|
|
By  David Craig, on September 11th, 2013 There seem to be about 10 main candidates competing to win our coveted “Trougher of the Year” trophy. Between now and the end of the year, I’ll present the reasons why each deserves to win our award, then I’ll ask readers to vote. Remember, there are three main achievements for winning this great award – 1. To have pocketed a huge amount of taxpayers’ money: 2. To have been utterly useless at your job and even to have caused an immense amount of harm to the people who pay your enormous salary and pension: 3. It helps to be a congenital liar and recidivist coverer-up of your own and your organisation’s failings.
So, here’s a brief look at the BBC’s Mark Thompson.
1. How much taxpayers’ money has he pocketed?
I’ve just done some rough estimates. I’ve assumed his first 21 years at the BBC were on an average salary of £80,000 – total cost £1,680,000. Then he had 8 years as Director General of the BBC on a starting salary of around £560,000 which rose above £834,000. So, if we assume an average of £700,000 a year, that gives £5,600,000. Then there’s his pension. His subordinate at the BBC, Mark Byford, will get a pension of at least £400,000 a year. So, if we take a low figure for Thompson and assume just £400,000 a year for say 30 years, there’s another £12,000,000. All in all, Thompson will have cost us over £19,280,000 in just salary and pension. When you add in his, no doubt generous expenses, you’ll be comfortably over £20,000,000 and probably nearer £25,000,000.
2. What has he achieved?
Under Thompson’s 8 years as Director General of the BBC, the broadcaster was embarrassingly biased towards Labour. Hence people used to call it the Blair Broadcasting Corporation. The BBC has been a constant flag-waver for the corrupt, wasteful, undemocratic EU and has lambasted anyone who dared make any criticism of our supine submission to the venal, self-serving, unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. The BBC has also enthusiastically pushed the myth of man-made global warming and has been slaveringly supportive of Blair’s policy of destroying our national identity by allowing uncontrolled (5 to 7 million people) immigration. And, in Egypt and Syria, the BBC has been embarrassingly Islamophiliac and never mentions the fact that in Egypt appalling atrocities have been carried out by the Muslim Brotherhood against Coptic Christians and in Syria Al Nusra (and other crazy Islamist fanatics) have been slaughtering anyone and everyone – especially Christians. Moreover, in Syria, the BBC has been one of the main cheerleaders of a bombing campaign against Assad’s government to help the crazy Islamists take over the country and take it back to the Stone Age.
3. How honest is Mark Thompson?
Well, apparently in all his 29 years at the BBC, Mark Thompson knew nothing about the sex abuse committed by Jimmy Savile and others. Apparently Mark Thompson had never heard any rumours, never heard any gossip, had never heard anybody mention any doubts about serial rapist and child molester Savile. And just this week, we had the unedifying experience of seeing Mark Thompson and other top BBC panjandrums fighting like ferrets in a sack about who had lied to MPs over the massive pay-offs that Mark Thompson authorised for his chums, sorry I mean other executives, at the BBC.
There you have it – just a few reasons why Mark “BBC” Thompson should be the proud winner of our “Trougher of the Year” trophy. Well done Mark and good luck when the voting starts. A big cheer for Mark Thompson, folks. He could be this year’s winner of “Trougher of the Year”.
(Next, the lovely Baroness Ashton)
By David Craig, on September 10th, 2013 There seems to be a certain amount of panic amongst the lying, greedy, self-serving parasites on the IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). They have to produce their Fifth Assessment Report by October, but are having some difficulty explaining how there can be man-made global warming when the earth’s temperature hasn’t changed for the last 15 years even though the amounts of supposed greenhouse gases have increased dramatically (click on pictures to see more clearly)
We’ve seen in Britain how the liars at the Met Office dealt with the fact that their global warming theories were garbage. After wrongly predicting a few ‘barbecue summers’, which turned out to be washouts, the fraudsters at the Met Office came up with a brilliant new theory – that global warming has caused the jet stream to move south thus giving Britain colder, wetter summers. No sooner had the Met Office thought up this laughable explanation, than we had the summer of 2013 – one of the hottest for decades.
Over at the IPCC, they’re trying a similar trick – finding some ludicrously convoluted theory to explain why increasing greenhouse gases have not led to a rise in global temperatures.
Up till now, the IPCC have had one thing they could rely on – the shrinking Arctic ice cap. Interestingly, they never mention the Antarctic ice cap as that has been growing pretty much every year:
But now that pesky Arctic ice cap has stopped doing what the warmists said it should be doing – shrinking. In fact, it has increased by around 60% between August 2012 and August 2013. Here’s a photo comparing 2012 and 2013:
And here’s a graph of the Arctic ice cover:
In fact, it appears that we’re now entering a period of global cooling. Whoops! How are the warmists going to explain that?
In the meantime a couple of cracks have appeared in the warmists’ global warming religion. The new Australian PM has called man-made climate change “absolute crap” and Antonio Tajani, the European industry commissioner, has warned that Europe faces “a systemic industrial massacre,” mainly due to high energy prices caused by the rush to expensive and unreliable supposed “renewable energy” (useless windfarms and environmentally destructive biomass power stations).
So, the warmists with their politically-correct global warming religion have a problem – how to explain away the fact that their theories are increasingly being exposed as the greatest and most destructive fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. It will be interesting to see what new excuses they invent to defend their increasingly discredited voodoo religion.
Oh, and here’s a link to a 2007 BBC story claiming the Arctic would be “ice-free by 2013” https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7139797.stm I wonder when the BBC will apologise for these lies?
By David Craig, on September 9th, 2013 As he tries to convince the US to bomb Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry has accused the Syrian government of committing a “cowardly crime” and a “moral obscenity” by using chemical weapons to attack civilians. And he has called Syria’s president Bashar Al-Assad a “thug and murderer” and likened him to Hitler.
Here’s lovely photo. It’s John Kerry and his wife having a pleasant intimate dinner with Assad and his wife in 2009.
In February 2009, Kerry led a delegation to engage Syria. At the time Kerry said “Syria is an essential player in bringing peace and stability to the region.” Here are Kerry and Assad at one of their meetings:
For his part, Assad said in 2010, “I trust Senator Kerry, and I think he’s genuine . . . I met him five times.”
Then in March 2011, Kerry, as a senator from Massachusetts, told an audience at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace “President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had.” He also reportedly called Assad “a reformer”.
Kerry also praised Assad as being a “very generous” man. “Well, I personally believe that — I mean, this is my belief, okay? But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to — the last several trips to Syria — I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward.”
Now, of course, the situation in Syria has changed and Kerry is entitled to change his mind about Assad. In 2009, Kerry, then a senator, was sent to Syria by his predecessor as Secretary of State Hilary Clinton to see if Assad could help the US bring peace to the Middle East and so Kerry had to be diplomatic in public about his opinions of Assad as the US tried to befriend the Syrian president (whatever Kerry may have thought about Assad in private).
But, given that we have no proof yet that it was Assad and not the rebels who used the Sarin, Kerry’s unseemly and increasingly frantic efforts to start a war with Assad, before we get the results from the UN weapons inspectors, don’t sit well alongside the pictures of their somewhat cosier relationship just a couple of years ago.
In 2010 Assad told journalists that he trusted Senator Kerry. I wonder if he still does?
It’s possible/probable/definite (delete as appropriate) that you won’t find any mention of this story in your daily newspaper
By David Craig, on September 8th, 2013 As Australia gets a new government, it might be interesting to compare the policies of the winning party with the inability of any British government to pursue similar policies because we no longer have control of our own country:
1. Immigration – The new Australian government has pledged to crack down on asylum seekers and immigration. No UK government could do this as we have handed over control of our borders to unelected EU bureaucrats who are using mass immigration to erase national identity so they can create their EU superstate. Moreover, Australia can prevent criminals entering the country – Britain has to welcome garbage from the world’s worst hell-holes and, whatever crimes they commit here, we can never throw them out because of their human rights.
2. Climate change myth – The new Australian government is highly sceptical of the whole man-made climate change con and is planning to scrap carbon taxes. Britain is forced by the EU (and of course by Ed Miliband’s EU-inspired hopeless 2008 Climate Change Act) to cut carbon emissions, by doing things like building thousands of pointless wind turdbines, and to run ludicrous carbon trading schemes which push up our energy prices, make our industries uncompetitive and lead to ever-increasing energy bills and thousands of job losses.
3. Same-sex marriage – The new Australian Prime Minister has declared that he is opposed to same-sex marriage. Britain has no choice on the issue as a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights has declared that same-sex marriage is ‘a fundamental human right’ and that any gays wishing to marry could have taken the British government to court if our government had not legalised same-sex marriage.
4. Reducing foreign aid – It seems the new Australian government is somewhat sceptical of the value of giving foreign aid probably due to the fact that at least 80% of all aid is lost through corruption and incompetence. Partly because of commitments made to the EU and partly because of the stupidity of all our politicians, we have just increased our foreign aid budget from £7.9bn to £10.5bn a year. Just this £2.6bn increase would have been enough to pay for the 34,000 troops and 32,400 police and support staff who are being fired to save money. Incidentally, the new Australian government is planning to increase spending on their military and, I think, police – it seems our government has different priorities to the Australians.
5. Financial responsibility – The new Australian government has pledged to bring down their country’s deficit after years of Labour overspending. In Britain, we can’t control our deficit. We have to pay £19bn a year to the EU – an amount that will increase every year thanks to Tony Blair giving up a huge chunk of our rebate. Our government is afraid to cut public spending. And spending on benefits shoots up every year as 500,000 immigrants a year flood into Benefits Britain.
Australia is an independent, democratic country in control of its own policies, spending and destiny. Britain is just a minor part of an undemocratic EU superstate where utterly corrupt, unelected, wasteful and usually socialist bureaucrats decide who can live in our country, what laws we can pass, how we live our lives and how much we can spend.
Britain’s decline from an independent country into becoming an EU vassal would be laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.
By David Craig, on September 7th, 2013 Thanks to a reader for suggesting that I run a “Trougher of the Year” competition. Here is the prestigious “Trougher of the Year” trophy:
I imagine many of our useless, lying, greedy, incompetent, self-serving, arrogant, overpaid, over-pensioned rulers are desperately keen to win this much sought-after award. But whose name should be inscribed on it for 2013? Who has really excelled themselves in troughing? Who should receive this unique honour?
Over the next couple of months on this blog, I’ll look at all the best candidates, maybe covering one or two a week explaining why each should win this coveted award. Then in December, I’ll ask readers to vote for their favourite.
To win this magnificent award, a trougher must combine pocketing huge amounts of taxpayers’ money while being totally useless at what they’re paid by us to do for us. Being a serial liar also helps.
I realise that many people probably think there is just one clear, almost unbeatable favourite to win the “Trougher of the Year” trophy – the fragrant Baroness “the pig” Ashton. But I hope to bring you many more equally or even more deserving troughers with truly excellent qualifications and achievements to match those of the lovely Ashton.
So, if you have any people you’d like to propose for the Trougher Trophy, then just click on the title of this blog and send me the names. I’ll investigate and try to build a case as to why your choice should win Britain’s most coveted award.
To help you, here are just a few of the people who could well win the “Trougher of the Year” trophy.
But I’m sure you’ll be able to propose others I haven’t thought of.
So, click on the title to today’s blog (or on any future blogs) and send in your suggestions for our “Trougher of the Year” trophy.
And remember, whatever else people may say about our once great country – Britain’s Got Troughers
By David Craig, on September 6th, 2013 The National Audit Office (NAO) is meant to ensure that taxpayers’ money is well spent. It has just issued a report on the Government’s Universal Credit project. The NAO slammed the project for being badly-managed, wasteful, having failing IT systems and for officials not having a clue what they were doing. (In my experience, this description could be applied to anything done by Britain’s useless, overpaid, over-pensioned public-sector bosses).
However, the NAO has not always been so critical of major government projects. Those of you who read Private Eye will know that the previous head of the NAO, Sir John Bourn, had a bit of a reputation for accepting “hospitality” from many of the companies that were making billions from their involvement in new Labour’s many hopeless schemes. “Coincidentally” the NAO was not exactly scathing of the projects on which these companies worked.
Sir John Bourn, the Government’s spending watchdog, also spent £365,000 of our money in travel expenses and £27,000 of our money on restaurant bills in just three years as head of the National Audit Office. We paid for 43 foreign trips in three years. The fragrant Sir John was often accompanied by his equally fragrant wife. They travelled first class on 22 separate occasions including to San Francisco, the Bahamas, Brazil, Lisbon and Venice, at a cost of £76,000 (click to see picture more clearly)
He had also enjoyed 164 lunches and dinners since 2004, including meals at the Ritz, Savoy, Dorchester, Wiltons, Mirabelle and Bibendum
One stunning example where the NAO seemed to be ‘careful’ with its criticism was the disastrous NHS IT project – the ludicrously-misnamed Connecting for Health (CfH). In 2006, the NAO issued a report on CfH calling it the best-run public-sector project it had seen. Reviewing the NAO report, a member of the Public Accounts Committee described it as “gushing”. Unfortunately for Sir John’s NAO, a couple of months before his organisation was heaping so much praise on CfH, my book PLUNDERING THE PUBLIC SECTOR was published. In PLUNDERING I spent two chapters explaining why CfH was a pathetically-managed, disjointed mess destined for complete and buttock-clenchingly expensive failure.
About a week before the gushing NAO report was published, I got a phone call from Sir John the Junket’s secretary inviting me to a meeting with him. I would have thought that with all his important work commitments and many junkets, Sir John would be a very busy man with a full diary. But strangely, he was free to see me at almost any time. Luckily for me, my co-author on PLUNDERING (Richard Brooks from Private Eye) was able to attend the NAO meeting with me. This meant that the great Sir John had to be a bit careful about what he said. But I still got an absolute roasting from Sir John and a few of his obsequious underlings for being so critical of the NHS CfH wonder-project.
Anyway, to cut a long story short, after about eight futile years and after spending perhaps £10bn of our money, the ghastly CfH was deservedly scrapped. Sir John, of course, retired with honour and a massive pension that we’ll be paying till the day he and his good lady wife depart this earth (while I live in poverty because only a few of the readers of this website can afford to buy my latest book GREED UNLIMITED).
So, why was Sir John’s NAO so positive about the CfH project when it was clear to me and my one contact on the project that the whole thing was a complete and utter nightmare? Were Sir John and the NAO just completely incompetent? Or were they influenced by the fact that CfH was one of Tony Blair’s pet projects and by Sir John’s many junkets provided from companies lucratively involved in CfH?
We’ll never know the answer. But in my humble opinion, Sir John was just like most of the bureaucrats who rose to prominence and thrived under New Labour – Sir David Nicholson, the fragrant Baroness Ashton, Mark Thompson at the BBC and many many more – corrupt, self-serving, politically-obedient, overpaid, over-pensioned greedy garbage. Sir John has thankfully retired to spend more time with our money. Sir David Nicholson will be going soon. But the rest of our public sector is still full of these (IMHO) complete scum.
By David Craig, on September 5th, 2013 Though I’m not the world’s greatest mathematician, I’ve been looking at the real costs of five million legal and perhaps two million illegal immigrants to Britain.
Direct benefits to unemployed immigrants are almost £10bn a year. Then there’s schooling (about £3.3bn), child benefits (over £1bn) and healthcare (another £8bn). That gets us to over £22bn. Once you add in benefits for the low-paid, housing, policing, social services, translation services and many other costs, I believe the cost of the immigrants who have come to Britain since Blair’s New Labour flung open our borders is at least £30bn a year. In fact, if you include the benefits paid to British unemployed whose jobs have been taken by immigrants, the cost is probably much higher.
So, what could £30bn a year buy us?
There are about 1,928,140 university students in Britain. If we assume they are paying an average of £6,000 a year in tuition fees, that’s £11.568bn in fees.
Oh, look! If we didn’t have to pay £30bn a year for benefits and public services to immigrants, then we could provide completely free university education to these 1,928,140 university students and still have £18.432bn left out of our £30bn.
Now let’s think about the elderly, many of whom will have worked and paid taxes all their lives (unlike immigrants, most of whom will have contributed little to nothing to Britain). We have about 12,075,000 pensioners. If we didn’t have to pay £30bn a year for immigrants, even after we had provided free university education for Britain’s 1,928,140 students, we’d still have another £18.432bn to pay increased pensions. That’s about another £30 per week per pensioner. I’m sure that would be welcome in many pensioner households.
Or, let’s play another game with the numbers. It costs about £25,000 a year to provide residential care for each of the 400,000 elderly people in nursing homes in Britain – that’s around £10bn. And it costs around £7bn to provide care for those elderly who have stayed in their own homes. So the £18.432bn would be sufficient to pay for nursing home care and homecare for all the elderly who need it.
But do our students have free university tuition? No. And do all pensioners have free end-of-life care? No. Why not? Because we need at least £30bn to pay for all the immigrants that we are being forced to take by our masters in Brussels.
Of course, here I’m just playing around with a few numbers. But hopefully I’m showing the catastrophic effect uncontrolled immigration is having on British people. If we could restrict immigration as they do in Australia and New Zealand, we’d save enough money to give free university education to 1,928,140 university students plus enough money to pay for end-of-life care for all our elderly.
That seems a terrible price that we British are paying for taking in millions of people from the world’s and the EU’s most blighted, misgoverned, corrupt, and often religiously backward hell-hole countries.
(You won’t see articles and figures like this in our politically-correct main stream media. So, it would be nice if you showed some support for this website by buying a copy of my latest book GREED UNLIMITED)
By David Craig, on September 4th, 2013 We’ve had reports from the OECD, the EU and the (IMHO) grovelingly, sycophantic, self-serving Robert Chote’s ludicrously misnamed Office of Budget Responsibility telling us that immigration is good for the British economy and that immigrants contribute more to the country than they take in public services.
Of course, these reports are total garbage designed to cover up the fact that our governments have handed over control of our borders and our benefits system to a corrupt Communist (Barroso) from completely bankrupt paedophile paradise Portugal.
So let me try to work out how much a immigrant family “contributes”.
I’ll take a family with 3 children. Let’s assume the man takes a low-paid job earning £15,000 a year in a supermarket or warehouse. He’ll be paying around £1,500 a year in tax and NI. That’s the family’s total contribution.
Now let’s see what they get for their £1,500 a year:
First there’s Child Benefit. You get £20.30 a week for the oldest one and £13.40 a week for the other two. That’s £47.10 a week – £2,449.20 per year. So, this family is already costing almost twice what it contributes.
Then there’s schooling for the children. At around £3,300 per child, that’s another £9,900 a year.
There’s healthcare. The NHS costs us about £105bn a year which works out at around £1,600 for each person in Britain. For this family of 5, there’s another £8,000 a year. Most immigrants come from countries with pretty dreadful or even non-existent health services. They think they’re in healthcare paradise when they reach Britain and tend to make greater use of the NHS than British citizens. So, the real cost will probably be well above the £8,000 a year.
For a contribution of a mere £1,500 a year, this family is getting at least £20,349 in hand-outs and services.
Because the man is only earning £15,000 a year, I believe he will also get all kinds of tax credits and help to pay for a home and other benefits. But I haven’t got the exact figures for these yet. And there are other services like policing, social services, free schools meals and much more.
So, the idea that an immigrant family with one, two or even three children actually contributes to our economy is laughable. They cost us money – an awful lot of money. And they are overloading our services such as the NHS and schools.
But should the immigrant family decide not to work – like most of Britain’s Somalis and at least 400,000 EU citizens – well, here are all the benefits to which they’re entitled:
- Attendance Allowance
- Child Benefit
- Council Tax Benefit
- Disability Living Allowance
- Guardian’s Allowance
- Housing Benefit
- Income Support
- Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
- Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit
- Carer’s allowance
- Reduced Earnings Allowance
- Severe Disablement Allowance
- Statutory Sick Pay
I did a quick, back-of-a-fag-packet calculation and reckon that we’re paying at least £20bn a year in benefits to unemployed immigrants.
So, have five million immigrants been good for Britain? Ummm – not really, whatever our lying leaders claim.
By David Craig, on September 3rd, 2013 I imagine most people know the quote “In war, truth is the first casualty”. So, what actually happened in Syria?
It seems likely now that Sarin gas has been used. But who was responsible? John Kerry has claimed that if Sarin gas was used, then the Syrian regime must be responsible as only the government has large stocks of the gas. But is this true?
Here’s a report from the Russian press on 30 March 2013 claiming: “Turkish security forces found a 2kg cylinder with Sarin gas after searching the homes of Syrian militants from the Al-Qaeda linked Al-Nusra Front who were previously detained, Turkish media reports. The gas was reportedly going to be used in a bomb. The Sarin gas was found in the homes of suspected Syrian Islamists detained in the southern provinces of Adana and Mersia following a search by Turkish police on Wednesday, reports say.” https://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/
Here’s an article from the Washington Times on 6 May 2013 after previous suspected incidents with Sarin gas: “Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday. Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/#ixzz2doHlYjF5
The same story was even reported in the Daily Mail https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320223/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-carrying-sarin-gas-attacks-blamed-Assads-troops.html
And here’s a report going round the Internet at the moment claiming that the Sarin gas was released when the rebels mishandled some canisters with the gas while trying to make a chemical bomb. “Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.”
https://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_08_30/Syrian-rebels-take-responsibility-for-the-chemical-attack-admitting-the-weapons-were-provided-by-Saudis-1203/
Perhaps we’ve seen this all before? Here’s link to the YouTube video of Colin Powell telling the UN Security Council that the US Government had firm information about Saddam Hussein’s supposed “weapons of mass destruction” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt5RZ6ukbNc In his speech, Colin Powell uses photos of the WMDs and intercepted conversations from Saddam’s military all confirming the existence of the WMDs. And here’s a link to a YouTube video where a few years later a rather humbled Mr Powell admits he was misled by US Intelligence and that Saddam didn’t have the WMDs after all https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZTLmOoPzjs
Here’s John Kerry giving a recent speech confirming that the Assad government has used Sarin gas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDN4L00Ls9E
Perhaps we’ll have to wait a few years before Mr Kerry is interviewed and he also admits he was “misled”. Who knows?
It does seem almost incredible that Assad would choose to provoke the West by using Sarin gas in an area just a few miles away from UN weapons inspectors when he was actually winning the civil war.
My fear is that having clearly blamed Assad, the rush to war idiots – Cameron Hollande, Kerry and Obama – will lose face if it’s found that the rebels were responsible. So, any evidence of rebel responsibility will be quickly suppressed. The lessons from Iraq tell us that there’s only one truth in times of war – we will be lied to.
By David Craig, on September 2nd, 2013 (To avoid any accusations of racism, all figures in today’s blog are taken either from the Office for National Statistics or from the Guardian – the bible of the bien pensants, professional handwringers and overpaid child molesters at the BBC)
We should congratulate Mo Farah for 2 great achievements. One – that he runs pretty fast. And two – that he comes from Somalia and actually works for a living.
There are an estimated 300,000 Somalis living in the UK. But the real figure may be higher as many Somalis with Dutch residence permits and passports are believed to have moved to the UK under EU freedom of movement laws because of the higher benefits paid here compared to Holland.
Unemployment amongst Somali men is believed to be around 65%. As you’ll see from the diagram, this is many times higher than any other ethnic group. In fact, it’s so far off the scale that I haven’t been able to include it (click on chart to see more clearly):
If we just play with a few imaginary figures: let’s assume that the 300,000 Somali population includes 80,000 men of working age and that of these, 65% (52,000) are each claiming about £25,000 a year in benefits (unemployment, jobseekers’ allowance, housing benefits, child benefits, council tax benefits and so on) for themselves and their families. If we could bring the unemployment rate for these Somali men down from 65% to the 15% for all black Africans, then another 40,000 Somali men would be in work and we’d be paying around £1,000,000,000 less a year in benefits.
Then we also have to account for the cost of schooling for maybe 80,000 to 100,000 Somali children. At around £3,300 per child per year, that’s another £264,000,000. Not that Somali children get much benefit from their time in education. According to the Guardian, just 33% of Somali children passed five GCSEs, compared with 59% for children from other African communities and 80% for Chinese children.
Then you have to add in healthcare, policing, housing and many other costs. Another £500,000,000 a year? Who knows?
Of course, Britain’s Somali community have brought their bright vibrant culture to our country. But this has been awfully expensive for British taxpayers.
|
|
