Making the news today....

[Johnsond]

12 minutes ago, doobin said:

So you're saying he's facing an inheritance tax bill despite not owning land?

 

You can draw parallels there with, say, a sucessful groundworks business. All the sucessful groundworks company owners I know have by age sixty all handed over to their sons. Well clear of the 7 year rule, and then enjoy a retirement.

 

Sounds like a succession planning issue, which is a known issue among farmers.

No as I said in my original post part of the farm is family owned and part of the land they farm is rented off the local estate. The latter is neither here nor there. 
 

[Johnsond]

6 hours ago, Steven P said:

However I can see the thrill in the D household on a Monday, just after you have finished knocking one out when your 2 favourite topic appear on the same news story

 

"Hey, D, can you take the kids to School"

"In a minute Mavis, I just have to post this on the Arborist forum, the guys will be as excited as me to know that Kier is going to do some effective border controls.... Yeah I know most will be setting up on site for a days work just now, it will keep them buzzing till lunch! So excited today Mavis with this news, I could squeal with excitement"

 

 

However I do think you are posting this on the wrong thread, try the Employment thread - always posts asking for groundies - 30,000 'military age' - so lets assume you know more than me that they are also fit and healthy  - would cut the shortage in workers here in a blink of an eye. That would be good wouldn't it?

Just rereading this post and the last few sentences regarding work etc. No it wouldn’t be good, some things are worth more than a nice balance sheet, our culture our history our values our security etc etc have more value than possibly filling a few job vacancies when there are plenty here who can work. Sort out the benefits/taxation system to make it worthwhile rather than it act like a magnet for anybody who has the cash to pay for a trip over the channel illegally. 
2 or 3 Rwanda flights or 2 or 3 mid channel push backs would be all it took, take the ultra woke condemnation from the left wing human rights industry “ of which Starmer was a part “ and get on with  things, very soon it would become yesterdays news. The word would soon get out crossing illegally is pointless. 
The alternative mentality displayed by the likes of yourself is just going to increase the attraction to cross illegally. 

Edited November 4, 2024 by Johnsond

[Steven P]

Not at all.

They tightened the rules so that they couldn't walk onto a ferry and come here.

So they hid on in the back of lorries

They tightened the rules so that the lorry drivers were penalised if they did

So they hid on Eurostar trucks

They tightened the security at Eurostar terminals

So they started coming in inflatable dinghies

They tightened the rules....

So....

 

See the pattern here, the rules are tightened and they come by a different method, usually a lot more dangerous than the last. More are killed in the crossings. Not forgetting of course that these 'illegal' immigrants often claim asylum, these are the humans who have been persecuted in their own countries to the extent that a quick death in the channel on a small boat are better odds than staying at home.

 

Send them Rwanda - despite the cash spent so far there has not been enough cases to show that this works and that they stay in Rwanda as opposed to starting off again, risking death at every turn, to try to cross the channel a couple of months later (noting that Rwanda is not a safe country despite Sunak changing the law to say it is, words don't make it safer)

 

 

I would give you my thoughts for solutions however you would pop up your usual laughing face when your comprehension is lacking and pick me up on semantics instead. Suffice to say, we should show our human side to the desperate and look to the 1,000,000 economic migrants (the ones coming here to 'steal our jobs') and not the 30,000 seeking help.

[Johnsond]

15 minutes ago, Steven P said:

Not at all.

They tightened the rules so that they couldn't walk onto a ferry and come here.

So they hid on in the back of lorries

They tightened the rules so that the lorry drivers were penalised if they did

So they hid on Eurostar trucks

They tightened the security at Eurostar terminals

So they started coming in inflatable dinghies

They tightened the rules....

So....

 

See the pattern here, the rules are tightened and they come by a different method, usually a lot more dangerous than the last. More are killed in the crossings. Not forgetting of course that these 'illegal' immigrants often claim asylum, these are the humans who have been persecuted in their own countries to the extent that a quick death in the channel on a small boat are better odds than staying at home.

 

Send them Rwanda - despite the cash spent so far there has not been enough cases to show that this works and that they stay in Rwanda as opposed to starting off again, risking death at every turn, to try to cross the channel a couple of months later (noting that Rwanda is not a safe country despite Sunak changing the law to say it is, words don't make it safer)

 

 

I would give you my thoughts for solutions however you would pop up your usual laughing face when your comprehension is lacking and pick me up on semantics instead. Suffice to say, we should show our human side to the desperate and look to the 1,000,000 economic migrants (the ones coming here to 'steal our jobs') and not the 30,000 seeking help.

Charity begins at home.

You are utterly deluded if you think those predominantly military age men crossing the channel are all poor hard done by asylum seekers. You do realise they are crossing through multiple safe countries to get here. Rwanda never stood a chance due to Labour and the left wing human rights industry desperately trying to stop it at every opportunity. SP in my eyes the likes of yourself are as big a cause of this issue as the people smugglers. As for the high legal numbers that too needs to come down massively. Utter insanity the level at how the UK population has increased in one generation. 
When is it gonna be enough for you fools ? 
 

Edited November 4, 2024 by Johnsond

[Steven P]

If that is what you say then it simply must be true.

 

 

 

 

Love the use of the word Military.. right from Farages mouth... and yet, hundreds and thousands of them.... are not fighting, have no military interest. I see you dropped 'fighting age' after I asked where they are doing all this fighting, so I'll ask, where are they all doing this militaring?

[Johnsond]

14 minutes ago, Steven P said:

If that is what you say then it simply must be true.

 

 

 

 

Love the use of the word Military.. right from Farages mouth... and yet, hundreds and thousands of them.... are not fighting, have no military interest. I see you dropped 'fighting age' after I asked where they are doing all this fighting, so I'll ask, where are they all doing this militaring?

I dropped the the phrase “ fighting age “ did I !! Because of something you said did I !! Please elaborate 

🤷‍♂️

Not from Farages mouth SP you would have to be a blind fool to not look at the images and realise what you are seeing. The government figures confirm exactly that. WTF do you think has been going on in a lot of these countries where they come from 🤷‍♂️Jesus are you so bloody stupid or blinkered. Half these guys would eat you for breakfast SP and not bat an eyelid. 
 

Edited November 4, 2024 by Johnsond

[peds]

I remember when I was an economic migrant of military age.

 

Don't remember ever being called that, I have to say.

[AHPP]

26 minutes ago, peds said:

I remember when I was an economic migrant of military age.

 

Don't remember ever being called that, I have to say.

 

Invade a country or stfu.

[sime42]

[5thelement]

2 hours ago, peds said:

I remember when I was an economic migrant of military age.

 

Don't remember ever being called that, I have to say.

‘Military age’ is the new racist slang for ‘Working Age’ you ignorant foreigner, and you only emigrated from a country that was formed in 1830, disgusting 🤮.

Edited November 4, 2024 by 5thelement