Comments by "Aden Wellsmith" (@adenwellsmith6908) on "Clown World YT"
channel.
-
393
-
50
-
47
-
43
-
37
-
35
-
28
-
19
-
If you have a minimum tax of £38,500 a year, per migrant things change. First why 38,500? Well that's average wage. In practice you need to earn a bit more to be a net contributor. That is generate more tax than you cost. The reason for that is there's a deficit, but work with it.
Now if you earn that sort of money, you have to be integrated into society. Hard to earn it if you aren't. Similarly if you are denied all no contributory benefits. which is pretty much all of them. You have to be integrated into society.
Then what's other people's views? Well there will no doubt still be some racists, but almost all people will say, look if he or she is paying more tax than they cost, then I get cheaper services, they can stay so long as they carry on doing so.
But that isn't what we have. We have lots of low paid people because the elite have said who will clean our toilets, which is just the modern day equivalent of who will pick our cotton.
17
-
16
-
10
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I know of some. For example, one of my father's students, had to escape Ghadafi. He's become British. He ran a physics department at one of the better universities. Got a gong from the queen. Semi retired, he's now involved building a company to make cheap electron microscopes. So in my books, meets all the criteria for a successful asylum seeker.
I've just had a coffee at a shop. Algerian refugee. I've seen the scars from the bullet wounds. Again, I wouldn't say no. Same for Kindertransport.
The point I am making is genuine refugees behave very differently from low paid migrants brought in because of the "who will pick our cotton" demands of the elite.
So how to fix it.
1. List of safe countries.
2. No asylum from safe countries.
3. If a country moves from dangerous to safe, then a grace period and you move to the economic migrant category.
4. For economic migrants, no welfare and a minimum £38,500 a year tax code.
So which are the safe countries? Afghanistan is now safe. The list I think is Yemen, Palestine, and Ukraine.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
One interesting feature of the councils going bust is investment.
The left demands investment. So I ask where are the accounts for these "investments". I want to see the income and expense accounts to see if they have made a profit, and similarly the balance sheet showing assets a liabilities to see the same thing. They can't provide them, because the investments aren't investments
The exceptions are councils. We know can see exactly how these government investments have worked.
The latest is Nottingham. The BBC doesn't report what has gone on. However, they started a company Robin Hood Energy. The only bit of that name that's correct is the robbing bit. The tax payers have been robbed. Auditors Grant Thornton calculated the council had invested a total of £43m into the company and risked £16.5m in guarantees.
Bristol did it first. The failed energy company, set up by Bristol City Council, lost around £46m. A report examined why extra council investment was approved despite the heavy losses.
So why did Nottingham copy the investment?
Croydon. Bust three times.
Croydon borrowed £545m during the past three years to invest in housing and commercial property. This included a £200m loan to its own housing development arm Brick By Brick, which has yet to return a dividend. The council has capital borrowings of nearly £2bn.
It invested £30m in the local Croydon Park Hotel in 2018-19. This went into administration in June. It also spent £46m on a shopping centre. The council’s strategy of “invest[ing] its way out of financial challenge” was “inherently flawed”, as councillors did not properly understand the retail and leisure markets, auditors said.
It had debts that totalled £1.3bn.
Woking. Following a failed investment strategy, propelled by borrowing hundreds of millions of pounds for local regeneration projects, Woking Borough Council issued a section 114 notice in June. The council – which invested in building a new shopping centre, residential skyscrapers and the cutlery for a 23-storey Hilton hotel in the town centre – has debts which are forecast to reach £2.6bn
Thurrock’s situation emerged after it provided £655m to companies via bonds, including the purchase of 53 solar farms.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
CDA 1971 - A person who without lawful excuse destroys or damages any property belonging to another, intending to destroy or damage any such property, or being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, shall be guilty of an offence.
This offence is triable either way – para. 29, Schedule 1 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 (MCA 1980).The maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment - Section 4 CDA 1971.
Meaning of Without Lawful Excuse [This is for firefighters, or for people damaging wheel clamps so doesn't apply]
However, a charge of criminal damage may be justified where:
the damage is excessive or gratuitous; or
there is difficulty in establishing the evidence required for the other offence; for example, proving an intent to steal in what is thought to be an attempted burglary.
[Gratuitous looks to me as the bit to go for]
I think I'll put in a second complaint, after making a crime report. I've one going in about the Data Controller of the MPS. Sir Mark Rowley again, who is, in both cases, Bang To Rights to use the police vernacular.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Agreed. There as the grand design where the guy built the massive cob home.
What's interesting to me is that cob is a composite material. The addition of fibres, such as straw, hair is needed. Just like you put carbon fibre into a plastic matrix, or rebar into concreate.
It's clearly fire proof too.
In terms of the rain, the bigger issue is ground water. You need the right foundations, to prevent capillary action lifting water destroying the cob from, the base.
In terms of ability to last, we have the remains of cob buildings going back 8000 years. Jericho for example.
There's a general problem in society that we must have high tech solutions. An example in tunnel boring. Machines costing millions make the holes.
But look back at Brunel. To build a vertical shaft they put a cookie cutting ring on the ground. On the inside is a lip. Whilst they were digging out the centre of the shaft, brickies were building a wall on that lip. That increases the weight forcing the cookie cutter into the ground. Dig more out, build the wall, and the cookie cutter sinks. The wall is there and protects the workers against cave in. You can go down a long way. This for example is how Elephant and Castle Tube station was built. You could do the same now. We precast concrete wall sections. a mini digger, and a crane to lift the sections in, the spoil out. Cheap and cheerful.
Then at the bottom, the put a cookie cutter in the wall, and started digging. The name for this was the great shield. They bolted metal sections into place to create the tunnel. Then hydraulic rams attached to those sections, pushed the cookie cutter forward. Two men dug out the soil, it was carted away. Then new wall sections added, Cookie cutter advanced, more soil removed. repeat. The numbers I've seen were 20 meters a day. OK. doesn't sound like much does it? But If you want a 1 km tunnel, you start at both ends. Each side needs to do 500 meters. At 20 meters a day, that's under a month. That's nothing.
So I think a simple. Just update the method. Conveyor belt to get the spoil out, a small train. You add the rails as you go. Crane is standard to lift the spoil out. At the front a small digger running off compressed air to dig out the material. A small digger modified to lift the wall sections into place. Doesn't take many people and you still get 20 meters a day.
So why's it not done? It's because the people running the system get more money by delaying than doing the job.
Another example, cross rail. For the cost of cross rail you could have had 150 DLR extensions in London. What effect would that have had on transport in the capital? Could you get 150 in place? No, So you could have had it in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, and Liverpool. But they spent it on one line.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1