Nightingale Hospital has turned away more patients than it has treated

6,000 cases of female genital mutilation were brought to the NHS for treatment in 2016, mostly from Somalian families. That's 6,000x an NHS bill, paid for by whom? Thinking the worst, if there are 6000 children there are 6000 families. A family by definition is at least 3 people. Therefore, at least 18,000 people are involved in this example. How many of them work for a living? Very few I should think, given that that the principal reason for coming here is to claim free money from the state.

That was 2016, just one year.

It's not just about the money. How many of those 2016 >18,000 Somalian immigrants have an interest in Britain, its culture and its history?
 
Sponsored Links
Nothing newer than 2011 though and wherever you look, most reports state that those figures do not include such things as health care, housing, education etc.

"The campaign group Migrationwatch compared the amount paid in income tax, national insurance, VAT and other taxes by migrants with the cost of providing them with health, education, policing, roads and other services.

The research found the gap between the contributions made by migrants from the EEA – which is the EU, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway – and the amount consumed by its citizens was £1.2billion last year, or over £3million a day.


Lord Green of Deddington, the chairman of Migration Watch, said: 'This report shows that EU migration, taken as a whole, is not making the positive fiscal contribution that has so often been claimed.

Are you making the counter claim that Immigrants are a net cost?

You do know that Migrationwatch is not a reputable source and the PCC upheld a claim against the Daily Mail and Telegraph (who else) on articles based on inaccurate MW stats. They amended their articles in response.
 
Sponsored Links
You do know that Migrationwatch is not a reputable source and the PCC upheld a claim against the Daily Mail and Telegraph (who else) on articles based on inaccurate MW stats. They amended their articles in response.
You do know that the BBC have been fined for unfair conduct and have been taken to court. They also had to pay compensation to Cliff Richards and employed paedophiles for years - you do know that don’t you? Does that make everything that the BBC publish void? Of course, you’ll rubbish the BBC when it suits you - not all the time though. Occasionally you’ll hold them in high esteem, again, when it suits you with posts like "Thats accurate. The BBC quoted that". Tell us, just who should we trust when it comes to articles posted online, on paper or on air, just so we know?
 
You do know that Migrationwatch is not a reputable source and the PCC upheld a claim against the Daily Mail and Telegraph (who else) on articles based on inaccurate MW stats. They amended their articles in response.

Have you got the details of this please?
 
Tell us, just who should we trust when it comes to articles posted online, on paper or on air, just so we know?

Trust your own eyes and ears Mottie and never trust lefties with their graphs and grubby press cuttings! They would tell you that it's safe to walk in front of an oncoming train because a survey shows.....
 
Yes I read that a while back, the migration observatory is a good source.

beware of migration watch though -its one of those 'think tanks' (for think tank read misinformation and propaganda)
As we know,the only truth and reliable source of facts is whatever Notchgallal tells ua.
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top