Iraqi asylum cheat who got £700,000 in benefits, three houses and private school

[Bailey]

The reason why many people give up is because people such as yourself jump on the racist bandwagon against various groups such as the BNP but at the same time neglect to even criticise the Labour and Tory parties race-related policies. I mean for instance, UKIP has even been called racist by the loons both on here and the crackpots within the Lib/Lab/Con parties despite the fact that UKIP is the only party out of the five main to not have any policies based on race, gender or sexuality

Agreed on the UKIP front, during the election a UKIP poster was defaced with "racism" and "xenophobia" written all over the poster, shows how clueless people are really.

On topic: A sentence that is a waste of taxpayers money, then she'll go back to her daily routine, lifes a *****.

[MrPinkPanther]

If you have open borders across Europe then you have no control via your borders. Just now we have the government proposing a limit on non-EU immigration because it has no power to limit EU immigration. The issue of asylum is also jointly linked because they travel across the European Union to get here - most of Europe is 'free' according to the European Union, so why do they feel the need to across numerous countries and the English Channel to come here?

Firstly we do have control over our borders and we are one of the few EU countries to do so. We currently do NOT have to take in immigrants from any of the countries that joined the EU in 2004 or 2007 (eastern european countries) but we chose to do so anyway because they benefit to our economy.

Secondly a lower percentage of our population are immigrants compared to most of Europe, below 9% in fact. Even a country considered to be "tough" on immigration like Germany has over 12%.

Thirdly why should countries have to take on additional asylum seekers just because of their geographical location? I don't believe Britain should take on all asylum seekers but the fact is we don't, very few try to make it to Britain but we need to take care of those who do and pull our weight on the world stage. It's only fair.

Fourthly I don't think you understand asylum seeking. It's because they've faced an oppressive regime. This doesn't mean someone isn't them giving them freedom of speech, no. It means that they imprisoned, tortured or even facing the death penalty having done absolutely nothing. Imagine if you were oppressed for being homosexual and you were going to be killed for it, you escaped to Britain only to be told you were being deported back to the region you came from.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Firstly we do have control over our borders and we are one of the few EU countries to do so. We currently do NOT have to take in immigrants from any of the countries that joined the EU in 2004 or 2007 (eastern european countries) but we chose to do so anyway because they benefit to our economy.

Secondly a lower percentage of our population are immigrants compared to most of Europe, below 9% in fact. Even a country considered to be "tough" on immigration like Germany has over 12%.

Thirdly why should countries have to take on additional asylum seekers just because of their geographical location? I don't believe Britain should take on all asylum seekers but the fact is we don't, very few try to make it to Britain but we need to take care of those who do and pull our weight on the world stage. It's only fair.

Fourthly I don't think you understand asylum seeking. It's because they've faced an oppressive regime. This doesn't mean someone isn't them giving them freedom of speech, no. It means that they imprisoned, tortured or even facing the death penalty having done absolutely nothing. Imagine if you were oppressed for being homosexual and you were going to be killed for it, you escaped to Britain only to be told you were being deported back to the region you came from.

The Eastern European decision, oh what a farce that was I remember. I think it was that Labour estimated something like 13,000 immigrants from Eastern Europe and it turned into the hundreds of thousands - so I think you'll appreciate the fact that many people will not take you or the other advocates seriously on that factor/front.

Secondly, I could not really care about other countries if I am honest regarding this issue. I live in the United Kingdom, I want my government to have control over its borders thus including EU immigration. A sovereign country is supposed to have control of its own borders, its one of the basic foundations of control and sovereignty. Our country has a generous welfare system and that must be protected and not overloaded.

Other countries should take on their load if they wish to do so, if not then that is solely their decision and one I think people across the world should decide in referendums which asylum and immigration policies they wish to adopt. If asylum seekers are really escaping persecution then why would they travel across various free countries to come here? - surely if you are escaping danger you dont particulary care about where you land aslong as its safety?

Lastly, if we thought in that manner then we'd have most North Koreans coming here, most Africans, most Indians in poverty and so on. It is not realistic nor practical. The difference between my stance and your own is that mine is realistic, yours is idealistic. The immigration policy itself; personally I dont agree with any type of limit on immigration, but I do want restrictions on immigration and asylum which allow only the best into this country.

[Nemo]

The Weimar Republic had a PR voting system from what I recall, meaning that every vote counts. Now hang on a second, are you actually telling me that some votes shouldnt be counted because of the party they count towards? (possibly the BNP?) - if so, then what an arrogant and despotic stance to take on peoples beliefs and political viewpoints.

Its all very well debating and discussion, but to ban freedom of speech does exactly what the state which succeeded the Weimar Republic practicied.

Ya this is why i dont get involved, i dont know massive amounts and you guys take it super serious, can i run away now? :p

[MrPinkPanther]

Ya this is why i dont get involved, i dont know massive amounts and you guys take it super serious, can i run away now? :p

I'll back you up cause i'm nice like that and I like arguing with Dan ;D.

Dan, does Weimar Germany not indicate what happens when you allow derogatory language to be used upon those who some people believe to be inferior? Look at the 1920's, Germany was one of the most free and perhaps liberal countries on Earth, Berlin was even the Gay capital of the world. However after the economic turmoil in the late 1920's people began to look for a scapegoat, this was blamed on the Jews. Now because they had no anti-racist legislation this idea that the Jews were to blame was allowed to breed and spread throughout much of the population. It's exactly what I said to you before that allowing "derogatory language" will eventually lead to violence because it means that people believe that they are allowed to consider people inferior and it spreads that whole idea. Until Kristallnacht there wasn't really any widespread violence against the Jews or other "undesirables", it was purely verbal and look what happened within 10 years of Kristallnacht, 15 Million dead.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'll back you up cause i'm nice like that and I like arguing with Dan ;D.

Dan, does Weimar Germany not indicate what happens when you allow derogatory language to be used upon those who some people believe to be inferior? Look at the 1920's, Germany was one of the most free and perhaps liberal countries on Earth, Berlin was even the Gay capital of the world. However after the economic turmoil in the late 1920's people began to look for a scapegoat, this was blamed on the Jews. Now because they had no anti-racist legislation this idea that the Jews were to blame was allowed to breed and spread throughout much of the population. It's exactly what I said to you before that allowing "derogatory language" will eventually lead to violence because it means that people believe that they are allowed to consider people inferior and it spreads that whole idea. Until Kristallnacht there wasn't really any widespread violence against the Jews or other "undesirables", it was purely verbal and look what happened within 10 years of Kristallnacht, 15 Million dead.

I have said before, there is a big difference between negative opinions and inciting violence. The Nazis incited violence and used bullying tactics to take control, infact they even used socialism as a method to get the poorest on board with the Nazi project much like modern parties do nowadays with welfare and benefits bribes (you only have to see the reaction of teenagers when their EMA is threatened to be taken away). If somebody does not like gays then they should be allowed to say that - that is freedom of speech. It must not though, incite violence against people.

The rise of the Nazi Party was quite unrelated about the Jewish issue, infact it was mostly other factors hence why when the Third Reich did fall and and extent of the death camps was revealed (a suprise even to the Allied Forced) it was shock and horror at what had been done - a lot was done in secret.

[Axel]

I still think they should just remove benefits completely

What a brilliant idea!

The fact is, some people actually need benefits. But the sad truth is, a lot of people exploit the system for their own personal gains.

Also, people talking about Weimar having proportional representation, that is one of the contributors to the fall of the Weimar republic and the rise of the Nazis - thanks to proportional representation being allowed in the constitution, from the outset the Weimar republic was doomed to be a series of politically unstable and short-lived coalition governments - and it was. There were various different coalitions, and they all failed. It was only until Hitler and the Nazis made a coalition with the DNVP in 1933, with which they shared a few ideals, that a 'stable' government was created. That turned out well, right?

[-:Undertaker:-]

What a brilliant idea!

The fact is, some people actually need benefits. But the sad truth is, a lot of people exploit the system for their own personal gains.

Also, people talking about Weimar having proportional representation, that is one of the contributors to the fall of the Weimar republic and the rise of the Nazis - thanks to proportional representation being allowed in the constitution, from the outset the Weimar republic was doomed to be a series of politically unstable and short-lived coalition governments - and it was. There were various different coalitions, and they all failed. It was only until Hitler and the Nazis made a coalition with the DNVP in 1933, with which they shared a few ideals, that a 'stable' government was created. That turned out well, right?

If a Nazi Party is voted in then how can you argue against its legitamacy? - if you argue against 'one vote = one count' then you are arguing against democracy and the right of people to vote on their government - exactly what the Nazi Party went on to carry out. The proportional representation system had very little to do with the rise of the Nazis and is often used by advocates of the FPTP system to keep it in place, along with the Lib/Lab/Con ruling elite who are virtually unremovable in terms of seats, apart from a small number of marginals.

[Inseriousity.]

According to the DWP, the government lost around £900m in "benefit theft" in 2005, but HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), when asked how much the government was missing out in terms of lost revenue from tax evasion, said that "it is not possible to quantify a negative figure". However, Treasury papers leaked in June last year reveal that the government estimates a staggering annual loss of between £97bn and £150bn to tax theft, representing an appalling 8% to 12% of the nation's GDP.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...omment.society

It's a really old news story but it did make me wonder who the real criminals are.

Is there really any need for the 'Iraqi' bit in the headline though? It's once again the Daily Mail's continued attack against the ethnic minorities. There will also be white people abusing the benefits system we've got as well and it's rather sad how the media continues to attack certain groups (teenagers as another example). However, she should be deported. If we let them in, they must follow our rules but thankfully, the majority of them do.

[Axel]

If a Nazi Party is voted in then how can you argue against its legitamacy? - if you argue against 'one vote = one count' then you are arguing against democracy and the right of people to vote on their government - exactly what the Nazi Party went on to carry out. The proportional representation system had very little to do with the rise of the Nazis and is often used by advocates of the FPTP system to keep it in place, along with the Lib/Lab/Con ruling elite who are virtually unremovable in terms of seats, apart from a small number of marginals.

Directly, it didn't bring about the rise of the Nazis, but it is partly the reason why the Nazis in to power - if it wasn't for all the failed coalitions governments, Hindenburg would never have been swayed to let Hitler become chancellor and the nazis to form a majority with the DNVP.