Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

I see no reason to move the goal posts - I will patiently point out that I'm challenging the claim made in the OP that Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants have extra children FOR benefits and that cutting these benefits will reduce these 'extra births'.

I've seen no evidence.

I've seen a lot of theorising and changing of minds - now apparently the Baroness was 'only' talking about :
a. poor Pakistani and Bangladeshi families
b. talking about income support

Now, point b is interesting - if BM is right, was the Baroness saying that the state should reduce income support for those who have larger families, so that if a family has 3 children say, they get MORE than a family with 4 or 5 children? Hmm.

Again, I didn't get this from the OP at all. Did anyone else?

I'm always glad to hear of people's beliefs - but when presented as fact (as in the OP), and the belief is testable - then I ask for evidence.

Sometimes the lack of evidence and the willingness to believe speak volumes about the believers. Surely if the belief were true they'd spend time looking for evidence rather than changing their stories.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote: I've seen a lot of theorising and changing of minds

It's absolutely true. The same blah blah blah but the first investigation in the article of patience revealed how the system was abused by Pakistanis. It's much better evidence than that unknown Bangladeshi merchant banker from some shooting club, who sent his children to some privat, school but someone prefers not notice the evident facts if it contradicts with his belief.

You're still confusing the evidence of larger families within some groups with the evidence requested.

No one disputed that some families are larger than others - what I questioned was whether the larger families were BECAUSE of benefits, and whether cutting benefits would get rid of the 'extra births'.

We've established that larger familes does not equal poor families (as evidenced by the 'merchant bankers') - but the Baroness' theory that larger families is BECAUSE of benefits is what is being questioned.

Thanks for allowing me to clarify the evidence requested and restating that this theory of the Baroness hasn't been given anywhere.

(If you look back, I asked for the evidence in the first post and have consistently pointed out that I'm patiently waiting for the evidence. Indeed, RC initially stated that he didn't believe benefits WAS the reason for more children - he blamed the 'stupidity' of the immigrants:

Red Chief wrote:By the way I don't think that Pakistani and Bangla families have 10 kids due to 80 pounds per month per child subsidy but only owing to their own stupidity. They follow the same pattern in own countries as well even living in the cities without any benefits.

The families of 'merchant bankers' from and with large families are perhaps not typical of the 'stupidity' referred to, I guess.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, a man who has 4 wives, and let's say 3/4 kids per wife, a total of anywhere between 12 and 16 kids, how do you call that a family?? He doesn't "live" with any of them - he just makes the rounds. He doesn't support them as he has the government doing that. I don't know how the system works in the UK, but I can assure you that the system in the US would be looking for this guy to pay his share of child support and if he didn't do so voluntarily it would get taken out of his salary. The US doesn't care if you are left with $1 for the month, there is a responsibility to provide for those children.

Why don't you try using common sense Shaf. If the system reduced the payments for the children and enforced a cut off, they will either think about having more children or the "father" would be forced to provide for his offspring. Now, if he has to provide for 6 kids every month, don't you think he would think twice about having anymore if he was forced to provide for them? He's making babies because he knows that the system will provide for them - something he doesn't have to do. If the system stops, he will be forced to stop. Put the fact that you are a Pakistani and a Muslim aside and tell me that you don't see something wrong with the system - the system that you, as an Englishman, pay into (or did). Is that how you want to see your tax dollars spent??

You haven't provided any facts or stats to prove that what is going on isn't going on, nor that what is going on isn't designed to manipulate the system. I highly doubt that any of those 12 to 16 children fathered by oneman will amount to much and will more than likely continue the cycle of breeding in order to live off the government because that's all they will know.

Yes, it was my opininon but it isn't about me but the barronnes. I'm not an expert in Muslim South Asian comunity of the UK. That's why I emphasized that her accusation should initiate full scale investigation. In the other article, which Shafique ignored for evident reason, there are some clues and ways how the system was abused.

Red Chief wrote:Yes, it was my opininon

THANK YOU !

Red Chief wrote:but it isn't about me but the barronnes. I'm not an expert in Muslim South Asian comunity of the UK.

Neither is she.

Red Chief wrote:That's why I emphasized that her accusation should initiate full scale investigation.

That could get quite costly quite soon, lauching a full scale investigation everytime time anyone made a claim

Red Chief wrote:In the other article, which Shafique ignored for evident reason, there are some clues and ways how the system was abused.

Everybody everywhere works the system in someway or the other, including the system itself.

And an end to this pointless debate, thrown up by the resident xenophobe just because one person likes to make up stuff.

Now munchkin, whatever do you know about what goes on in the UK?
I'm sure the Baroness knows what she is talking about, she's not making it up as she goes along you know.

Everybody everywhere works the system in someway or the other, including the system itself.

That's exactly the problem you see! You lot working the system at the British taxpayers expense!

desertdudeshj wrote:

Red Chief wrote:Yes, it was my opininon

THANK YOU !

Red Chief wrote:but it isn't about me but the barronnes. I'm not an expert in Muslim South Asian comunity of the UK.

Neither is she.

Red Chief wrote:That's why I emphasized that her accusation should initiate full scale investigation.

That could get quite costly quite soon, lauching a full scale investigation everytime time anyone made a claim

Red Chief wrote:In the other article, which Shafique ignored for evident reason, there are some clues and ways how the system was abused.

Everybody everywhere works the system in someway or the other, including the system itself.

And an end to this pointless debate, thrown up by the resident xenophobe just because one person likes to make up stuff.

You think that the article was something that was "made up"? Are "opinions" reserved for only a select few?

The fact that you have never had to pay any tax you wouldn't understand the problem and how taxpayers feel about it. You seem to think that welfare is an acceptable lifestyle and manipulating the system is OK. Maybe your view on that would change if you ever get into a country that has a welfare system and you end up paying taxes into that very system, unless you plan on being one of those people who end up on the dole.

I was a single mother, entitled to welfare benefits. But because of the way I was raised, my pride and self-respect held me back, and I chose to work. I wanted to give my daughter more, I wanted to be able to have more. I also wanted to set an example for my daughter. By my working - sometimes 2 jobs - I kept my pride and self-respect, gave my daughter a better standard of living, and have her utmost respect. Those are things that cannot be achieved by making welfare of lifestyle. I was also very aware of the fact that somewhere I was supporting some family with my tax dollars. If I had to do over again, I would do it the same way. Pride, self-respect, dignity are things I have always valued. People who live on the dole don't possess those values. Actually, they don't have any values and that is passed on to their offspring.

There is a problem with benefit dependancy in the UK - indeed my oft referred to post about the 'feral underclass' was highlighting this fact and that their culture was eroding English values. One of the features is indeed having children for benefits - especially social housing.

The 'feral underclass' is a term used to describe this section of society where children are 'feral', and where there is no work ethic. There are generations where no one has worked - and where teenage single mother begets teenage single mothers.

For decades there has been a realisation amongst the politicians and Government that the benefit system needs changing. The problem is that it is not popular and highly complicated to change - to the point that from Thatcher onwards they've only tinkered with it and even though all acknowledge we are in a mess, no one has the balls to tackle it head on with a top-to-bottom review of the system.

Part of the issue is that Governments play with stats - moving people on to disability, means there is an official reduction in unemployment. Get these people off disability and back on to official figures - and suddenly Britain has a higher unemployment rate. And this is just one of many examples.

However, my objection in this thread is the contention that the Baroness made in the OP. She's been criticised by her peers already, but the point I made was that her specific allegations are not actually based on any evidence that anyone has uncovered.

We can imagine that there are Pakistani and Bangladeshi families who are having kids for benefits only and that cutting their benefits will cut the 'extra births'. But the evidence is that these ethnic groups are only a minority of those living on benefits, and there's no evidence that their family size is linked to benefits.

There IS evidence and studies on the 'feral underclass' though - but that evidence doesn't support the Baroness' specific allegations.

(Disclosure - I have done social work in Tower Hamlets and other deprived areas in the UK, and I do have a professional interest in these social issues and impact of benefit spend etc.)

Cheers,
Shafique

Nice story Beebs, but still doesn't change anything, still nothing but opinions, everyone is entitled to one, thats not the issue, but trying to pass that off as fact, is.

Me or anyone else having or not having to pay taxes is totally irrelevant to the subject. The OP was that the lady made a comment that Pakistani families have larger families just because of the benefits, till now nothing has been posted that even remotely backs that up. Its really is just that simple.

Now you can say that anybody working the system is unfair to the taxpayer and I'll agree to that but again this has no relevance to the subject matter at hand.

shafique wrote:There is a problem with benefit dependancy in the UK - indeed my oft referred to post about the 'feral underclass' was highlighting this fact and that their culture was eroding English values. One of the features is indeed having children for benefits - especially social housing.

The 'feral underclass' is a term used to describe this section of society where children are 'feral', and where there is no work ethic. There are generations where no one has worked - and where teenage single mother begets teenage single mothers.

So how is it any different from the white feral underclass from the Pakistanis and Indians? Those 2nd, 3rd, and 4th wives are considered single mothers by the government. Are you saying that the Pakistanis and Indians who are abusing the system have "work ethics"? The young girls from those unmarried mothers, as classified by the government, will take the same route as their mother, become a 2nd, 3rd, 4th wife, be categorized as unmarried, and have children and the cycle continues. I guess you might as well categorize them as the brown feral underclass, because that's exactly what they are.

-- Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:32 pm --

desertdudeshj wrote:Nice story Beebs, but still doesn't change anything, still nothing but opinions, everyone is entitled to one, thats not the issue, but trying to pass that off as fact, is.

Me or anyone else having or not having to pay taxes is totally irrelevant to the subject. The OP was that the lady made a comment that Pakistani families have larger families just because of the benefits, till now nothing has been posted that even remotely backs that up. Its really is just that simple.

Now you can say that anybody working the system is unfair to the taxpayer and I'll agree to that but again this has no relevance to the subject matter at hand.

And where is the proof or the facts that it isn't true???? Please explain to me what would be the purpose for one man to produce 16 children with 4 wives, each wife collecting welfare, along with the children, and him not supporting those families in spite of the fact that he works?? Could he do that back in Pakistan?? No, because there is no welfare system in Pakistan and he could never afford to care for all of them.

What I post does have relevance - you just don't get it. Should I send you a PM of my posts so that you can approve or disapprove it as it relates to relevance??

Usually the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim not the other way round. If I make the claim I can travel to the future, its my job to prove that, not yours to disprove it.

Large familes are a part of many culture, tell me again please why people still living in Sub continental Asia, Africa, the middle east have large families and even more than wives. When in many cases most they can hardly afford to feed any of them. Is the British goverment paying them also ?

And no beebs we all love your posts and keep posting, just saying keep it relevant, feeling flustered as a tax payer has nothing to do with this topic, at all. You are free to voice that opinion as you have, and I respect that but still does not make the Baronesses statment any more truthfull.

Muslim immigrants from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Bangladesh , Iraq and Saudi arabia – constitute 5 percent of the UK population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending, all while contributing to nothing.

desertdudeshj wrote:Usually the burden of proof lies on the person who makes the claim not the other way round. If I make the claim I can travel to the future, its my job to prove that, not yours to disprove it.

Large familes are a part of many culture, tell me again please why people still living in Sub continental Asia, Africa, the middle east have large families and even more than wives. When in many cases most they can hardly afford to feed any of them. Is the British goverment paying them also ?

And no beebs we all love your posts and keep posting, just saying keep it relevant, feeling flustered as a tax payer has nothing to do with this topic, at all. You are free to voice that opinion as you have, and I respect that but still does not make the Baronesses statment any more truthfull.

Dude, I don't think the Baroness dreamt what she stated. It seems that "proving" something is selective. If someone says that what she states is wrong, then one must prove it, no?? This is an educated women who plays a role in the UK government and speaks out in spite of what is or isn't "politically correct". She's just calling a spade a spade.

As for sub continental Asia, Africa, the Middle East - why would the British government have a need to pay them? They don't live in the UK and are not UK citizens. More than likely that's why they head off to countries, such as the UK, where the government will provide for them. Let their own countries take care of them. Large families are generally the norm in countries where the majority live at the poverty or below the poverty level. But I don't see how your statement is relevant to the OP?:D

I am talking about the trickledown effect, which includes the taxpayers having to foot the bill for these parasites who multiply like rabbits and manipulate the system, unlike those countries you mentioned where there is no welfare system but they continue to procreate in spite of the fact that they can't afford to. Why wouldn't they want to go to the UK? Life is better in the UK by far rather than living in a mud or tin hut, with a hole in the ground for a toilet, the same hole they wash their clothes in, with no income from the government where your only source of income is sitting at the edge of the road selling potatoes or having your child at the age of 8 go work in a factory or going through the garbage dump for your next meal.

capsicum wrote:Muslim immigrants from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Bangladesh , Iraq and Saudi arabia – constitute 5 percent of the UK population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending, all while contributing to nothing.

Source?

Nucleus wrote:

capsicum wrote:Muslim immigrants from countries such as Turkey, Somalia, Pakistan, Bangladesh , Iraq and Saudi arabia – constitute 5 percent of the UK population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending, all while contributing to nothing.

Source?

Exactly the same as the baroness, from their back side ! LOL.

Yeah here are some poor Saudi immigrants feeding sponging off benefits !





-- Mon Sep 26, 2011 2:01 am --

Bora Bora wrote:Dude, I don't think the Baroness dreamt what she stated.

Almost everyone else does.

So according to you if a politician makes a statement it must be true. Forget the baroness, lets take what many call the most powerfull man in the world for anyone currently serving at that postion. The President of the United States,

One word. Bush ! Need I say more.

desertdudeshj wrote:Almost everyone else does.

So according to you if a politician makes a statement it must be true. Forget the baroness, lets take what many call the most powerfull man in the world for anyone currently serving at that postion. The President of the United States,

One word. Bush ! Need I say more.

Almost everyone else, and that would be you, Shaf and what other Pakistani??

Where did I say that a politican's statement is true?? If you read patience's article you will see that Pakistanis themselves were interviewed, details were given or were they lying? If that's the case, then you must think that whatever politicans say is untrue.

What is the relevance of Bush to this thread???

Well you didn't say is true but you did put a lot of credence into it considering her political postion and all but as of now it stands as just a unverified statement.

Patience article is at best anecdotal evidence from a daily rag which has less use than toilet paper. Certain minorities have large families no one is disputing that, they tend to have large families where ever they are, even more so from in countries where they orginate. The Baroness herself comes from a large family. Look up the same ehtnicities in other countries, wheter those countries have benefits or not they will be having large families regardless. That was the connection I was trying to make in my earlier post which you failed to grasp.

Its already been said so many times already I doubt it will sink through this time but there still could be hope. The point disputed here is that the major if not the sole reason they have large families is because of of the benefits they will recieve due to that as the baroness says AND nothing has been posted so far connecting or veryfying this satatment, a lot of opinion, even a story but nothing you might call even remotely conclusive.

Clear ?

P.S : I will save you the roly poly eyes.

My first post started with a statement that the Baroness is entitled to her view.

I then asked to see what evidence there was that the immigrants she cited DID have children BECAUSE of benefits. I even explained what form this evidence could take - eg looking at numbers of children in families in Pakistan and Bangladesh where no benefits are paid, and comparing them with the immigrants in the UK.

RC said he didn't believe that the immigrants have kids BECAUSE of benefits.

Thus far, no evidence has been provided that backs up the Baroness' view. There has been anecdotal evidence from my part and from a newspaper article - one showing that there are well-to-do families which came from large immigrant families and have large families themselves. I did not present my anecdotal accounts as evidence the Baroness' sources are wrong - but only as an example as to why I'm not convinced she's speaking on the basis of fact rather than prejudice.

Now, there is evidence that there are some sections of UK benefit-dependant classes that DO have kids for benefits - but even that hasn't been referenced by those supporting the Baroness' view. That speaks volumes, IMO.

Cheers,
Shafique

Wow. Somebody has jumped to the bandwagon. You are the funniest joke on DF, Shafique.

Welcome, Sir.

shafique wrote:Thus far, no evidence has been provided that backs up the Baroness' view. There has been anecdotal evidence from my part and from a newspaper article - one showing that there are well-to-do families which came from large immigrant families and have large families themselves. I did not present my anecdotal accounts as evidence the Baroness' sources are wrong - but only as an example as to why I'm not convinced she's speaking on the basis of fact rather than prejudice.

Definition of anecdotal: Not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

shafique wrote:eg looking at numbers of children in families in Pakistan and Bangladesh where no benefits are paid, and comparing them with the immigrants in the UK.

Easily explained Shaf.
Theres no TV in Pakistan or Bangladesh!
But the mind certainly boggles at how they manage in a slum shack with 4 grandparents, 6 uncles, 7 aunts and 19 children looking on.

Bora - thanks for defining anecdotal for us and quoting me saying I didn't present my anecdotes as evidence and that I was still waiting for any evidence that the Baroness was correct in her view.

benwj - nice theory. Shame it's not backed up by any evidence.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Bora - thanks for defining anecdotal for us and quoting me saying I didn't present my anecdotes as evidence and that I was still waiting for any evidence that the Baroness was correct in her view.

benwj - nice theory. Shame it's not backed up by any evidence.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, you are big on evidence and I was surprised that you would provide anecdotal contributions that are absolutely worthless to support your argument.

You can put the mirror down.

LOL - I suggest you read the posts and see that BM asked me about the details of the guys with large families sending their kids to private schools.

That said, re-reading my posts - I did cite my experience as why the Baroness' theory doesn't stand scrutiny:

The fact that many of these well off people themselves came from large families is further evidence that the theory doesn't stand scrutiny. (We should be all able to agree that these people who can afford private education are NOT having children because of benefits. My argument is that why isn't this also the case for those who are not as well off?)

As I keep requesting - I'd like to see what evidence there is out there to support the Baroness' view that cutting benefits will reduce the 'extra births'.

I'm still waiting for evidence in favour of the Baroness' theory.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:LOL - I suggest you read the posts and see that BM asked me about the details of the guys with large families sending their kids to private schools.

That said, re-reading my posts - I did cite my experience as why the Baroness' theory doesn't stand scrutiny:

The fact that many of these well off people themselves came from large families is further evidence that the theory doesn't stand scrutiny. (We should be all able to agree that these people who can afford private education are NOT having children because of benefits. My argument is that why isn't this also the case for those who are not as well off?)

As I keep requesting - I'd like to see what evidence there is out there to support the Baroness' view that cutting benefits will reduce the 'extra births'.

I'm still waiting for evidence in favour of the Baroness' theory.

Cheers,
Shafique

Is your personal experience something that should be taken as fact and evidence and be relied upon for one person to reach a conclusion and disregard another person's statement, someone who definitely has more credibility than you? I mean, who are you???

More than likely cutting benefits won't cut down on births. They will just ship those kids over to the country of the mother or father and have the extended family raise them.

My opening post said the Baroness was entitled to her view. I then questioned whether her view was based on any evidence.

I can't see how that can be misunderstood as me saying that they have more or less credibility than my personal experience. My views are certainly based on my experience.

Thanks for sharing your view too - I'll file it away with the other views expressed.

My wait to see whether the Baroness' view is backed up by any evidence will evidently be a long one, it seems.

Cheers,
Shafique

I disagree that immigrants only have children for extra benefits.

The woman open their legs for far less than that.

The woman open their legs for far less than that.

Surely you mean the 'women' and not the 'woman'.

It's a good thing you're not 'grammarcheckgirl' innit?

But thanks - nothing wrong with another theory, even if grammatically incorrectly expressed.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:My opening post said the Baroness was entitled to her view. I then questioned whether her view was based on any evidence.

I can't see how that can be misunderstood as me saying that they have more or less credibility than my personal experience. My views are certainly based on my experience.

Thanks for sharing your view too - I'll file it away with the other views expressed.

My wait to see whether the Baroness' view is backed up by any evidence will evidently be a long one, it seems.

Cheers,
Shafique

She addressed a problem which obviously exists as admitted by those interviewed (fact). She is proposing a solution to the problem that goes far beyond the two people interviewed and basically admitted to manipulating the system. She's not proposing that families be stopped from having children, but how to stop families from growing to manipulate the system. I'm sure that her proposal would go beyond Pakistanis and Bangledeshis and would include the white feral underclass that you refer to. One doesn't know if a proposed solution will correct a problem until that proposed solution is enforced. If one situation has the possibility of 3 solutions wouldn't one have to experiment with all 3 solutions to find out which one would correct the situation best, or not.

I think you are taking it personal Shaf. I hope it doesn't have anything to do with you having multiple "wives" and children on the dole.

I highly doubt you share the same credibility as the Baroness.