Facts? Where We’re Going We Don’t Need Facts!

Having been busy with Rachel Reeves and Iain Duncan Smith (and those pesky kids are a handful, I can tell you!) I haven’t had time to look at this ‘benefit tourism’ issue that has arisen again this week. I understand the European Commission has challenged the government to put up some evidence that it is taking place, or shut up about it once and for all. In other words, the Commission is saying “This is a ‘phantom problem’ that you have created to scare your citizens, isn’t it?” and waiting to be proved correct. Brilliant.
Don’t know what a ‘phantom problem’ is? You probably do but haven’t heard it described that way. This article features a great description of it, along with plenty of facts and evidence to support the case AGAINST ‘benefit tourism’.
It’s absolutely recommended reading and the author is to be commended.

12 thoughts on “Facts? Where We’re Going We Don’t Need Facts!

  1. Maggie Doran

    I agree with almost everything you post but you cannot know how welfare benefits are being abused by pregnant Polish women unless you work on the frontline of benefits. The FACT is heavily pregnant Polish women, some with husbands/partners are arrIving in the UK in significant numbers. Once the child is born, child benefit, child tax credit, housing benefit, council tax reduction are claimed before the ink is dry on the birth certificate. At the same time the application for social housing is submitted. Now you tell me how this amoral behaviour contributes to pur economy and social fabric? PLEASE tell me how this doesn’t affect welfare benefits. This practice has been going on unchecked for years. If the stats can be found for immigrants on JSA then surely the stats can be found for this. Maybe the government doesn’t want us to know this because of the resentment & unrest that would follow. Just saying.

      1. Maggie Doran

        Sadly it’s true & does a disservice to hardworking migrants. Unfortunately I cannot provide hard evidence but a statistician could, if provided access, uncover the figures. Anyway keep up the good work!

    1. Mike Sivier

      Well without proof, or even a lead to something that can substantiate your claim, I would not be willing to accept it as true.
      You might believe it but with nothing solid to support that belief, I can’t accept it.

    1. Mike Sivier

      Maybe you’re sincere, but you see, this approach follows a particular pattern adopted by people trying to derail particular narratives (usually those with something to lose if the phantom problem that has been identified is proved to be just that).
      First, they try to get on the site owner’s good side by saying how much they enjoy and sympathise with that person’s work.
      Then they say they think the site owner may be wrong about the issue in question, and reel off a story that corresponds closely enough with the details of the phantom problem at issue.
      At some point, they will say this is FACT. They will not support this FACT with evidence. They may say that someone else could uncover the evidence if provided access to the right information – but they do not say where that information might be.
      Sometimes they say the government might be trying to hide it because of potential political embarrassment (as you did; difficult to believe in this case because it is the government that is trying to establish the idea of ‘benefit tourism’ in the public psyche).
      They fail to provide details of where they got the information themselves.
      When queried on the matter, correspondence from some of these people becomes heated – how dare the site owner question them? How rude! etc. Alternatively, they might try to gain sympathy by saying, as you have, that they feel they’re getting the Spanish Inquisition (or something along similar lines). Practitioners of this kind of wheeze know that they can sometimes get an equally effective response by saying, as you have, “fair enough, but I know I’m right”.
      The aim is either to get the site owner to stop supporting the case against the phantom problem, or to send the site owner looking for evidence that doesn’t exist.
      It has been alleged that the people contacting site owners in this way are paid for their efforts by political organisations with a stake in the phantom problem under discussion, but this has never been demonstrated to my satisfaction.
      Other possibilities for this kind of behaviour include the double-bluff (it turns out that the information is there but the site owner is brought into disrepute because of failure to investigate).
      It is also perfectly possible that your story is true but anecdotal – relating only to people you know personally (and a minority of others, but not widespread); that it is true but you can’t divulge the evidence for personal reasons; or that it is false but you are unaware of this.
      That is why, if you are genuine, I must apologise for not taking this up.
      But it seems all-too-possible that this was an attempt to reel me in with a story that just ain’t so – and I’m not biting.

  2. B Freeman

    Can’t find it now, but just a week ago I saw a govt. website which stated that nearly 40% of prisoners in the top uk jail were Muslims – a minority, and loads of websites state immigrants are here living on welfare, this mainstream media bs has brainwashed you.

Comments are closed.