them free, even their rent and council tax is paid for. So my friend has been frugal with his money and saved for a rainy day and this how our government reward him, if he was paying into a Private Insurance scheme would they be allowed to pick and choose who it had to pay out on. Imagine the following “Sorry Mr Smith you have paid tens of thousands of pounds into our insurance but because you earn to much money we will not pay out, instead your money will go to the share holders” If that happened there would be a national outcry yet every day this government Insurance scheme uses MEANS TESTING.
On top of all this it takes months and months for anything to be done, like hospitals if you keep the ill and the elderly waiting long enough they will die and not cost the government a penny. WHAT A COUNTRY
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
On top of all this it takes months and months for anything to be done, like hospitals if you keep the ill and the elderly waiting long enough they will die and not cost the government a penny. WHAT A COUNTRY
Martin Clarke Sittingbourne
Female Bouncer sues Gay Night Club
This is aprt of an article that appeared in the Daily Mail find below the comment I added on line.
A female bouncer at a gay nightclub was yesterday awarded £6,000 damages in a landmark case after claiming she was bullied by her boss for being heterosexual.
Sharon Legg, a married motherof-four, fought her case under legislation brought in to protect gay, lesbian and bisexual workers from discrimination.
The 33-year-old is believed to be the first heterosexual to sue for harassment under the 2003 law.
At long last the Worm has turned. For to long Homosexuals and lesbians have been given favourable rights above normal people. It is a strange world where a human being who wishes to perform its natural rights i.e. reproduce is ridiculed and insulted. I refer to the term Breeder which is used by the Homosexual community to insult Normal Sexed people. Without us BREEDERS Homosexual would not exist
A female bouncer at a gay nightclub was yesterday awarded £6,000 damages in a landmark case after claiming she was bullied by her boss for being heterosexual.
Sharon Legg, a married motherof-four, fought her case under legislation brought in to protect gay, lesbian and bisexual workers from discrimination.
The 33-year-old is believed to be the first heterosexual to sue for harassment under the 2003 law.
At long last the Worm has turned. For to long Homosexuals and lesbians have been given favourable rights above normal people. It is a strange world where a human being who wishes to perform its natural rights i.e. reproduce is ridiculed and insulted. I refer to the term Breeder which is used by the Homosexual community to insult Normal Sexed people. Without us BREEDERS Homosexual would not exist
£290 Million on Consultants
Everything in this country is falling apart at the sleeves because of lack of money, yet a government department can spend £290 million on Consultants? Read On
PRESS RELEASE
Date: 2nd January 2008
Release date: Immediate
Subject: DEFRA consultants flourish while flood defences are neglected.
SCAP Director, Gordon Henderson, has revealed figures showing that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) spent a massive £290 million on consultants last year, but are planning to slash £270 million from programmes dealing with climate change and the natural environment.
A total of £1.1 billion of DEFRA money has been handed out to advisors since 2002, which is three times the amount the Environment Agency spent on building flood defences last year.
Mr Henderson said:
‘This news comes at a time when the Environment Agency is proposing that over the next century large swathes of our local environment will be allowed to become submerged by water, losing hundreds of acres of arable land.
‘The Medway Estuary and Swale Shoreline Management Plan recommended that almost the whole length of Sheppey’s southern shoreline and much of Sittingbourne’s northern coastline be categorised, in the long term, as “Managed realignment” areas, which in simple terms means that existing flood defences would be allowed to collapse and new ones built further inland.
‘I said at the time of the Plan’s review that the sensible thing to do would be to improve the existing sea defences, however, I was told that this would not be economically viable.
‘Which is why news that DEFRA has wasted so much money on consultants, rather than providing the Environment Agency with funds to better protect our shoreline; is simply adding insult to injury.’
….ends….
Note to Editors:
There are four categories of shoreline protection:-
1) Hold the line, which maintains the existing defence line.
2) Advance the line, which builds new defences seaward of the existing defence line.
3) Managed realignment, which allows the shoreline to change with management to control or limit movement.
4) No active intervention, which means that nothing is done to stop land erosion.
PRESS RELEASE
Date: 2nd January 2008
Release date: Immediate
Subject: DEFRA consultants flourish while flood defences are neglected.
SCAP Director, Gordon Henderson, has revealed figures showing that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) spent a massive £290 million on consultants last year, but are planning to slash £270 million from programmes dealing with climate change and the natural environment.
A total of £1.1 billion of DEFRA money has been handed out to advisors since 2002, which is three times the amount the Environment Agency spent on building flood defences last year.
Mr Henderson said:
‘This news comes at a time when the Environment Agency is proposing that over the next century large swathes of our local environment will be allowed to become submerged by water, losing hundreds of acres of arable land.
‘The Medway Estuary and Swale Shoreline Management Plan recommended that almost the whole length of Sheppey’s southern shoreline and much of Sittingbourne’s northern coastline be categorised, in the long term, as “Managed realignment” areas, which in simple terms means that existing flood defences would be allowed to collapse and new ones built further inland.
‘I said at the time of the Plan’s review that the sensible thing to do would be to improve the existing sea defences, however, I was told that this would not be economically viable.
‘Which is why news that DEFRA has wasted so much money on consultants, rather than providing the Environment Agency with funds to better protect our shoreline; is simply adding insult to injury.’
….ends….
Note to Editors:
There are four categories of shoreline protection:-
1) Hold the line, which maintains the existing defence line.
2) Advance the line, which builds new defences seaward of the existing defence line.
3) Managed realignment, which allows the shoreline to change with management to control or limit movement.
4) No active intervention, which means that nothing is done to stop land erosion.
Thursday, January 03, 2008
I have been Conned by BH Systems
Yes I am sorry to say I have been conned by BH Systems Ltd / Inest.co.uk. I went on to the internet to purchase a Digital Tv Recorder with Twin Freeveiw Tuners at £66.98 I thought I had a bargain. What arrived was Grundig Twin Anoloque Tuner, in a dirty beaten up box with no instructions. This company do not answer there telephone, email or fax so it seems i am stuck with this applainces. It seems I am not the only one to be conned if you go to http://www.unbeatable.co.uk/retailerreviews.asp?id=314577&pid you will see how many others have suffered . So beware
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Brilliant Poles Lazy English
Here we go again Employers telling us how lazy and incompetent we British are and how marvellous the Poles are, that to me translate to GOOD , ANOTHER SOURCE OF CHEAP LABOUR. These economic immigrants have taken ½ million jobs from British Workers (reported recently) and why because they under cut our work force and are prepared to work ridiculously long hours.
Yet in Poland reports are coming in that people queue at shops because there is no one to serve them, tradesman (if you can call them that) are an endangered species. Everyone realises that Poland has just come out of Communism but if the people of Britain had not worked after the last war to rebuild our nation where would be now. I suggest that all Poles return home and rebuild their beautiful neglected country and stop being used by that Greedy Nose in the Trough employers who are using you, the same employers who pushing low paid British Nationals into poverty.
I was recently told a Large Fruit Farmer inn my area was getting fed up with his Polish workers because they want the same money and conditions of work as British Subjects, plus they want managerial positions. So our Farmer is now looking for cheaper labour maybe the Albanians? After they want parity he can go on to local children I expect they would be even cheaper.
The latest from this farm was the polish fruit Picker who wanted job as a lorry driver, the Farmer said if he can get a license he would have a job obviously at a much lower wage. The Pole went home to Poland for a week he returned with a license to drive any lorry of any size and weight
Yet in Poland reports are coming in that people queue at shops because there is no one to serve them, tradesman (if you can call them that) are an endangered species. Everyone realises that Poland has just come out of Communism but if the people of Britain had not worked after the last war to rebuild our nation where would be now. I suggest that all Poles return home and rebuild their beautiful neglected country and stop being used by that Greedy Nose in the Trough employers who are using you, the same employers who pushing low paid British Nationals into poverty.
I was recently told a Large Fruit Farmer inn my area was getting fed up with his Polish workers because they want the same money and conditions of work as British Subjects, plus they want managerial positions. So our Farmer is now looking for cheaper labour maybe the Albanians? After they want parity he can go on to local children I expect they would be even cheaper.
The latest from this farm was the polish fruit Picker who wanted job as a lorry driver, the Farmer said if he can get a license he would have a job obviously at a much lower wage. The Pole went home to Poland for a week he returned with a license to drive any lorry of any size and weight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
