The K M Links Game - February 2025 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Fao Aog
For 18 months you expressed some concern about a large influx of immigrants from Romania & Bulgaria much to the mirth of some ABers. In view of this week's figures that 187,000 have indeed flooded in from those 2 countries in 12 months, are you happy that you were proved right and 'the usual suspects' have a great deal of egg on their faces. Or does it just deepen your original concerns.
Answers
There does seem to be a multitude of self-
17:05 Mon 02nd Mar 2015
SVEJK, did you read all of the ONS report? The report details those applying for NI Numbers and on page 5 it says,
"Previously published analysis indicates that EU2 NINo registration figures from the 1st
January 2014 are actually reflecting migration over an extended period: Approx 36% of
those EU2 nationals registering for a NINo since transitional controls were lifted had
arrived in the UK before 1st January 2014 – see analytical report May 2014"
If 36% arrived before 1.1.14, there were about 120,000 applicants who had arrived in 2014.
"Previously published analysis indicates that EU2 NINo registration figures from the 1st
January 2014 are actually reflecting migration over an extended period: Approx 36% of
those EU2 nationals registering for a NINo since transitional controls were lifted had
arrived in the UK before 1st January 2014 – see analytical report May 2014"
If 36% arrived before 1.1.14, there were about 120,000 applicants who had arrived in 2014.
Good morning Svejk, sorry I am late on parade, but it is good that you and others like the Judge are there to show some concerns regarding our country.
But you are both wasting your time trying to instil some kind of intelligent thinking into those who can see nothing wrong with the continuous (and at the moment) unstoppable mass immigration into such a small country as ours.
But then our politicians (of all 3 main parties) do not show concern, but then they wouldn't would they? Instead of looking after the needs of their own countrymen & women, they seem more interested in foreigners, instead of those who put them in the privileged position that they now find themselves in.
In the many years of my once working life, I have not seen a time when it has been so bad for our working classes, at one time a person left school, and waiting for them there was a choice of jobs, and when they settled into a job of their choice they could be sure that their wages or salary increased year after year, then when they married there was no shortage of housing for them, and if they chose to buy their house, (although at one stage the interest rate on their mortgage was 15%) they could still afford to pay, in the knowledge that they wasn't going to loose their job overnight.
I wish to ask those in favour of unlimited immigration, are you not bothered about the shortage of jobs, the decline in payment for doing those jobs, the shortage and high price of housing (making them unaffordable for most), crowded class rooms for your children, an overburdened NHS, crowded and overpriced public transport, plus congested public roads?
Controlled immigration is good for everyone, but uncontrolled is not.
But you are both wasting your time trying to instil some kind of intelligent thinking into those who can see nothing wrong with the continuous (and at the moment) unstoppable mass immigration into such a small country as ours.
But then our politicians (of all 3 main parties) do not show concern, but then they wouldn't would they? Instead of looking after the needs of their own countrymen & women, they seem more interested in foreigners, instead of those who put them in the privileged position that they now find themselves in.
In the many years of my once working life, I have not seen a time when it has been so bad for our working classes, at one time a person left school, and waiting for them there was a choice of jobs, and when they settled into a job of their choice they could be sure that their wages or salary increased year after year, then when they married there was no shortage of housing for them, and if they chose to buy their house, (although at one stage the interest rate on their mortgage was 15%) they could still afford to pay, in the knowledge that they wasn't going to loose their job overnight.
I wish to ask those in favour of unlimited immigration, are you not bothered about the shortage of jobs, the decline in payment for doing those jobs, the shortage and high price of housing (making them unaffordable for most), crowded class rooms for your children, an overburdened NHS, crowded and overpriced public transport, plus congested public roads?
Controlled immigration is good for everyone, but uncontrolled is not.
I'm not sure which decade you're referring to AOG. The 50s? When:
1. At the outbreak of the Second World War, two million women were still employed in domestic service. Wages were still only 25p a week.
2. In the late Forties, the typical manual labourer in Britain was entitled to just one week's paid holiday a year.
3. In the decade following the Second World War, more than 70 per cent of British workers were in manual labour.
4. In 1950, the average UK annual salary was just over £100.
5. In the 1950s, 1.5million women in Britain worked as either secretaries or typists.
6. It was only after the Second World War that it became the norm in Britain to work five days a week rather than six.
7. In the 1950s, the low average rates of unemployment (around 3 per cent) did not include the majority of women, who were considered "economically inactive".
8. The numbers of mothers in employment has tripled since 1951.
1. At the outbreak of the Second World War, two million women were still employed in domestic service. Wages were still only 25p a week.
2. In the late Forties, the typical manual labourer in Britain was entitled to just one week's paid holiday a year.
3. In the decade following the Second World War, more than 70 per cent of British workers were in manual labour.
4. In 1950, the average UK annual salary was just over £100.
5. In the 1950s, 1.5million women in Britain worked as either secretaries or typists.
6. It was only after the Second World War that it became the norm in Britain to work five days a week rather than six.
7. In the 1950s, the low average rates of unemployment (around 3 per cent) did not include the majority of women, who were considered "economically inactive".
8. The numbers of mothers in employment has tripled since 1951.
Zacs-Master
/// In the decade following the Second World War, more than 70 per cent of British workers were in manual labour. ///
And what is wrong with manual labour? If it hadn't been for manual labour, who would have mined the coal, built the ships, built the aeroplanes etc etc along with all the other things that went with them, this country would not have rose up to be the World's power house on the backs of all those sitting behind desks, with clean hands.
/// In 1950, the average UK annual salary was just over £100. ///
Where did you pick that figure from? The annual income in 1952 was £589
/// In the 1950s, 1.5million women in Britain worked as either secretaries or typists. ///
And was there anything wrong in that, how many now work in front of a computer screen or at a supermarket checkout, etc, etc?
/// It was only after the Second World War that it became the norm in Britain to work five days a week rather than six. ///
Some now work even seven.
/// The numbers of mothers in employment has tripled since 1951. ///
And is that a good thing? Once when a woman married it was up to her husband to support her and their children, and most could afford to, now it is necessary for women to go out to work so as to contribute towards the high cost of living.
A pint of milk: 1952: 4p 2012: 49p
Loaf of bread: 1952: 6p 2012: £1.25
A dozen eggs: 1952: 8p 2012: £1.68
Tea (per 40 bags): 1952: 5p 2012: £1.35
Annual income: 1952: £589 2012: £27,000
Three-bed house: 1952: £2,000 2012: £162,000
1952 prices converted into modern £/pence. Source: Office for National Statistics
/// In the decade following the Second World War, more than 70 per cent of British workers were in manual labour. ///
And what is wrong with manual labour? If it hadn't been for manual labour, who would have mined the coal, built the ships, built the aeroplanes etc etc along with all the other things that went with them, this country would not have rose up to be the World's power house on the backs of all those sitting behind desks, with clean hands.
/// In 1950, the average UK annual salary was just over £100. ///
Where did you pick that figure from? The annual income in 1952 was £589
/// In the 1950s, 1.5million women in Britain worked as either secretaries or typists. ///
And was there anything wrong in that, how many now work in front of a computer screen or at a supermarket checkout, etc, etc?
/// It was only after the Second World War that it became the norm in Britain to work five days a week rather than six. ///
Some now work even seven.
/// The numbers of mothers in employment has tripled since 1951. ///
And is that a good thing? Once when a woman married it was up to her husband to support her and their children, and most could afford to, now it is necessary for women to go out to work so as to contribute towards the high cost of living.
A pint of milk: 1952: 4p 2012: 49p
Loaf of bread: 1952: 6p 2012: £1.25
A dozen eggs: 1952: 8p 2012: £1.68
Tea (per 40 bags): 1952: 5p 2012: £1.35
Annual income: 1952: £589 2012: £27,000
Three-bed house: 1952: £2,000 2012: £162,000
1952 prices converted into modern £/pence. Source: Office for National Statistics
ANOTHEOLDGIT, Zacs got the figures from this link, http://
I too cannot work out where the 187,000 figure comes from.
The chart from ONS shows it rising to less than 40,000.
Up 15,000 from 1.1.14. A rise, but hardly a flood.
http://
So Svejk, you have inadvertantly help to prove AOG completely wrong
The chart from ONS shows it rising to less than 40,000.
Up 15,000 from 1.1.14. A rise, but hardly a flood.
http://
So Svejk, you have inadvertantly help to prove AOG completely wrong
THECORBYLOON
/// ANOTHEOLDGIT, Zacs got the figures from this link, http://
Thanks for that, but "In 1950, the average UK annual salary was just over £100" I ask you?
I got my figures from the Office for National Statistics which stated £589 in 1952 a rise of £489 in 2 years????????????
/// ANOTHEOLDGIT, Zacs got the figures from this link, http://
Thanks for that, but "In 1950, the average UK annual salary was just over £100" I ask you?
I got my figures from the Office for National Statistics which stated £589 in 1952 a rise of £489 in 2 years????????????
ANOTHEOLDGIT didn't use ONS figures, it was the site he lifted it from that said it was from ONS figures. I have looked for ONS average earnings by year but no joy. I seen all sorts of figures quoted on various sites and it may be that some use the average for male and female whilst some use only the male earnings.
Zacs-Master
I'm thrilled that you cite the ONS figures as accurate. I trust you now believe the figures Gromit quotes?
Where did I say they were accurate? I was just producing more official figures than yours.
/// Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show some 503,000 people came to live in the UK in the year ending June, compared with 517,000 people the previous year. ///
So according to those figures a drop of 14,000 came to the UK, that goes to prove that the Tories are getting the figures down.
I'm thrilled that you cite the ONS figures as accurate. I trust you now believe the figures Gromit quotes?
Where did I say they were accurate? I was just producing more official figures than yours.
/// Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show some 503,000 people came to live in the UK in the year ending June, compared with 517,000 people the previous year. ///
So according to those figures a drop of 14,000 came to the UK, that goes to prove that the Tories are getting the figures down.
"Once the UK is no longer defended by the EU, the UK would become the concentrated target for non- UK illigal immigrants."
Er...er. It is precisely because the EU introduced freedom of movement and exacerbated that decision by the introduction of the Schengen Agreement that vast hordes of illegal migrants are free to roam northwards once they gain a foothold in southern Europe. They know that once they land on Lampedusa or wherever very little, if indeed anything, will prevent them from making their way to Calais. In fact last year the Italian authorities made a great play of their southern extremities being the "destination of choice" for most migrants from Africa (conveniently overlooking the fact that, by dint of geography, most of them had no choice at all over where they landed. They gave slightly less publicity to the fact that, instead of insisting that the migrants have their claims for settlement heard in Italy (being the first “safe” country arrived at as the rules dictate) they take every opportunity to swiftly usher the migrants over the border into France.
The UK is in a relatively fortunate position of (a) having the Channel to form a reasonable barrier between here and France and (b) not being a signatory to Schengen (otherwise no checks and preventative measures could be carried out at the Channel ports). So far from being “defended” by the EU it is that wretched organisation, by its treaties and agreements, that has facilitated the free movement of hundreds of thousands of people not entitled to be in Europe at all.
Er...er. It is precisely because the EU introduced freedom of movement and exacerbated that decision by the introduction of the Schengen Agreement that vast hordes of illegal migrants are free to roam northwards once they gain a foothold in southern Europe. They know that once they land on Lampedusa or wherever very little, if indeed anything, will prevent them from making their way to Calais. In fact last year the Italian authorities made a great play of their southern extremities being the "destination of choice" for most migrants from Africa (conveniently overlooking the fact that, by dint of geography, most of them had no choice at all over where they landed. They gave slightly less publicity to the fact that, instead of insisting that the migrants have their claims for settlement heard in Italy (being the first “safe” country arrived at as the rules dictate) they take every opportunity to swiftly usher the migrants over the border into France.
The UK is in a relatively fortunate position of (a) having the Channel to form a reasonable barrier between here and France and (b) not being a signatory to Schengen (otherwise no checks and preventative measures could be carried out at the Channel ports). So far from being “defended” by the EU it is that wretched organisation, by its treaties and agreements, that has facilitated the free movement of hundreds of thousands of people not entitled to be in Europe at all.
If you want to be confused by figures read the BBC's slant on things.
http://
/// Net migration - the difference between the number of people coming to live in the UK and those emigrating - rose to 182,000 in the year to June, up from 167,000 in the previous 12 months. ///
So up by 15,000.
Yet:
/// Immigration to the UK fell in the year to June 2013. ///
/// Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show some 503,000 people came to live in the UK in the year ending June, compared with 517,000 people the previous year. ///
http://
/// Net migration - the difference between the number of people coming to live in the UK and those emigrating - rose to 182,000 in the year to June, up from 167,000 in the previous 12 months. ///
So up by 15,000.
Yet:
/// Immigration to the UK fell in the year to June 2013. ///
/// Latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show some 503,000 people came to live in the UK in the year ending June, compared with 517,000 people the previous year. ///
THECORBYLOON
/// ANOTHEOLDGIT didn't use ONS figures, it was the site he lifted it from that said it was from ONS figures. ///
No it was not from the Daily Mail site, so sorry to disappoint you, it was from this and why would they print false figures?
http://
Unlike you I lived and worked during those times and can assure you that no one that I knew, worked for £100 per year = £1.92 per week.
£589 per year = £11.32 per week is more correct.
/// ANOTHEOLDGIT didn't use ONS figures, it was the site he lifted it from that said it was from ONS figures. ///
No it was not from the Daily Mail site, so sorry to disappoint you, it was from this and why would they print false figures?
http://
Unlike you I lived and worked during those times and can assure you that no one that I knew, worked for £100 per year = £1.92 per week.
£589 per year = £11.32 per week is more correct.
“I too cannot work out where the 187,000 figure comes from.”
The figure of 187,000 comes from this (an official government document) to which Svejk provided a link yesterday:
https:/
Towards the bottom of page 4:
“The number of NINo registrations from EU2 nationals (Bulgaria and Romania) in 2014 was 187 thousand, an increase of 160 thousand (576%) on 2013. They now comprise 1 in 4 new registrations to adult non-UK nationals. “
I also referred to that figure and the document in my earlier post.
The figure of 187,000 comes from this (an official government document) to which Svejk provided a link yesterday:
https:/
Towards the bottom of page 4:
“The number of NINo registrations from EU2 nationals (Bulgaria and Romania) in 2014 was 187 thousand, an increase of 160 thousand (576%) on 2013. They now comprise 1 in 4 new registrations to adult non-UK nationals. “
I also referred to that figure and the document in my earlier post.
Jackdaw33
/// A loaf of bread in 1952 was 6d, not 6p, equal to 2½p. A pint of milk was 4d equal to less than 2p. ///
No one is saying that a loaf of bread was 6p, read what it says at the bottom of the list.
Loaf of bread: 1952: 6p
1952 prices converted into modern £/pence. Source: Office for National Statistics
/// A loaf of bread in 1952 was 6d, not 6p, equal to 2½p. A pint of milk was 4d equal to less than 2p. ///
No one is saying that a loaf of bread was 6p, read what it says at the bottom of the list.
Loaf of bread: 1952: 6p
1952 prices converted into modern £/pence. Source: Office for National Statistics
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Why Are Labour Trying To Shield The...
News3 mins ago
