Mass Net Immigration.....Again.

They will be patient and launch attacks in every major european city at the same time.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Rickler wrote:

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

600,000 empty houses,  house price inflation, homelessness, unemployment are all essential tools in the kit. As are closed doctor's surgeries, cottage hospitals, care homes, libraries etc.

Who knows  who you are talking to here?  Or even what argument you are making?

But whatever it is.. You are cooking the books...

Only 216,050 houses are empty for over six months.  This figure would be all that would be available for  your great giveaway!

Nice try...

Franny is your typical bug up his ass, socialist, give away stuff that people have worked for kind of cove.

Two of those empties belong to me, many thousands of others are empty because other landlords like me have got sick and tired of feck wit tenants and over regulation of the market. It suits me to leave them empty, pay the council tax and wait for price to rise, it's the same as any other asset, ir belongs to me, I fecking worked and paid for it, WTF has it got to do with anybody else?

Large numbers of empty properties are in shiite tip Northern shiite holes, these newcomers don't want to live in Middlesboro, Hartlepool, Burnley or even Lesbos, they want Munich or London, all you would get filling up most of the empties is a massive increase in the dependency load, which is what mass immigration is all about, costs, costs and more costs.

ps. I have got as couple of cars which are not currently on the road, do I have to give them up to one of these illegal economic migrants as well? What about Franny's pension pot, shouldn't that be shared out among our new found friends as well?

I see the French police are searching for daesh operatives currently suspected to be in Calais waiting to sneak in to the UK to start blowing people up.

The politics of self, we're all very pleased for you and your portfolio Tis. The trouble is that you and others like you get involved because you don't know what else to do with your spare cash whilst knowing feck all about the market you are in. As you say you have every right to leave those properties empty although I'm not so sure about the morals involved. Personally I would deal with you the same way as all the second home owners and double or treble your council tax on any empty properties.

So then Franny let's try again, exactly how many migrants do you think we should take and how many houses ect will be needed? Or will they sleep on the streets?
Ps. For empty houses you need to look at long term empty houses.

Iggy wrote:

So then Franny let's try again, exactly how many migrants do you think we should take and how many houses ect will be needed? Or will they sleep on the streets?
Ps. For empty houses you need to look at long term empty houses.

Frannies not going to answer that. Same as he didn't answer if he would take refugees in personally. Same as he didn't answer about how he was going to implement his plan with 200 thousand houses instead of six hundred.

He claims terrorism from some refugees will be a myth. Common sense tells you otherwise.

He's quite frankly... Living in his own little (socalist) world.

Rickler wrote:

Common sense tells you otherwise.

I think you have quite succinctly summed up everything Franny says.

Iggy wrote:

So then Franny let's try again, exactly how many migrants do you think we should take and how many houses ect will be needed? Or will they sleep on the streets?
Ps. For empty houses you need to look at long term empty houses.

Right now we have an immediate, pressing emergency situation. What works in the short term to deal with it might not work in the longer term.

Putting any exact figure on it is problematic and just like Cameron's "no ifs no buts" pledge to cut nett immigration to tens of thousands is probably completely unrealistic in terms of being deliverable.

However in the figures I posted earlier there's around 200,000 properties which have been unoccupied for over 6 months. In my book that qualifies as "long term empty". We could start there and convert a huge part of a wider problem into a part of this solution.

To be honest I am reluctant to put an actual figure out there. If I said "10" then what about those who come after who may have a need every bit as compelling - if not more so? I wouldn't like to turn somebody away just because of some arbitrary number that is adjudged by focus groups to show us as a caring country but not a soft touch. That would be as difficult as it is ridicuous. It wouldn't matter if I had not suggested 10 but 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 the same is likely to apply (maybe not with 1,000,000 but who knows?).

Unlike some, who could joyously pull the drawbridge up after themselves, I feel very uncomfortable with "I'm alright, Jack - sod you!" forming my policy on anything. I'm proud to be British but if that was our policy I wouldn't be proud of it. That isn't what being British is all about in my book. In fact I'd go as far as to say it is a betrayal.

Another figure to throw out there is that there's around 43,000 or so towns and cities in the UK. Why not place a family in each and take it from there?

Or ask each local council how many people it could cope with? Some may say none and others may say hundreds (it's a bit daft directly comparing, say, Okehampton to Birmingham after all). I quite like this idea because the refugees would be dispersed which would encourage their assimilation into our society but may not be popular with them, or even practical for us, as they'd lose any ad hoc support network that might develop. However given the situation needs must.

As Rickler keeps saying it is a huge disaster. I agree although I suspect I am interpreting his word rather more compassionately than he is - I think he sees it as a disaster for us whereas the truth of the mater is that it is a disaster for them that hardly needs to impact negatively on us at all and if we show some vision and handle it properly it could be a real longer term fillip for this country just as each definable immigration "event" has been in the past.

That said I don't think the responsibility for housing all of those in need should rest with any single country - or even solely with Europe. There's no reason that they couldn't be dispersed globally.

I trust that that addresses your question adequately.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

Iggy wrote:

So then Franny let's try again, exactly how many migrants do you think we should take and how many houses ect will be needed? Or will they sleep on the streets?
Ps. For empty houses you need to look at long term empty houses.

Right now we have an immediate, pressing emergency situation. What works in the short term to deal with it might not work in the longer term.

Putting any exact figure on it is problematic and just like Cameron's "no ifs no buts" pledge to cut nett immigration to tens of thousands is probably completely unrealistic in terms of being deliverable.

However in the figures I posted earlier there's around 200,000 properties which have been unoccupied for over 6 months. In my book that qualifies as "long term empty". We could start there and convert a huge part of a wider problem into a part of this solution.

To be honest I am reluctant to put an actual figure out there. If I said "10" then what about those who come after who may have a need every bit as compelling - if not more so? I wouldn't like to turn somebody away just because of some arbitrary number that is adjudged by focus groups to show us as a caring country but not a soft touch. That would be as difficult as it is ridicuous. It wouldn't matter if I had not suggested 10 but 100, 1000, 10,000, 100,000 or 1,000,000 the same is likely to apply (maybe not with 1,000,000 but who knows?).

Unlike some, who could joyously pull the drawbridge up after themselves, I feel very uncomfortable with "I'm alright, Jack - sod you!" forming my policy on anything. I'm proud to be British but if that was our policy I wouldn't be proud of it. That isn't what being British is all about in my book. In fact I'd go as far as to say it is a betrayal.

Another figure to throw out there is that there's around 43,000 or so towns and cities in the UK. Why not place a family in each and take it from there?

Or ask each local council how many people it could cope with? Some may say none and others may say hundreds (it's a bit daft directly comparing, say, Okehampton to Birmingham after all). I quite like this idea because the refugees would be dispersed which would encourage their assimilation into our society but may not be popular with them, or even practical for us, as they'd lose any ad hoc support network that might develop. However given the situation needs must.

As Rickler keeps saying it is a huge disaster. I agree although I suspect I am interpreting his word rather more compassionately than he is - I think he sees it as a disaster for us whereas the truth of the mater is that it is a disaster for them that hardly needs to impact negatively on us at all and if we show some vision and handle it properly it could be a real longer term fillip for this country just as each definable immigration "event" has been in the past.

That said I don't think the responsibility for housing all of those in need should rest with any single country - or even solely with Europe. There's no reason that they couldn't be dispersed globally.

I trust that that addresses your question adequately.

A very good post, some of which I agree with. Your POV is much better expressed when you leave the self righteous arrogance at home.

Too many people confusing the current acute war refugee problem with the wider immigration debate. But then, that's what the politicians want.
The Tories have been in power for 5 years, and just like the deficit figures, the immigration figures just keep rising. Those of you that think any politicians, including Mirage, will stop it, think again. The world has changed and as a trading nation, we're part of it.
Business and public services have to employ labour from outside because we cannot supply suitably skilled labour. And that is due to poor education planning over decades along with the ' just in time' cheaper economic model we've adopted under Thatcher/Blair. Cowboy economics just shoving the real issues further under the carpet....not investing in training is the biggest problem, and I mean proper training.
If people want to stop the imported gang labour at the bottom end of the market, I suggest they go have a pop at the profiting unregulated bosses who employ such so called unskilled labour.
I haven't seen one contribution on here from the anti lobby as to how they intend to stop it, while keeping their beloved economy going. Naive. Bear in mind the most powerful nation on the planet couldn't stop their Southern border immigration. Do people really believe this country's industrial barons want out of Europe ?

Great contributions from SJH and SFD. Spoke to a GP today who said that rather than look to a 7 day service he is going to have to potentially close on a day during the week because we have no GP's. We train them and they go elsewhere because they can see that the British system is under funded. He can employ locums but they are 3 times the price and yet the income per patient doesn't change.

On a separate note I heard an interview with a 26 year old Syrian refugee on the world service who is going to Germany. She was hoping to find a job, make a life, have a family and contribute to society. She wanted to do this in Syria but she was tired of the bombing and being scared for her life. She was speaking perfect English and had a degree in biomechanics (whatever that is). Win/win. Germany take the compassionate route and gain skilled young people to help fill their skills gap.

And as for LT....I'm just pleased that by pure luck I wasn't born in Exeter and more importantly whether it be nature or nurture I haven't turned out to be such a self-obsessed, compassion free, pull up the drawbridge prick.

Lord Tisdale does actually speak a lot of sense.
No need for that sort of language and name calling Mr Trickle.
Especially from a MOD.

I withdraw the word prick, should have read person. I was wrong. Nothing to do with being a mod at all but name calling is wrong.

I apologise LT.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention Punchy.

Punchdrunk wrote:

No need for that sort of language and name calling Mr Trickle.

I look forward to your calm and rational responses to future posts that you don't agree with.

I haven't read this thread since Saturday and have just brought myself up to speed with what's been said. There's been some superb, thoughtful posts from all sides of the debate and to be honest I'm still not sure exactly where my opinion lies. I definitely think we should accept some genuine refugees(predominently families, women and children) into Britain but I've still got a nagging feeling that many of the younger males are either economic migrants or worse still potential terrorists, maybe only a small proportion but it wouldn't take many to cause havoc. Does that risk mean we should turn away those we are unsure about, potentially affecting the lives of the genuine ones because we are over cautious ?   It's a feckin tough one and I don't envy the task ahead for the security services trying to identify the good from the bad, surely an almost impossible task.

My gut feeling here is that we have rather more to worry about regarding our own radicalised Islamist nutjobs than from the potential threat posed by fleeing refugees. After all there is always a potential something or other that might lead to catastrophe. Have we become a nation of namby pamby lily-livered bedwetters afraid of our shadows now or what? Looks like it to me. Well some of us clearly have anyway.

How many embedded ISIS sleepers are there? I don't know. Neither does anybody else. There may be none or there may be thousands and both of those examples is unlikely to be accurate. Some? A few? Dozens? Hundreds? I have no idea. They are all guesses and they are all possible.

The obvious problem is that there is no way of vetting them that will be 100% effective.

It's a problem right enough but I think we just have to live with it and do the best we can and I don't see it as being justification for doing next to nothing to help at all.

Iggy wrote:

The politics of self, we're all very pleased for you and your portfolio Tis. The trouble is that you and others like you get involved because you don't know what else to do with your spare cash whilst knowing feck all about the market you are in. As you say you have every right to leave those properties empty although I'm not so sure about the morals involved. Personally I would deal with you the same way as all the second home owners and double or treble your council tax on any empty properties.

Nothing to do with "spare cash", I worked like a twat and invested in property rather than a pension which some knob at an investment company could gamble on stocks and shares, I tried for years to rent them out, I have a couple rented with great long term tenants, but so many tenants are total shits and when they fall empty now I will just sit on my investment like all you people than have big pension pots, no difference, except I did it all myself instead of subbing it out, I don't intend to apologise for looking after my own.

Dick Trickle wrote:

I withdraw the word prick, should have read person. I was wrong. Nothing to do with being a mod at all but name calling is wrong.

I apologise LT.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention Punchy.

Go fork yourself, you called it as you saw it, be a forking man and stand by that, wimp ass Swilly wanker.

Sir Francis Drake wrote:

I don't see it as being justification for doing next to nothing to help at all.

We are paying hundreds of millions, maybe billions to help the real refugees, the old and the young in the camps, you just want to reward the pushy elite who are illegally entering Europe, typical socialist, no forking clue what the actual issue is.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Dick Trickle wrote:

I withdraw the word prick, should have read person. I was wrong. Nothing to do with being a mod at all but name calling is wrong.

I apologise LT.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention Punchy.

Go fork yourself, you called it as you saw it, be a forking man and stand by that, wimp ass Swilly wanker.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Iggy wrote:

The politics of self, we're all very pleased for you and your portfolio Tis. The trouble is that you and others like you get involved because you don't know what else to do with your spare cash whilst knowing feck all about the market you are in. As you say you have every right to leave those properties empty although I'm not so sure about the morals involved. Personally I would deal with you the same way as all the second home owners and double or treble your council tax on any empty properties.

Nothing to do with "spare cash", I worked like a twat and invested in property rather than a pension which some knob at an investment company could gamble on stocks and shares, I tried for years to rent them out, I have a couple rented with great long term tenants, but so many tenants are total shits and when they fall empty now I will just sit on my investment like all you people than have big pension pots, no difference, except I did it all myself instead of subbing it out, I don't intend to apologise for looking after my own.

No big pension pot here I've done all mine on property and I'm betting my work was physically harder than most, in fact as hard as it gets. My remark was more to do with getting involved with the prop market when you don't personally know it. If you've invested in student accom. then if it's not near the uni you'll struggle. Same with working proffesional market, buy a nice place close to jobs, nightlife ect. and you should be able to let it to people that want to be there, if your places end up empty a lot I would suggest chopping them in and changing them for something easier to let. And if you haven't already sack your portfolio manager he sounds like a freeloading coont.

Lord Tisdale wrote:

Dick Trickle wrote:

I withdraw the word prick, should have read person. I was wrong. Nothing to do with being a mod at all but name calling is wrong.

I apologise LT.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention Punchy.

Go fork yourself, you called it as you saw it, be a forking man and stand by that, wimp ass Swilly wanker.

Tisdale at his finest!!!! Geddon the Tis!

Iggy wrote:

sack your portfolio manager he sounds like a freeloading coont.

"portfolio manager"?

What sort of big money crunt do you think I am?

I bought property when it was cheap and I manage it myself, I don't intend to lay off the unproductive ones now because I can see the continued pressure from immigration driving the prices up faster than any return I might safely get from the money elsewhere. I also intend to move into one of them when the Missus gives up work then rent out the family home which should realise more than enough for us to live comfortably on.

I just can't see why you would ever sell property in this country if you don't absolutely need to, houses in my street went up by £50k last year and the buggers rent out for over £2k a month now, where is an old scrote like me gonna earn that kind of money working? Tax free and all.

Happy days.