At Last Someone In The Media, Dares To Tell It As It Really Is.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3223828/PETER-HITCHENS-won-t-save-refugees-destroying-country.html

/// Actually we can’t do what we like with this country. We inherited it from our parents and grandparents and we have a duty to hand it on to our children and grandchildren, preferably improved and certainly undamaged. ///

/// Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education. ///

/// If so, they mean it. If not, they are merely demanding that others pay and make room so that they can experience a self-righteous glow. No doubt the same people are also sentimental enthusiasts for the ‘living wage’, and ‘social housing’, when in fact open borders are steadily pushing wages down and housing costs
up. ///

[retrocop]

aog
The last paragraph describes one ABer to a T. Hitchens must be amongst us :-)

[chaptazbru2]

Good for him.

[retrocop]

Hitchens is certainly no right wing nutter and he lives in the UK and I assume he pays his taxes so unlike some prat who thinks another journalist should be ignored this man speaks without his heart ruling his brain. A good,but chilling,article IMO.

[chaptazbru2]

I totally agree.

[sp1814]

AOG

There is a logical fallacy in Peter Hitchin's point, which has been played out with depressing regularity over the past few weeks.

The line:

"Every one of the posturing notables simpering ‘refugees welcome’ should be asked if he or she will take a refugee family into his or her home for an indefinite period, and pay for their food, medical treatment and education."

As long as these 'posturing notables' are paying taxes, then they are already paying towards the cost of accommodating refugees.

If someone demanded that for better treatment of (say) the elderly it doesn't mean that they are offering to house a number of OAPs, it means that they want their taxes to fund improvements in state care homes.

There are vast number of Government-funded initiatives that I don't necessarily give a flying hoot about, but I accept that it is important to the lives of others

For instance, why am I paying for other people's child tax credits when I have no children of my own and will never see any benefit from funding those who do?

[Svejk]

///As long as these 'posturing notables' are paying taxes, then they are already paying towards the cost of accommodating refugees///

Well, St Bob, for one, has only a nodding acquaintance with the taxman.

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// For instance, why am I paying for other people's child tax credits when I have no children of my own and will never see any benefit from funding those who
do? ///

One could say that about almost anything that goes into a welfare state such as ours.

Everyone who contributes, will not necessary benefit from some things.

I also have no children that I can claim child tax credits for, while some are not old enough to receive a state pension, you being a homosexual must benefit from certain amount of government funding, whereas I as a heterosexual do not, the same can be said regarding certain funding channelled towards various ethnic minority groups.

[sp1814]

AOG

You've basically repeated what I've already said.

You get benefits that I am not entitled to, and I get funding...hang on - no I don't. I can't think of anything I get that isn't available to everyone.

I'm what they call a 'net contributor', in that I've never used the NHS past school age, and never claimed JSA.

[Hypognosis]

@aog

//you being a homosexual must benefit from certain amount of government funding//

Other than one The Comic Strip Presents... episode, joking about things like this (a 'right-on' mayor, on his first day as mayor, in County Hall, London), where on earth do you get ideas like this one from?

[ummmm]

Can someone tell me what funding homosexuals are entitled to?

[Svejk]

Some of you seem rather naive about the myriad ways our government has for pizzing tax-payers money away. There are loads of gay advocacy groups and charities that are part or wholly government funded.

[Hypognosis]

@Svejk

On a point of pure pedantry:-

Advocacy as in "promote, encourage, give voice to" or advocacy as in legal representation?

(I assume you meant the latter: they hardly need the former)

[Mamyalynne]

Aren't there also groups/charities for heterosexuals,children, the elderly also wholly or partly funded by the government?

[Zacs-Master]

I'm sure there are mamya but they aren't minorities.

[Hypognosis]

@Mamyalynne

The very definition of a charity is "thing which the government* declines to fund".


* did I say government? I meant the taxpayer.

Some people do, however, pay extra tax, voluntarily. Bottoms up!

[Mamyalynne]

Put your bottom away,it's Sunday.

[anotheoldgit]

Hypognosis

Just two examples,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11193812/Government-to-fund-campaign-to-stamp-out-anti-gay-bullying-in-schools.html

And these are complaining about the cuts.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/03/lesbian-gay-transgender-community-groups-funding-crisis-cuts

[anotheoldgit]

Mamyalynne

/// Aren't there also groups/charities for heterosexuals,children, the elderly also wholly or partly funded by the government? ///

Yes obviously they also benefit, but they are not created specifically for heterosexuals.

[THECORBYLOON]

ANOTHEOLDGIT, unless SP is a teacher or is of school-age, how is the scheme in your first link going to benefit him specifically?

[retrocop]

How come,yet AGAIN,this post has now become dedicated to the Gay contingent.
I thought we were debating Peter Hitchen's comments on the smug, self satisfied do gooders (for themselves) with regards to refugees ruining the UK??