ISN'T THIS WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING TOO ?
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Thursday, 5 April 2012
VE HAF VAYS OF MAKING ZE UNTERMENSCHEN POORER
GERMAN UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT TO BE STOPPED FOR EU IMMIGRANTS
GERMANY TO GO AGAINST EU LAW
GERMANY TO GO AGAINST EU LAW
The Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper has seen a leaked directive from the Labour Ministry to the Federal Employment Agency - dated February 23 – which bars people who move to Germany from 14 EU countries, plus Norway, Iceland and Turkey, from claiming the basic unemployment benefit known as Hartz IV.
The European Union countries banned include Greece, Spain and Portugal, which has led the German media to interpret the move as an attempt to head off people moving to Germany before they have found work.
Up until now, immigrants from the 17 signatories to the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance (EFA), signed in 1953, were entitled to claim unemployment benefit in each other’s countries while they looked for work. The ministry has effectively unilaterally ended this agreement, justifying the move by saying that all EU immigrants should be entitled to equal benefit rights.
EU immigrants have only been able to claim benefits in Germany since October 2010, when a French man used the EFA agreement to claim the right in a federal court. Since then, the German job centre has had to pay benefits to immigrants from EFA signatories even if they have come to Germany exclusively to look for work.
“To give EU citizens entitlement to Hartz IV from day one does run the risk of abuse, since anyone can say they are looking for a job,” Ferdinand Wollenschläger, a European law professor from the University of Augsburg told the paper. “But you have to ask how realistic it is that young, educated Spanish people leave their home country to live on Hartz IV in Germany.”
The opposition said it was mystified by the ministry’s decision. “The number of immigrants that start claiming Hartz IV as soon as they arrive is almost zero,” Elke Ferner, deputy parliamentary chairwoman of the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) told the Frankfurter Rundschau.
The Federal Employment Office also said that the directive would have little effect on its work, since immigrants heading straight into the social security system were seen “only in individual cases.” They described the Labour Ministry’s move as a “preventative measure.”
The European Union countries banned include Greece, Spain and Portugal, which has led the German media to interpret the move as an attempt to head off people moving to Germany before they have found work.
Up until now, immigrants from the 17 signatories to the European Convention on Social and Medical Assistance (EFA), signed in 1953, were entitled to claim unemployment benefit in each other’s countries while they looked for work. The ministry has effectively unilaterally ended this agreement, justifying the move by saying that all EU immigrants should be entitled to equal benefit rights.
EU immigrants have only been able to claim benefits in Germany since October 2010, when a French man used the EFA agreement to claim the right in a federal court. Since then, the German job centre has had to pay benefits to immigrants from EFA signatories even if they have come to Germany exclusively to look for work.
“To give EU citizens entitlement to Hartz IV from day one does run the risk of abuse, since anyone can say they are looking for a job,” Ferdinand Wollenschläger, a European law professor from the University of Augsburg told the paper. “But you have to ask how realistic it is that young, educated Spanish people leave their home country to live on Hartz IV in Germany.”
The opposition said it was mystified by the ministry’s decision. “The number of immigrants that start claiming Hartz IV as soon as they arrive is almost zero,” Elke Ferner, deputy parliamentary chairwoman of the centre-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) told the Frankfurter Rundschau.
The Federal Employment Office also said that the directive would have little effect on its work, since immigrants heading straight into the social security system were seen “only in individual cases.” They described the Labour Ministry’s move as a “preventative measure.”
-------------------
So WE can stop unemployment benefit for EU Immigrants and stop Benefits for all immigrants from non EU countries without breaking any laws.
But the TRAITORS IN PARLIAMENT won't, instead they make the rest of us pay for the feckless workshy immigrants of the world.
But the TRAITORS IN PARLIAMENT won't, instead they make the rest of us pay for the feckless workshy immigrants of the world.
Wednesday, 4 April 2012
INCENTIVES
Everybody responds to incentives. It is a human trait.
The communist countries abolished incentives and saw production and living standards plummet and in many instances starvation occur.
In the USSR famine was caused in the nineteen thirties when peasants had their crops confiscated, so they reacted by slaughtering their livestock and failing to grow crops.
They had no incentive to produce if the fruits of their efforts were confiscated.
Result starvation.
In China under Mao peasants had their land confiscated and collective farms instituted.
Workers on these farms had their meagre rations whether they worked or not so there was no incentive to work hard.
Punitive measures were introduced for lack of production but did not work as there was an incentive to cheat. There was also an incentive by the party bosses to exaggerate crop yields to curry favour which resulted in the rulers of the country thinking all was well even while people were starving.
The communists believed that "community spirit" would produce the goods which is the ideal but this is not the way humanity works.
Helping your community only works when it is local and you yourself thus benefit. If there is no benefit for the individual however community minded they soon lose heart and cease working.
Eventually the Chinese realised the value of incentives and although nominally communist reinstated the incentive principle which has resulted in that country's rapid progress and prosperity.
Of course incentives do not always produce positive results.
Criminals are incentivised to commit their crimes because they pay. Punishments are weak and in the West crime does pay.
Immigrants are similarily incentivised to come to Britain where they can claim benefits for them selves (and their relatives) and by the realisation that whatever they do of a criminal nature they can use the Human Rights legislation to avoid deportation.
So what is the relevance of the above preamble to the situation in Britain?
Well for a start the governement does not think incentives apply to British people
There is little incentive for people to work and less for employers to take on new staff.
If you are in employment you are taxed to death and in many cases are better off not working.
The employment protection act prevents employers from dareing to take on new people in case they are sued for wrongful dismissal if the employee is found to be unsuitable, and beware if they take on an ehtnic minority where a dismissal can result in a wrongful dismissal with the added component of a racist charge.
And they wonder why blacks are more likely to be unemployed.
Businesses are taxed to the hilt.
National Insurance alone adds 25% to the wage costs, 12% employee contribution and 13 % employer.
Business rates are another cost. And they wonder why we can not compete abroad.
China's tax take is about 10% of GDP, but then China does not have the EU, foreign aid a large debt to finance round its neck. Ours is more than 40%.
It seems that British governments do not believe in incentives for the average small business or worker.
BUT THEY DO BELIEVE IN INCENTIVES FOR THE RICH.
Bankers and people producing little of value in the City avoid paying taxes and indeed make much of their money by selling our assets off to foreign companies. Again it pays them to do so.
They are incentivised to do so.
Why cut the rate of income tax for those on over £150,000 as an incentive for the rich while adding a tax burden on those workers on a more modest pay packet?
Do incentives only work for the rich? It would seem so.
Incentives work for everybody and it is the government's job to legislate that the things the nation needs to prosper are incentivised.
But what has Osborne done in his budget?
Incentivised his rich friends but not the man in the street.
Reuced income tax for the top earners.
Reduced corporation tax. OK for big firms but small firms will solve the unemployment crisis.
Penalised pensioners who save. Not much incentive for people to save then.
Yes he did reduce income tax for the lowest paid as well as the rich but I believe he should instead have reduced massively national Insurance (which is in effect an income tax) for both employers and workers.
These measures, together with the scrapping of employment and Health and Safety legislatioin would free our people to produce and compete in the world as we must.
INCENTIVISE THE BRITISH PEOPLE, cut the bureaucratic and tax bonds which hold us back, and we will be able to compete with the best in the world.
SET US FREE!
But this government wont as they have an incentive to pander to their wealthy friends.
AND THAT IS OUR INCENTIIVE.
They dont represent us or the interests of our country so-
GET RID OF THEM.
The communist countries abolished incentives and saw production and living standards plummet and in many instances starvation occur.
In the USSR famine was caused in the nineteen thirties when peasants had their crops confiscated, so they reacted by slaughtering their livestock and failing to grow crops.
They had no incentive to produce if the fruits of their efforts were confiscated.
Result starvation.
In China under Mao peasants had their land confiscated and collective farms instituted.
Workers on these farms had their meagre rations whether they worked or not so there was no incentive to work hard.
Punitive measures were introduced for lack of production but did not work as there was an incentive to cheat. There was also an incentive by the party bosses to exaggerate crop yields to curry favour which resulted in the rulers of the country thinking all was well even while people were starving.
The communists believed that "community spirit" would produce the goods which is the ideal but this is not the way humanity works.
Helping your community only works when it is local and you yourself thus benefit. If there is no benefit for the individual however community minded they soon lose heart and cease working.
Eventually the Chinese realised the value of incentives and although nominally communist reinstated the incentive principle which has resulted in that country's rapid progress and prosperity.
Of course incentives do not always produce positive results.
Criminals are incentivised to commit their crimes because they pay. Punishments are weak and in the West crime does pay.
Immigrants are similarily incentivised to come to Britain where they can claim benefits for them selves (and their relatives) and by the realisation that whatever they do of a criminal nature they can use the Human Rights legislation to avoid deportation.
So what is the relevance of the above preamble to the situation in Britain?
Well for a start the governement does not think incentives apply to British people
There is little incentive for people to work and less for employers to take on new staff.
If you are in employment you are taxed to death and in many cases are better off not working.
The employment protection act prevents employers from dareing to take on new people in case they are sued for wrongful dismissal if the employee is found to be unsuitable, and beware if they take on an ehtnic minority where a dismissal can result in a wrongful dismissal with the added component of a racist charge.
And they wonder why blacks are more likely to be unemployed.
Businesses are taxed to the hilt.
National Insurance alone adds 25% to the wage costs, 12% employee contribution and 13 % employer.
Business rates are another cost. And they wonder why we can not compete abroad.
China's tax take is about 10% of GDP, but then China does not have the EU, foreign aid a large debt to finance round its neck. Ours is more than 40%.
It seems that British governments do not believe in incentives for the average small business or worker.
BUT THEY DO BELIEVE IN INCENTIVES FOR THE RICH.
Bankers and people producing little of value in the City avoid paying taxes and indeed make much of their money by selling our assets off to foreign companies. Again it pays them to do so.
They are incentivised to do so.
Why cut the rate of income tax for those on over £150,000 as an incentive for the rich while adding a tax burden on those workers on a more modest pay packet?
Do incentives only work for the rich? It would seem so.
Incentives work for everybody and it is the government's job to legislate that the things the nation needs to prosper are incentivised.
But what has Osborne done in his budget?
Incentivised his rich friends but not the man in the street.
Reuced income tax for the top earners.
Reduced corporation tax. OK for big firms but small firms will solve the unemployment crisis.
Penalised pensioners who save. Not much incentive for people to save then.
Yes he did reduce income tax for the lowest paid as well as the rich but I believe he should instead have reduced massively national Insurance (which is in effect an income tax) for both employers and workers.
These measures, together with the scrapping of employment and Health and Safety legislatioin would free our people to produce and compete in the world as we must.
INCENTIVISE THE BRITISH PEOPLE, cut the bureaucratic and tax bonds which hold us back, and we will be able to compete with the best in the world.
SET US FREE!
But this government wont as they have an incentive to pander to their wealthy friends.
AND THAT IS OUR INCENTIIVE.
They dont represent us or the interests of our country so-
GET RID OF THEM.
MIKE WHITBY - LABOUR PARTY ACTIVIST
Well here's a bit of news and explains quite a lot about the destruction of Wigan BNP, Liverpool BNP and many more NW BNP groups.
Apparently Whitby is a long term member and activist for the Labour party.
And the reason that certain Liverpool BNP members have now left, supposedly the same members who found out about Whitby.
If anyone knows anything about this could you let us here at Wigan Patriot know.
It all sounds very suspicious, especially the sudden defection to the NF by certain ex-Liverpool BNP members.
Apparently Whitby is a long term member and activist for the Labour party.
And the reason that certain Liverpool BNP members have now left, supposedly the same members who found out about Whitby.
If anyone knows anything about this could you let us here at Wigan Patriot know.
It all sounds very suspicious, especially the sudden defection to the NF by certain ex-Liverpool BNP members.
ARE THE IMMIGRANT WORKFORCE IN OUR HOSPITALS KILLING OFF OUR OLD AND INFIRM ?
Stepping Hill: Police recategorise another patient's death
The male nurse arrested by detectives investigating the poisoning of patients at Stepping Hill hospital has been named as Victorino Chua.
Beryl Hope, 70, died last August at the Stepping Hill hospital in Stockport after being poisoned by products contaminated with insulin.
It was initially thought she had died of natural causes but detectives have said they have now “recategorised” her case following a thorough review with medical specialists earlier this week.
But officers have said while they believe she was the victim of sabotage it is not known to what extent the poisoning contributed to her death.
The announcement takes to 22 the number of people believed to have been deliberately poisoned at the hospital.
Three of those, Tracey Arden, 44, Arnold Lancaster, 71, and Derek Weaver, 83, are being investigated as murder. ...
The deaths of Bill Dickson, 82, Linda McDonagh, 60, and John Beeley, 73, are also being examined after police said it was believed they were also the victims of poisoning.
They are among 18 other cases currently being investigated as offences of Grievous Bodily Harm.
A spokesman for Greater Manchester Police said: "It is now believed Beryl Hope, 70, who died in August 2011, was poisoned by products contaminated with insulin.
"It is not known whether the poisoning contributed to her death.
"Detectives are continuing to investigate and review the cases of 21 other patients.” ...
Filipino-born nurse Victorino Chua, 46, was arrested in January on suspicion of tampering with medical records at the hospital and was subsequently arrested on suspicion of three counts of murder and 18 counts of causing grievous bodily harm.
----------------------------
I think that the PTB within the Hospital and Police FORCE new it was probably one of their immigrant workers but chose instead to arrest Rebecca Leighton and publicise her arrest to throw suspicion away from Victorino Chua or other suspected immigrant workers.
"Another Stepping Hill nurse, Rebecca Leighton, 28, from Stockport, spent six weeks in jail after being held over allegations she had tampered with the saline bags.
She was then released and cleared of any wrongdoing last September when prosecutors said there was not enough evidence against her, but she was subsequently sacked over allegations concerning the theft of drugs."
She should sue the Trust and Police for wrongful arrest and unfair dismissal as their is NO evidence of any wrong doing. If she was stealing drugs the Trust would have had her arrested and charged by now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)