Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai General Chat

shafique wrote:

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

A hat-trick for |Shafique|

Bora, you see a

problem which obviously existed

, but I am still waiting to see any evidence that the reason 'Pakistani and Bangladeshi' immigrants have children is for the benefits.

I still absolutely no evidence that 'extra births' will be cut if benefits are cut.

I understand her theory, but can't see any evidence that it is based on reality. 'Two people interviewed' is not evidence. We can only assess the validity of the solution if we can see the evidence of the problem and whether she's right that 'extra births' are caused by benefits.

Surely it would have been easier to just say you want to believe the Baroness. Why have a go at me for asking for evidence?

If she was right, you'd surely have more to go on than two interviews in a newspaper article. Surely.

Cheers
Shafique

Sheesh, worst case of confirmation bais I've seen on the forum yet !

"She addressed a problem which obviously exists" Uh...You GOT to be fekin' kidding me ! Everybody keeps repeating that but no one till date has come out and posted anything that backs that up. Just because you want it to be real bad, does not mean it is.

"as admitted by those interviewed " The best "evidence" is at most, an article from a rag !? Doesn't take much to convince you eh !

I think whole thread has turned into a masive failure in simple English comprehension !

Pakistani and Bengali families living in Pakistan and Bangladesh are large where there are no state benefits. I think that the culture of these two nationalities on the whole makes them want to have large families and not the benefits they derive from it.

DearJohn wrote:Pakistani and Bengali families living in Pakistan and Bangladesh are large where there are no state benefits. I think that the culture of these two nationalities on the whole makes them want to have large families and not the benefits they derive from it.

That makes sense.

I guess there will only be evidence when they stop the benefits and see what happens. Personally I don't think it will make much difference because as it has been said I think it is a cultural issue and that socially these families tend to be much closer and work as a unit (all contributing to the family) so therefore the need for bigger families will still be there.

-- Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:59 pm --

Having said that however I do think that if you choose to live in this country you should abide by our laws (as had been said by Dubai countless times) and those would be one man one wife. I couldn't give a rats a**e about their religious leanings. If you feel so strongly about having more than one wife then please go and live in a country where the laws permit it.

Well as long as it is not illegal to have mistresses there is no way to prevent it. Sorry I know that doesn't help much but thats the way it is.

Average family of Pakistani family in Pakistan in 1990 was 6.2 children per household.

http://countrystudies.us/pakistan/29.htm

UK statistics a little more difficult to pinpoint - here are a few

1. 4 or more children but dropping every year
http://www.sociology.org.uk/as4fm1.pdf

2. 4 or more
http://www.mcb.org.uk/library/statistics.php#2

I think we can conclude that large families are a phenomenon of Pakistani culture and that if anything family sizes, presumably due to higher education amongst 2nd generation women, are falling in the UK not rising.

But oh no John, say it is isn't true. The baroness said it afterall and there was even a rag article about it, some people have very strong feelings as taxpayers and even slighty intresting stories on the matter.

Don't tell me all that doesn't outweigh your measly statistics ! Statistics, Schmatistics, meh, I'm going with the touchy feely stories and a rag article on this one !

Because come on £80 a week per child ! For that kind of money I'd have a few dozen babies myself. Who cares I'll have to feed them, pay for higher education, go through all the hardship of bring them up yadda yadda yadda and maybe I'll even get some council housing, just to sweeten the deal. One could probably retire on that kind of money.

Living the lifestyle of the rich and famous I tell ya.

What, no conspiracy theory in this thread that dearjohn is me?

DearJohn - I'd have preferred if the loons had looked up the evidence themselves.. but hey, loons and facts aren't good companions



Cheers,
Shafique

desertdudeshj wrote:Well as long as it is not illegal to have mistresses there is no way to prevent it. Sorry I know that doesn't help much but thats the way it is.

Quoting from the article that you denounced in your response to me. Isn't that the excuse one of those used to support his multiple marriages??

-- Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:36 am --

desertdudeshj wrote:But oh no John, say it is isn't true. The baroness said it afterall and there was even a rag article about it, some people have very strong feelings as taxpayers and even slighty intresting stories on the matter.

Don't tell me all that doesn't outweigh your measly statistics ! Statistics, Schmatistics, meh, I'm going with the touchy feely stories and a rag article on this one !

Because come on £80 a week per child ! For that kind of money I'd have a few dozen babies myself. Who cares I'll have to feed them, pay for higher education, go through all the hardship of bring them up yadda yadda yadda and maybe I'll even get some council housing, just to sweeten the deal. One could probably retire on that kind of money.

Living the lifestyle of the rich and famous I tell ya.

Are you relying on certain parts of an article to support your argument?

It's much more than 80 pounds per month per child. It appears you have no idea what the government provides to parasites. Maybe you should arm yourself with more information before commenting.

-- Tue Sep 27, 2011 10:51 am --

shafique wrote:I still absolutely no evidence that 'extra births' will be cut if benefits are cut.

I understand her theory, but can't see any evidence that it is based on reality. 'Two people interviewed' is not evidence. We can only assess the validity of the solution if we can see the evidence of the problem and whether she's right that 'extra births' are caused by benefits.

Surely it would have been easier to just say you want to believe the Baroness. Why have a go at me for asking for evidence?

If she was right, you'd surely have more to go on than two interviews in a newspaper article. Surely.

Cheers
Shafique

Two people interviewed is more than you have provided to support your argument that she is wrong.

Why don't you provide evidence that she is wrong??? I think my posts have proven that I do believe the Baroness. I don't "want" to believe her, I "do" believe her.

As for "proof", as patience said if they go ahead and move on the Baronness' suggestion, and implement her suggestion across the board to all welfare recipients, the brown feral underclass, the white feral underclass, the black feral underclass and the results will show if she is right or wrong. What's wrong with a bit of experimentation?? If it proves her wrong, great, if not then the government can continue to support parasites.

shafique wrote:What, no conspiracy theory in this thread that dearjohn is me?

DearJohn - I'd have preferred if the loons had looked up the evidence themselves.. but hey, loons and facts aren't good companions



Cheers,
Shafique

Well if there is one way of convincing others you're English it's to reinvent yourself and call yourself John!

PMSL
BM

Remember beebs, less fluff, more substance ?

Anywho, I got the £80 figure from your fav fluffy friend windbag, she yammers on endlessly that she works for something to do with taxes or whatever, so I guess she must atleast know that much ? or once again is it feelings agaisnt .....

Bora - you seem to be overlooking the fact I did actually provide two links to credible data sources.

Now, if you ask my opinion, yes - those two data sources do outweigh the two people in the newspaper article when it comes to evidence to support the Baroness' theory. But hey, that's just my opinion of different sources of info.

I am sure that in some way an argument can be made that the two interviewed constitute some proof that the Baroness was right. You'll excuse me if I continue to wait and see whether any real evidence presents itself.

In the meantime, let's enjoy the herve, BM and FD conspiracy theory.

Cheers,
Shafique

They have surely gone mad, having their own illusions - - Only tells you how strong you've hit them Shafique

desertdudeshj wrote:Remember beebs, less fluff, more substance ?

Anywho, I got the £80 figure from your fav fluffy friend windbag, she yammers on endlessly that she works for something to do with taxes or whatever, so I guess she must atleast know that much ? or once again is it feelings agaisnt .....

Did you overlook the fact that you quoted from the fluff??

Feelings against what? Seems you stopped in mid-sentence.

I was hoping you were smart enough to make that mental leap yourself !

desertdudeshj wrote:Remember beebs, less fluff, more substance ?

Anywho, I got the £80 figure from your fav fluffy friend windbag, she yammers on endlessly that she works for something to do with taxes or whatever, so I guess she must atleast know that much ? or once again is it feelings agaisnt .....

Exactly right munchkin. I've been to a meeting today and am off to London on Thursday and Friday about the very same, changes to the welfare system

Only to happy to give my input. Changes are on the way munchkin!

I'm so pleased you have been reading the posts you claim not to read Yes, you are quite correct munchkin, £80 is paid to the parent of every child and more via Income Support if you qualify.
That means that your mate Shafique is paid £320 every four weeks for his kiddies whilst sitting on a beach in Mauritius. I bet you'd like some of that wouldn't you munchkin?

Yeah and with that he can buy a mansion, a bentley in the garage and a summer home in the bahamas.

But thanks for backing me up because beebs was under the impression its something like a million every 24 hours.

desertdudeshj wrote:Yeah and with that he can buy a mansion, a bentley in the garage and a summer home in the bahamas.

But thanks for backing me up because beebs was under the impression its something like a million every 24 hours.

Dude, stop with the fluff and stick to the facts.

Bethsmum wrote:That means that your mate Shafique is paid £320 every four weeks for his kiddies whilst sitting on a beach in Mauritius. I bet you'd like some of that wouldn't you munchkin?

In addition looking at his avatar, I made a conclusion that coconat and banana are free. I don't know who donates his internet though.

BM, It's a hard life but someone has to live it.

I've often said that loons and facts, as well as stats don't make good friends.

She is wrong on two counts. First, a family of 4 children does not get 80 pounds a week in child benefit, and secondly English people living abroad aren't entitled to child benefit. Whilst I still pay taxes in the UK, I don't get Child Benefit as we are no longer permanent residents (and indeed, the two children born in Dubai have never lived in the UK so have never received CB).

But that said, I do receive income from the UK and pay tax on that.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote::D I've often said that loons and facts, as well as stats don't make good friends.

She is wrong on two counts. First, a family of 4 children does not get 80 pounds a week in child benefit, and secondly English people living abroad aren't entitled to child benefit. Whilst I still pay taxes in the UK, I don't get Child Benefit as we are no longer permanent residents (and indeed, the two children born in Dubai have never lived in the UK so have never received CB).

But that said, I do receive income from the UK and pay tax on that.

Cheers,
Shafique

You need to get your self a new accountant sunshine

Nope, you need to learn how to do the maths.

But hey, what is it with loons and getting facts wrong?

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:Nope, you need to learn how to do the maths.

But hey, what is it with loons and getting facts wrong?

Cheers,
Shafique

£20.30 per child per month + £81.30 every four weeks multiplied by 4 wives + £324.80.

Fail. Look up the benefit again.

(Hint: it is not 20.30 for each child).

Cheers,
Shafique

Ah, let the Canadian with Googling capabilities do it BM!

There are two separate amounts, with a higher amount for your eldest (or only) child. You get £20.30 a week for your eldest child and £13.40 a week for each of your other children. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/sta ... enefit.htm

If you're going abroad permanently, or expect to be away for more than 52 weeks, you won't qualify for Child Benefit unless both of the following apply:

-you are moving to an EEA country or Switzerland
-you are paying UK NICs or receiving a UK National Insurance-related benefit

EEA countries are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK.
You'll stop qualifying on the Sunday following the day you leave the UK or on the day itself if that's a Sunday.
If your child is staying in the UK and is being looked after by someone else, that person might want to claim Child Benefit.
You must let us know if you plan to move abroad permanently or if you're likely to be away for more than a year. http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/childbenefit/sta ... road.htm#3

May be I get a different rate for being English

Bethsmum wrote:May be I get a different rate for being English

With all my Persian pride, I couldn't think of any contemptible low class kind such as yours