Conservative cruelty smashed by court (again)

[ESay]

As I understood from the article, the kid can be considered the British citizen (based on nationality of the father). So, I don't understand why the benefits had been refused in the first turn.

Whether this ruling should be applied to all migrant kids (including to those the parents of which are the citizens) is another question. Basically, the British government shouldn't be responsible for them.

They should just give them out to everyone. It would probably work out cheaper than setting up a national structure to manage the system.

Well, but the kids and their parents aren't the British citizens. And it may be that they will be denied the citizenship or decide to leave or something like that. Besides, why Britain should support citizens of other states, even if they live there? It is a task of their home states.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As I understood from the article, the kid can be considered the British citizen (based on nationality of the father). So, I don't understand why the benefits had been refused in the first turn.

Whether this ruling should be applied to all migrant kids (including to those the parents of which are the citizens) is another question. Basically, the British government shouldn't be responsible for them.

They should just give them out to everyone. It would probably work out cheaper than setting up a national structure to manage the system.

Well, but the kids and their parents aren't the British citizens. And it may be that they will be denied the citizenship or decide to leave or something like that. Besides, why Britain should support citizens of other states, even if they live there? It is a task of their home states.

If they live here we have a duty towards them.I dont want to live in a country that persecutes infants.

 

[2aguy]

Matt Hancock caves in over vitamins for poor children

A family took legal action after they were denied a voucher due to their immigration status.

www.bbc.co.uk

Health Secretary Matt Hancock has caved in to a legal action over providing vitamins and milk to some of the UK's poorest children.
Lawyers for a family denied weekly vouchers worth £4.25 had challenged the policy as discriminatory.
They said the ban unfairly affected ethnic minority children whose parents were not fully settled in the UK.
The challenge concerned the "Healthy Start" scheme supplying milk, vitamins and vegetables in England and Wales.
It explicitly aims to improve the diets of babies and toddlers in the poorest families in England in Wales - and so reduce the likelihood of lifelong chronic bad health.

It seems that the only way to make the tories behave like civilised people is to get a Judge to tell them.

The dumbest thing is that the scheme will actually save the taxpayer money in the longer term.
Anyway, let's chalk another one up to the good guys and wonder why these tory cockroaches waste public funds on these court cases.

Ok but that they get 2 vouchers for children under 1 and only 1 voucher for children 1 to 4 who need even more food than they did as a baby to survive, I am not sure your healthy start programs is particularly well-conceived to begin with.

Nothing government ever does is well-concieved........

 

[Silver Cat]

As I understood from the article, the kid can be considered the British citizen (based on nationality of the father). So, I don't understand why the benefits had been refused in the first turn.

Whether this ruling should be applied to all migrant kids (including to those the parents of which are the citizens) is another question. Basically, the British government shouldn't be responsible for them.

They should just give them out to everyone. It would probably work out cheaper than setting up a national structure to manage the system.

Well, but the kids and their parents aren't the British citizens. And it may be that they will be denied the citizenship or decide to leave or something like that. Besides, why Britain should support citizens of other states, even if they live there? It is a task of their home states.

If they live here we have a duty towards them.I dont want to live in a country that persecutes infants.

But your state already "persecutes infants". For example, by allowing migrants to terrorise them, or rape them, or sell them drugs, etc...
How many British children die every winter without cheap and clean energy in the British thin-wall houses?

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

As I understood from the article, the kid can be considered the British citizen (based on nationality of the father). So, I don't understand why the benefits had been refused in the first turn.

Whether this ruling should be applied to all migrant kids (including to those the parents of which are the citizens) is another question. Basically, the British government shouldn't be responsible for them.

They should just give them out to everyone. It would probably work out cheaper than setting up a national structure to manage the system.

Well, but the kids and their parents aren't the British citizens. And it may be that they will be denied the citizenship or decide to leave or something like that. Besides, why Britain should support citizens of other states, even if they live there? It is a task of their home states.

If they live here we have a duty towards them.I dont want to live in a country that persecutes infants.

But your state already "persecutes infants". For example, by allowing migrants to terrorise them, or rape them, or sell them drugs, etc...
How many British children die every winter without cheap and clean energy in the British thin-wall houses?

Er none!

 

[Silver Cat]

As I understood from the article, the kid can be considered the British citizen (based on nationality of the father). So, I don't understand why the benefits had been refused in the first turn.

Whether this ruling should be applied to all migrant kids (including to those the parents of which are the citizens) is another question. Basically, the British government shouldn't be responsible for them.

They should just give them out to everyone. It would probably work out cheaper than setting up a national structure to manage the system.

Well, but the kids and their parents aren't the British citizens. And it may be that they will be denied the citizenship or decide to leave or something like that. Besides, why Britain should support citizens of other states, even if they live there? It is a task of their home states.

If they live here we have a duty towards them.I dont want to live in a country that persecutes infants.

But your state already "persecutes infants". For example, by allowing migrants to terrorise them, or rape them, or sell them drugs, etc...
How many British children die every winter without cheap and clean energy in the British thin-wall houses?

Er none!

"In England, there were an estimated 26,500 excess winter deaths (EWD) in 2019 to 2020, with 50.2% among males (13,300) and 49.4% among females (13,100).

In comparison with the previous winter period, the excess winter mortality (EWM) index in England increased for males across all age groups, with the rise being statistically significant for all ages except those aged 80 to 84 years. For females, the EWM index increased for most age groups, but only statistically significantly for those aged 0 to 74 years. "

Excess winter mortality in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics

Excess winter mortality in England and Wales, by region, sex, age group and local authority.

www.ons.gov.uk

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As I understood from the article, the kid can be considered the British citizen (based on nationality of the father). So, I don't understand why the benefits had been refused in the first turn.

Whether this ruling should be applied to all migrant kids (including to those the parents of which are the citizens) is another question. Basically, the British government shouldn't be responsible for them.

They should just give them out to everyone. It would probably work out cheaper than setting up a national structure to manage the system.

Well, but the kids and their parents aren't the British citizens. And it may be that they will be denied the citizenship or decide to leave or something like that. Besides, why Britain should support citizens of other states, even if they live there? It is a task of their home states.

If they live here we have a duty towards them.I dont want to live in a country that persecutes infants.

But your state already "persecutes infants". For example, by allowing migrants to terrorise them, or rape them, or sell them drugs, etc...
How many British children die every winter without cheap and clean energy in the British thin-wall houses?

Idiot. We dont "allow" them to do any of that. You suggest that it is condoned and it isnt. These things happen in every society.

 

[Silver Cat]

As I understood from the article, the kid can be considered the British citizen (based on nationality of the father). So, I don't understand why the benefits had been refused in the first turn.

Whether this ruling should be applied to all migrant kids (including to those the parents of which are the citizens) is another question. Basically, the British government shouldn't be responsible for them.

They should just give them out to everyone. It would probably work out cheaper than setting up a national structure to manage the system.

Well, but the kids and their parents aren't the British citizens. And it may be that they will be denied the citizenship or decide to leave or something like that. Besides, why Britain should support citizens of other states, even if they live there? It is a task of their home states.

If they live here we have a duty towards them.I dont want to live in a country that persecutes infants.

But your state already "persecutes infants". For example, by allowing migrants to terrorise them, or rape them, or sell them drugs, etc...
How many British children die every winter without cheap and clean energy in the British thin-wall houses?

Idiot. We dont "allow" them to do any of that. You suggest that it is condoned and it isnt. These things happen in every society.

These things happen in every society allowing Muslim migrants to do these things.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

As I understood from the article, the kid can be considered the British citizen (based on nationality of the father). So, I don't understand why the benefits had been refused in the first turn.

Whether this ruling should be applied to all migrant kids (including to those the parents of which are the citizens) is another question. Basically, the British government shouldn't be responsible for them.

They should just give them out to everyone. It would probably work out cheaper than setting up a national structure to manage the system.

Well, but the kids and their parents aren't the British citizens. And it may be that they will be denied the citizenship or decide to leave or something like that. Besides, why Britain should support citizens of other states, even if they live there? It is a task of their home states.

If they live here we have a duty towards them.I dont want to live in a country that persecutes infants.

But your state already "persecutes infants". For example, by allowing migrants to terrorise them, or rape them, or sell them drugs, etc...
How many British children die every winter without cheap and clean energy in the British thin-wall houses?

Idiot. We dont "allow" them to do any of that. You suggest that it is condoned and it isnt. These things happen in every society.

These things happen in every society allowing Muslim migrants to do these things.

Every society. Even in Russia as you would know.