Polish Spitfire shoots down BNP

One of my friend received a leaflet from the BNP through the door, and his brother told him to read it for a laugh. Upon reading the usual "immigration has destroyed this country bla bla bla...", he turned the thing over to read the front page, "the new battle for Britain" and next to that was a picture of a spitfire... belonging to one of the polish squadrons.

theregister.co.uk/2009/03/04/polish_spitfire

So apparently their message is that British needed the Polish in 1940 and they need them now too!

:D

Nice play on words there. It is well known that Poles did the jobs that most Brits were too proud to do. The Poles were pretty awesome pilots and gave their all in pursuit of their cause.

Man invents wheel.

I think its quite obvious they were using the image because it was of a british spitfire.
So you heading isnt quite correct.
All joking asside though, the BNP is getting quite alot of attention at the moment in varying ways and is expected to make progress in the european elections.

How do polish people feel about this and what do you expect would happen if the BNP got the majority vote?.

The trouble is that the mainstream parties are generally gutless about addressing things like immigration because they're terrified they'll be seen as racist or that the industry bosses will pack up and go to China for cheap labour.

It is this reluctance which means the issues are never properly addressed and so people who'd never usually go near BNP find themselves going there because the party appear to offer either a solution OR, at least, a voice. A dangerous situation.

I wonder why the BNP didn't use a Gurkha...

Well, if BNP won the election then probably they would try to enforce some
kind of a ban on immigrant workers' acces to Britain's work market, but I don't
think Polish people really care as it wouldn't affect our lives in Poland too much
(if the emigrants came back from UK it would only be beneficial to our country)
and the expats are too busy working and generally don't care too much about
British politics.

*damn, that was a long sentence! I have to start listening to this TTC
Building Great Sentences audio course I downloaded LOL*

As for BNP in general, they're fighting a lost battle and in the long run they won't
be able to stop the UK from turning into United British Emirates. Demographics are cruel.

BNP members and sympathisers would do better thing for their country if they got
to beds with their wives or girlfriends and started making British babies, but as
statistical data shows us, that's one thing that they're not willing to do.

That is a Polish sentence if I ever saw one! If people started writing using Polish style sentences it could revitalise the British printing trade!

What the BNP are failing to realise with their biggoted views is that we neeed immigrant workers. Come to any small town and you will see that. Places like cafes and hotels cannot get local people to work there and are having to go abroad. The George Hotel here has about 75% foreign staff due to a shortage in local people.

Ban immigration and the amount of companies in the UK that go bust would be ridiculous.

Oh, and the leaflet made me laugh...what a bunch of idiots.

We need people where we have shortages and we need to get the lazy bast*rds on the dole in the UK back to work, uncontrolled immigration is NOT good for the UK and it's been said by all the political Parties.


Maybe if hotels and the service industry paid a wage where a person with a family can actually survive then we wouldn't need CHEAP foreign labour.


You reckon? Actually what would happen is that companies wouldn't take advantage of cheap labour and would be forced to pay a little bit more to locals.

Anyway hopefully if the UKIP get a bash, they drag us out of the EU!

With or without immigrants...this needs to be done!


I never said it was, I just stated that immigration is vital for the UK, being uncontrolled is ridiculous.


I would love it if that was the case...but at the end of the day, it's a non-unionised industry relying on students, part time folk and immigrants to fill out the shifts. In an ideal world I would be able to run a cocktail bar with a wage that could pay a mortgage and stuff, but that's not gonna happen.


I reckon that would happen in a few companies...but a LOT of them would go out of business. At this moment in time there are about 10 pubs/restaurants going out of business a week...you think that banning immigrants would help this?


I am still undecided about the UK and the EU...so forgive me for not debating on this one.

Easier said than done.

Very true, I wish I had an idea...so far all I have is employ folk to beat them until they get up or just remove benifits for 6 months to sort the wheat from the chaff and then start again much stricter.

This is due the fact people no longer use pubs like they used to, nothing to do with immigrants, but if there are 10 less pubs, why do we need more people in the country, because surely that estimates to about 100 people a week losing their jobs, more labour influx doesn't make sense.


I know, but look how working tax credits have helped, it's a fact that people are financially motivated, I personally have no idea how people manage on £60.00 per week to pay bills, feed and clothe themselves...There has to be a way forward.

I guess if you have no outgoings for rent c/tax etc. then you don't need all that much, but you're right. I could not survive on £60 p/w, even without a mortgage and bills. Some council tenants have their gas/electricity/water covered in a low weekly service charge, and some private tenants have their bills included in their rent covered by the Local Housing Allowance scheme.


Working Tax Credit is an incentive to work, but it only does so much.

Consider that Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit are reduced by a percentage of excess income (65% for HB and 20% for CTB), then the extra £200 p/w that someone will earn through actually working as oposed to claiming JSA will be swallowed up by rent and council tax costs. Then you consider that travel expenses (in London at least) can be £40 p/w then you have the following situation:

Sit at home all day with all of your rent and Council Tax paid and £60 p/w for personal use

or

Work 50 hours per week, earn £270 p/w, but have to pay £130 p/w towards your rent, All of your c/tax (£30 p/w) and £40 p/w towards weekly travel costs, thus leaving you with £70 p/w for personal use!!

Tough choice!!!

Even if the above receives an extra £60 p/w of WTC, £40 of that will go on their rent costs (rents in certain parts of London are astronomical), leaving them with an extra £20 in their pocket.

Who in their right mind would go to work for 50 hours a week for an extra £30?

What is the answer? We could start with refusing to pay HB to people who live in expensive parts of London, although I doubt that would be particularly popular given the ever increasing number of redundancies!

Even better, if you are a drug addict, you can claim 30quid more a week, if you are an alcoholic, thats another 25quid in the pocket per week :)

Good point ironse11, but i can understand why people would stay at home because £10 - £20 is not work working for.
Imagine if the control of migrant workers was better? and they could only be employed in areas that have a true shortage of workers.
Then you wouldnt see wages lowered to the levels we have now and that £10-£20 would be more like £50-£60.

You're very young aren't you. Some of us can remember when there were far fewer migrant workers, back then the gap between working and sitting on arse all day collecting benefits was the same as it is now.

About 7 years ago, u were better of not working and claiming benefits, than working for the min wage. It was ****** up system then. work and u will be in debt, poor and in alot of financial trouble. Dont work and you had less problems. Go figure.

I don't think a great deal has changed since then unfortuntely.

I cant speak about now, as i haven't been home in 5 years.
For example, i know some girl who is 26. She has 7 children, she has never worked, and her husband is in jail for murder. She gets over 1000 pounds a week fro the state, plus has her bills paid for, and lives in a 5 bedroom house in a very posh area. Now ask yourself this, why the hell would she want to work?

I am assuming that includes her payments for her house, because there is no way on this earth she receives £1,000 on top of having her house and CT paid for.

her Child benefit only comes to about £110.00 per week, she'd also only get about £150 max as a single mother (Im sure that, that figure is too high also). So either she is telling big lies or she is cheating and steeling from the system by claiming for several other people.


That depends on how you look at it, I have a friend who simply works to pay her bills (she earns more than minimum but gets no tax credits, she's on the threshold), but she would rather be working and have a bit of dignity! It's about attitude really.

I seriously doubt that dtaylor, she probably gets most of her rent paid, plus income support and child tax credit of about 100 a week, plus child benefit of the level that Shelley indicated. Its not riches. She would not have to pay Council Tax though, maybe thats what you mean?

Is the fault of single mothers that their babyfathers are useless tossers, and that rents are so ridiculously high that its more or less impossible for one person to cover the rent through honest work?

yes she is, i dont like the girl, dont get me wrong, im only using her as example. And yes that also include bills for house.

In Glasgow, with the whole problem of unemployment, its a way of life claiming benefits, you can cheat the system so easily.

I know people like that but they are few and far between unfortunately.


Spot-on, but an incentivised system would help.


How about £45 p/w per child!!

If she lived in central London, she would be entitled to a Housing Benefit allowance of up to £2000 per week. Why don't you just go and find yourself a nice 6-bedroom house down the Kings Road luv?

All tax-payers money.


If rents are that high, then why is the claimant living in such an area? I couldn't afford to live there earning decent money, so why should a benefit claimant be able to on tax-payers money?

45 a week, plus more, school fee's and clothing expenses, and more, total that up for each child, the add on extra for being single mum and place to stay, u will get close to the figure im talking about.

good idea , maybe I will...:) thanks...or should I move to the Welsh valleys?

Sounds like a plan. PM me if you want your HB application fast-tracked ;)

for what? Child benefit is 100 pm for 2 children! Get your facts right.

Dtaylor I am quite quite sure I have paid more taxes into the system in the last five years than you have....:)


Really are you one of the "pigs in the trough" council employees? Having a sick day?

How do you arrive at that figure?

You might want to re-read the posts and get your facts right. I am well aware of the benefit rates, I was looking at them whilst posting.

For the record, Child Benefit for 2 children is £143.87 p/m.

CHB eldest child = £20 p/w
CHB other child = £13.20 p/w
Total CHB = £33.20 p/w
(£33.20*52)/12 = £143.87 p/m

I was actually referring to Child Tax Credit which you incorrectly suggested was £100 p/w for a mother on Income Support with seven children.

As you will be able to see from the link below, the Child Tax Credit child element is £2235 per year discounting the family element, baby additions or disabled child elements.

£2235 per year = £43 per week.

hmrc.gov.uk/rates/taxcredits.htm


See above. Granted, it wasn't exact.


Or "snouts in the trough" perhaps? I'm not an MP claiming interest on my mortgage as an expense! I am paid to audit benefit claims which I do. My sick record is very good and I exceed my targets. You'll be happy to hear I prevented over £5000 worth of benefit overpayments today, which was substantially more than I was remunerated :-( So in answer to your question.... no I'm not.


I couldn't fast-track a benefit claim, even if I so desired. It was merely a light hearted response ;-)

I only posted the figures to highlight the fact that dtaylor's example is not a worst case scenario. A claimant with similar circumstances living in Westminster would possibly be entitled to over double that amount!