Jump to content

Polish cleaners

steveo

By steveo
in General ED Issues / Gossip

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chick

Chick

Posted
Posted

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a Polish national she would need to have worked

> full time for 12 months and be actively looking

> for work to claim income support.

>

> If she has resigned in order to claim income

> support then legally she's a benefit fraudster.

>

> However, I think this overlooks the central tenet

> of the OP, which is insinuating that foreginers

> are coming to UK to be parasites on our welfare

> state and steal money from British people.

>

> People should be reassured to discover that around

> 20% of Brits claim income support fo some kind -

> whereas only 6% of foreigners do.

>

> So the Brits are more likely to be benefit

> parasites than Polish housemaids.



The biggest benefit parasites in this country are your mates the German sausage munching royal family.

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

Chick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The biggest benefit parasites in this country are your mates the German sausage munching royal family.


Overlooking the casual racism, have you actually done a cost/benefit analysis of that? Don't forget to take into account tourism, business goodwill and the cost of replacing the monarchy with an alternative head of state.


As an example, take the recent royal wedding - it has been estimated that the wedding generated a ?620m consumer spending boost. Plus it reached, it is estimated, a worldwide viewing audience of about two billion people, not to mention front page news on countless newspapers and magazines. What would a tourism advertising campaign have to spend to get that sort of reach? It wouldn't be to hard to show that, whatever the cost to the taxpayer of the wedding, it has more than paid for itself.


I believe the total cost of the monarchy, including support staff and other costs is less than ?50m per year. You don't get much of a government department for ?50m - I suspect the costs for any replacement President would exceed that quite easily.


So - any figures to back up that assertion, chick?

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

Chick Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> No racism intended. And I think you have pulled your figures out of a hat.


I didn't have time before, but here's some links...


As an example, take the recent royal wedding - it has been estimated that the wedding generated a ?620m consumer spending boost. Plus it reached, it is estimated, a worldwide viewing audience of about two billion people, not to mention front page news on countless newspapers and magazines. What would a tourism advertising campaign have to spend to get that sort of reach? It wouldn't be to hard to show that, whatever the cost to the taxpayer of the wedding, it has more than paid for itself.


I believe the total cost of the monarchy, including support staff and other costs is less than ?50m per year. You don't get much of a government department for ?50m - I suspect the costs for any replacement President would exceed that quite easily.


So - any figures to back up your assertion, chick? Hmmm? Or have you just pulled your prejudices out of hat?

El Pibe

El Pibe

Posted
Posted

I'm inclined to agree that we're pushing the ol' racism sensitivities a bit far getting worked up about froggies or the Hun. It's usually meant as light hearted ribbing or tongue in cheek.


I guess I get the zero tolerance give them an inch and they'll take a mile approach to racism, but in reality I think it undermines the real issues and gives rise to the dreaded cry of 'It's political correctness gone maaaaaaad'.


I might take slight umbrage if you describe me as a lazy dago though (which one of my teachers did thinking about it....though I was pretty lazy at school) but I won't take it to heart ;-)

Loz

Loz

Posted
Posted

OK, I did say 'casual racism' originally, and it was on the lower end of the scale (if there is one). Still a bit unnecessary though and used to back up and emphasise a hatred.


Doesn't overlook the fact that you made a lame comment, refused to back it up and ran away when pressed, though.


And funnily enough, I'm not a 'royalist' as such. In fact, I'm a bit split on the whole matter. Being a dual-nat Australian/British I think the royals are rather good for the UK, but completely irrelevant to Australia.


So, come on, chick, let's have a debate. You don't need stats and such - give us a bit more information about why the royals are 'parasites', given that a parasite, according to Google, is "a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return." Start with the Queen: does she do nothing for the UK?

Huguenot

Huguenot

Posted
Posted

Let's put it this way Steve.


You've probably invited people over to your house for dinner. You may not have known everyone, there might have been associated girlfriends or boyfriends, or simply hangers-on. They might even, at your invitation, used the loo.


It would take considerable daftness to assume that as a consequence you had an open door policy to people you didn't know coming in your house, raiding your fridge and using your shitter.


That's what you've done there. It's called reductio ad absurdum.


You've taken a perfectly reasonable swing door policy that works as well for Brits who want to retire in Spain as it does for French people who want to work in coffee shops, and constrcuted a ridiculous scenario where soap dodgers are coming in their millions to steal from your wallet.


Pack it in, it's boring.

Chick

Chick

Posted
Posted

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Let's put it this way Steve.

>

> You've probably invited people over to your house

> for dinner. You may not have known everyone, there

> might have been associated girlfriends or

> boyfriends, or simply hangers-on. They might even,

> at your invitation, used the loo.

>

> It would take considerable daftness to assume that

> as a consequence you had an open door policy to

> people you didn't know coming in your house,

> raiding your fridge and using your shitter.

>

> That's what you've done there. It's called

> reductio ad absurdum.

>

> You've taken a perfectly reasonable swing door

> policy that works as well for Brits who want to

> retire in Spain as it does for French people who

> want to work in coffee shops, and constrcuted a

> ridiculous scenario where soap dodgers are coming

> in their millions to steal from your wallet.

>

> Pack it in, it's boring.


Well said.

  • 4 months later...
Captain Scarlet

Captain Scarlet

Posted
Posted

The Poles I have met have been hard working decent people,I have had repairs done to my house by a Polish Builder

I was given a quote for the work and a time period for completion.No problems whatsoever!

Afraid I cannot say the same for Uk Builder I had used before! ripped off and cheated.

My mother inlaw used to have a Polish Cleaner also, who was a really helpfull and put herself out of her way

to help......So I do not have any problems for a cleaner to use our welfare system! makes a change from the scroungers

and Welfare fiddlers.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

East Dulwich Forum

Established in 2006, we are an online community discussion forum for people who live, work in and visit SE22.

Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...