Japan urges UK to stay in the EU

[Deano6]

What's the problem with being in Europe anyway? Apart from the silly Daily Mail "it's PC gone mad" scare stories. What is it that people are so upset about?

[Verbal]

European bureaucrats really don't encourage the British electorate to appreciate being members of the EU, do they? And then they wonder why there is all this dissent over here.

 

It's hardly as idiotic as the help-to-buy policy itself, is it? The policy will create an artificial property bubble - the effect of which is like chasing a balloon that floats every further out of reach. As subsidies drive up demand, demand drives up prices.

 

Rather than this, wouldn't it be far better to insist that people are paid a living wage? The government currently spends £4bn a year on income support, mostly to private sector workers whose employers know they can cut wages below the threshold without penalty. So fewer "entrepreneurs" sponging off the state and fairer pay. Deal? Then we might be able to dispense with help-to-buy, which even the right-wing Institute of Directors calls "mad".

[pap]

It's hardly as idiotic as the help-to-buy policy itself, is it? The policy will create an artificial property bubble - the effect of which is like chasing a balloon that floats every further out of reach. As subsidies drive up demand, demand drives up prices.

 

Rather than this, wouldn't it be far better to insist that people are paid a living wage? The government currently spends £4bn a year on income support, mostly to private sector workers whose employers know they can cut wages below the threshold without penalty. So fewer "entrepreneurs" sponging off the state and fairer pay. Deal? Then we might be able to dispense with help-to-buy, which even the right-wing Institute of Directors calls "mad".

 

The whole system is idiotic. The Britons of 1000 years ago would be utterly bemused by how we go about getting a place to live. The biggest single expense for the vast majority of people is housing. The cost of housing makes the entire country uncompetitive with emerging economies.

 

Someone posted a link to someone contesting an eviction a while ago. An interesting claim was made; that the signing of a mortgage agreement creates the money that is being lent. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but if true, gives an indication of how gratuitous the mortgage system is. It's just there to make more money for people who already have loads, and to enforce a form of bondage on those who are not independently wealthy.

[Sour Mash]

The whole system is idiotic. The Britons of 1000 years ago would be utterly bemused by how we go about getting a place to live. The biggest single expense for the vast majority of people is housing. .

Surely its always been the biggest single expense? What else would it be?

[hypochondriac]

The whole system is idiotic. The Britons of 1000 years ago would be utterly bemused by how we go about getting a place to live. The biggest single expense for the vast majority of people is housing. The cost of housing makes the entire country uncompetitive with emerging economies.

 

Someone posted a link to someone contesting an eviction a while ago. An interesting claim was made; that the signing of a mortgage agreement creates the money that is being lent. I'm not sure how accurate that is, but if true, gives an indication of how gratuitous the mortgage system is. It's just there to make more money for people who already have loads, and to enforce a form of bondage on those who are not independently wealthy.

 

In medieval times the biggest expense was a cart so it isn't that mental.

[pap]

Surely its always been the biggest single expense? What else would it be?

 

Central banks are around three hundred years old. They now form the primary conduit through which people get a house. I'm not suggesting that we return to serfdom, btw - but attitudes to housing have changed massively. Here in Liverpool, we've still got entire estates that were constructed by industry for the people they wanted to employ. In the last century, we had a massive program of building social houses to ensure that our people were housed. Most of that has gone, and successive governments have left the homeseeker in the hands of the banks, not an especially smart idea. They got greedy, lent to people they shouldn't have lent to, put a massive amount of credit into the market, and predictably, prices rose to what the market would bear.

 

I'm sure that housing has always been comparatively expensive when stacked up against the rest of the line items on the monthly budget. The question is whether we've gone too far. The help to buy scheme is really kicking the problem of the cost of housing into the long grass, using tax payer's money to prop up house prices, which eventually filters through to the rental market as new landlords buy at high prices (and old ones realise what they can get away with).

 

The Conservatives are hardly unique in their "prop the financial system up" ways. We've been giving housing benefit to people in full-time employment for years. At what point do we say "enough?". When do we recognise that the true cost of housing should reflect what people can actually afford unaided, not what it can be when housing is subsidised by the government.

 

Someone was good enough to link an image from Another Angry Voice, containing the text:-

 

Excluding pensions, the largest part of the welfare bill is Housing Benefit. The truth about Housing Benefit is that it is claimed mostly by working people who are being paid very low wages by their rich employers, therefore qualifying for Housing Benefit, which in turn is then paid to rich landlords because of the high rents they dictate

 

We pay into this broken system every time we send shekels to the HMRC. When you pay tax, you're needlessly paying someone else's rent to benefit big corp, landlords and the financial system. It's high time we remembered what housing is supposed to be about, protection from the elements, stability, a foundry for the creation of happy memories - and not a f**king earner for the select few.

 

Rant over. Soz

[Barry Sanchez]

That's simply not true Barry. After all, they let me in.

 

And?

[Sour Mash]

Central banks are around three hundred years old. They now form the primary conduit through which people get a house. I'm not suggesting that we return to serfdom, btw - but attitudes to housing have changed massively. Here in Liverpool, we've still got entire estates that were constructed by industry for the people they wanted to employ. In the last century, we had a massive program of building social houses to ensure that our people were housed. Most of that has gone, and successive governments have left the homeseeker in the hands of the banks, not an especially smart idea. They got greedy, lent to people they shouldn't have lent to, put a massive amount of credit into the market, and predictably, prices rose to what the market would bear.

 

I'm sure that housing has always been comparatively expensive when stacked up against the rest of the line items on the monthly budget. The question is whether we've gone too far. The help to buy scheme is really kicking the problem of the cost of housing into the long grass, using tax payer's money to prop up house prices, which eventually filters through to the rental market as new landlords buy at high prices (and old ones realise what they can get away with).

 

The Conservatives are hardly unique in their "prop the financial system up" ways. We've been giving housing benefit to people in full-time employment for years. At what point do we say "enough?". When do we recognise that the true cost of housing should reflect what people can actually afford unaided, not what it can be when housing is subsidised by the government.

 

Someone was good enough to link an image from Another Angry Voice, containing the text:-

 

 

 

We pay into this broken system every time we send shekels to the HMRC. When you pay tax, you're needlessly paying someone else's rent to benefit big corp, landlords and the financial system. It's high time we remembered what housing is supposed to be about, protection from the elements, stability, a foundry for the creation of happy memories - and not a f**king earner for the select few.

 

Rant over. Soz

Right. But housing has probably always been most people's highest living expense, nothing exceptional about that? And your solution is for someone else (the Govt.) to build loads of houses for people and rent them out dirt cheap? Who should pay for that? And plenty if those estates are/were horrific places to live.

[pap]

Right. But housing has probably always been most people's highest living expense, nothing exceptional about that? And your solution is for someone else (the Govt.) to build loads of houses for people and rent them out dirt cheap? Who should pay for that? And plenty if those estates are/were horrific places to live.

 

You can stick to your one point if you wish, but I can't let you get away with continuing to ignore mine. As my post clearly indicated, I think the cost of housing is too much. I feel I'm vindicated in that position because every taxpayer is paying rent for other working people. I've acknowledged that the cost of housing has always been a large expense; at no point did I suggest that this was unique to the UK, or a modern phenomenon. The difference is the chasm of affordability. 3x yearly salary vs 6x times average salary.

 

Public housing programmes could be very effective in tackling prohibitive costs. If we go with your plan of filling these new builds up with scumbags, it'll be a disaster. Personally, I'm in favour of building entirely new estates, and eligibility for those estates being decided along the same lines as one would get a mortgage, where evidence of responsibility and stability weighed heavily into a applicant's chances of success.

 

I'm also very much up for land tax and rent controls, two other big levers that haven't even been built, yet alone touched.

[Verbal]

Personally, I'm in favour of building entirely new estates, and eligibility for those estates being decided along the same lines as one would get a mortgage, where evidence of responsibility and stability weighed heavily into a applicant's chances of success.

 

I'm also very much up for land tax and rent controls, two other big levers that haven't even been built, yet alone touched.

 

The very LAST thing anyone should do is "build entire new estates". They become either urban sink holes or suburban death. Housing should be about communities - something estate builders in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century understood pretty well, but we don't. Add this with your stuff about rent controls and land tax and you sound like a regurgitation of one of those northern relics from the 1960s Labour town halls - the kind you see getting tipped off the top of a concrete multi-storey car park by Michael Caine.

[pap]

The very LAST thing anyone should do is "build entire new estates". They become either urban sink holes or suburban death. Housing should be about communities - something estate builders in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century understood pretty well, but we don't. Add this with your stuff about rent controls and land tax and you sound like a regurgitation of one of those northern relics from the 1960s Labour town halls - the kind you see getting tipped off the top of a concrete multi-storey car park by Michael Caine.

 

You don't read, do you? Or at the very least, you don't understand.

 

New estates are required because it'll be very difficult to get the sort of people you'd want into existing estates, partly because of the perceptions you allude to, but also because of the fragmented nature of these estates after right-to-buy, and the fact that there aren't very many left.

 

You speak of housing being about building community, and point to nineteenth century housing builders as your example (!). I don't really agree. I've lived in those houses myself. The only thing conducive to community building in those days, that still remains, is people living in very close proximity to each other - and I'd argue, with quite a bit of personal experience, that's not always a good thing. Try parking a car on the same terraced street for a decade.

 

You say this is the very last thing we should be doing. What's the very first thing we should be doing? You seem to have all the answers. Let's hear your plan for solving the housing crisis.

[Verbal]

You don't read, do you? Or at the very least, you don't understand.

 

New estates are required because it'll be very difficult to get the sort of people you'd want into existing estates, partly because of the perceptions you allude to, but also because of the fragmented nature of these estates after right-to-buy, and the fact that there aren't very many left.

 

You speak of housing being about building community, and point to nineteenth century housing builders as your example (!). I don't really agree. I've lived in those houses myself. The only thing conducive to community building in those days, that still remains, is people living in very close proximity to each other - and I'd argue, with quite a bit of personal experience, that's not always a good thing. Try parking a car on the same terraced street for a decade.

 

You say this is the very last thing we should be doing. What's the very first thing we should be doing? You seem to have all the answers. Let's hear your plan for solving the housing crisis.

 

I read very carefully what you'd written because I couldn't quite believe someone was seriously proposing to build "entire new estates" and would solve the concomitant social problems by choosing the right sort of people.

 

Actually it's you who wasn't paying attention. I was talking about the great Victorian estate builders - you read that as no different from the speculative builders whose lines of terraced houses dominate all cities in Britain. The two are from different universes. Try googling New Earswick, for example, built by the Rowntrees. Nothing built from the sixties to the present has the quality of places like this, with its affordable housing (still), generous space and sense of community. All the sociological skills that went into building New Earswick and others have been lost.

 

You think what you propose is novel. It isn't. It's Newcastle city council c.1963.

[pap]

I read very carefully what you'd written because I couldn't quite believe someone was seriously proposing to build "entire new estates" and would solve the concomitant social problems by choosing the right sort of people.

 

Actually it's you who wasn't paying attention. I was talking about the great Victorian estate builders - you read that as no different from the speculative builders whose lines of terraced houses dominate all cities in Britain. The two are from different universes. Try googling New Earswick, for example, built by the Rowntrees. Nothing built from the sixties to the present has the quality of places like this, with its affordable housing (still), generous space and sense of community. All the sociological skills that went into building New Earswick and others have been lost.

 

You think what you propose is novel. It isn't. It's Newcastle city council c.1963.

 

Thanks for using two of your three posts a day to say nothing, apart from act as an unofficial tourist board for New Earswick. Perhaps you need to be clearer in your posts if you're unable to afford a fiver.

 

I'm still waiting for your panacea for the housing crisis. So are millions of other people. Let's hear it, Verbal. Show us that you can create an idea.

[Whitey Grandad]

Thanks for using two of your three posts a day to say nothing, apart from act as an unofficial tourist board for New Earswick. Perhaps you need to be clearer in your posts if you're unable to afford a fiver.

 

I'm still waiting for your panacea for the housing crisis. So are millions of other people. Let's hear it, Verbal. Show us that you can create an idea.

 

Too many people in the country. If we hasn't had an increase of 10 million extra over the las decade or so then there would be plenty of housing.

[pap]

Too many people in the country. If we hasn't had an increase of 10 million extra over the las decade or so then there would be plenty of housing.

 

I dunno Whitey G. According to Kevin Cahill's Who Owns Britain (admittedly written in the early 2000s), he reckons that 77% of people in this country live on just 6% of the land.

 

I completely take your point about our low stock being hammered by new arrivals though.

[Whitey Grandad]

I dunno Whitey G. According to Kevin Cahill's Who Owns Britain (admittedly written in the early 2000s), he reckons that 77% of people in this country live on just 6% of the land.

 

I completely take your point about our low stock being hammered by new arrivals though.

 

There's far more to it than just land availability. Even back when I was talking to GOSE and other planners the figure of over 2.5 million homes in 10 years was mentioned but when I asked where the money was going to come from all I got was blank looks. Multiply 2.5m by £150k average price and see what you get.

[Tokyo-Saint]

And?

 

http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/new-immigration-laws-hinder-some-married-expats-returning-to-uk

[pap]

There's far more to it than just land availability. Even back when I was talking to GOSE and other planners the figure of over 2.5 million homes in 10 years was mentioned but when I asked where the money was going to come from all I got was blank looks. Multiply 2.5m by £150k average price and see what you get.

 

Granted, but too often, the complexity of the issue is used as an excuse to ignore it. Land is incredibly important. How much of your 150K is spent on just securing that?

[Sour Mash]

You can stick to your one point if you wish, but I can't let you get away with continuing to ignore mine. As my post clearly indicated, I think the cost of housing is too much. I feel I'm vindicated in that position because every taxpayer is paying rent for other working people. I've acknowledged that the cost of housing has always been a large expense; at no point did I suggest that this was unique to the UK, or a modern phenomenon. The difference is the chasm of affordability. 3x yearly salary vs 6x times average salary.

 

Public housing programmes could be very effective in tackling prohibitive costs. If we go with your plan of filling these new builds up with scumbags, it'll be a disaster. Personally, I'm in favour of building entirely new estates, and eligibility for those estates being decided along the same lines as one would get a mortgage, where evidence of responsibility and stability weighed heavily into a applicant's chances of success.

 

I'm also very much up for land tax and rent controls, two other big levers that haven't even been built, yet alone touched.

But the point is that housing has always been a large expense and always will be, so what? The majority of people in this country that work

[View From The Top]

The fu.ck up was Right To Buy. Not the principle of it but the fact that the money earned from the sales was not allowed, by law, to replenish stocks thus creating a shortage of decent social housing and driving rents through the roof in the private sector.

 

Oddly enough, for many middle earners, housing costs aren't the biggest out goings, childcare is. I know plenty whose childcare costs are 50%+ higher that their mortgages.

[pap]

But the point is that housing has always been a large expense and always will be, so what? The majority of people in this country that work

 

You are like Mr One Question from Banzai. You can't let it go, and don't want to consider why this might be a bad thing.

 

Housing can be the most expensive item on your monthly outgoings and still be affordable. It's the latter part that ain't happening.

 

Can you accommodate that principle?

[pap]

The fu.ck up was Right To Buy. Not the principle of it but the fact that the money earned from the sales was not allowed, by law, to replenish stocks thus creating a shortage of decent social housing and driving rents through the roof in the private sector.

 

Agree that this was a huge factor.

 

Oddly enough, for many middle earners, housing costs aren't the biggest out goings, childcare is. I know plenty whose childcare costs are 50%+ higher that their mortgages.

 

Something else that should just be run by the state, imo. Denmark has the right idea. It recognises that the benefits of providing universal child care well outstrip the costs.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/feb/18/britain-learn-denmark-childcare-model

[hypochondriac]

I would like to see Denmark's ratios before holding them up as some sort of example. France has been trumpeted by the Tories for ages yet they are much worse childcare-wise than us. Same in other European countries such as Belgium and Portugal. It isn't just about affordability it is about the quality of childcare.

[Sour Mash]

You are like Mr One Question from Banzai. You can't let it go, and don't want to consider why this might be a bad thing.

 

Housing can be the most expensive item on your monthly outgoings and still be affordable. It's the latter part that ain't happening.

 

Can you accommodate that principle?

No need to get so worked up just because someone pointed out an error in your posts.

[pap]

No need to get so worked up just because someone pointed out an error in your posts.

 

Big lolz.

 

You were the one who got the wrong end of the stick when you took my argument to mean "housing hasn't always been the most expensive outgoing" or alternatively, "housing is not the most expensive thing elsewhere". I don't know what was going through your head. I can only tell you I didn't write it.

 

Still, cheers for the contribution, Sour Mash. I rarely get to look this good in debates.

[benjii]

I'm with Pap on this. A low tax economy with benefits massively reined in and a "no riff-raff" rule in my neghbourhood would suit me down to the ground.

[Verbal]

Thanks for using two of your three posts a day to say nothing, apart from act as an unofficial tourist board for New Earswick. Perhaps you need to be clearer in your posts if you're unable to afford a fiver.

 

I'm still waiting for your panacea for the housing crisis. So are millions of other people. Let's hear it, Verbal. Show us that you can create an idea.

 

I've no idea what goes through your mind. Why should you be concerned enough to comment at the number of posts I write? And why is the invitation to take a look at New Earswick acting like a "tourist board"? It's very hard to make any sense of your posts.

 

As for being "creative", I'm all for blue skies thinking, but, used on its own, it always seemed to me the last refuge of ignoramuses - with blue skies being the only recognisable thing in their heads. Far better to look to what's worked in the past and why. Which is why I suggested you look at New Earswick. As a model village it was itself a model for garden cities like Welwyn and Letchworth. You could also look at Port Sunlight, Saltaire and Bournville. The point is, they were all built in the belief that our environment shapes our lives and our behaviour - NOT the other way around. So in NE, for example, Joseph Rowntree wanted something that undid the human wreckage he had found in York's appalling slums. He built a village where workers and managers alike lived, where the ideas of community and civic space were foremost. It was a brilliant success.

 

Rowntree and the other "private sector" social reformers simply had a different idea of working class life to that which became prevalent in the 1930s and instutionalised in the 1960s slum-clearance programmes. For the 30s, take a look at a film called Housing Problems. You can view it here:

 

http://vimeo.com/4950031

 

Slum clearance is advocated not only on the grounds that the slums are dreadful (which they are undoubtedly), but also that "helpless" working class inhabitants, by their nature, need rescuing by the intervention of the state. (There's also an unstated motive - the film is sponsored by a gas company, whose sales would increase with larger and more connectable homes.) This patronising view of working class people, as a bunch of well-meaning but helpless dimwits, was the underpinning to the slum clearances of the 1960s. Where did the people go? Some into the towerblock wastelands that went up on former slum lands. Some went to what were euphemistically called "overspill estates", built 50 miles or more way. I happen to have grown up on one of these estates. It was a hellish place to live. The model villages and towns created by the late Victorian and Edwardian social reformers, by contrast, have by and large been enduring successes, both architecturally and socially.

 

Contrast this with your "idea" (the quotation marks are required). This is that you would screen out "scumbags", and that this would somehow ensure that all these "entire estates" would work. Frankly, it's a contemptible, stupid suggestion. Fortunately not even this government is moronic enough to pursue anything remotely like it.

[pap]

I've no idea what goes through your mind. Why should you be concerned enough to comment at the number of posts I write? And why is the invitation to take a look at New Earswick acting like a "tourist board"? It's very hard to make any sense of your posts.

 

As for being "creative", I'm all for blue skies thinking, but, used on its own, it always seemed to me the last refuge of ignoramuses - with blue skies being the only recognisable thing in their heads. Far better to look to what's worked in the past and why. Which is why I suggested you look at New Earswick. As a model village it was itself a model for garden cities like Welwyn and Letchworth. You could also look at Port Sunlight, Saltaire and Bournville. The point is, they were all built in the belief that our environment shapes our lives and our behaviour - NOT the other way around. So in NE, for example, Joseph Rowntree wanted something that undid the human wreckage he had found in York's appalling slums. He built a village where workers and managers alike lived, where the ideas of community and civic space were foremost. It was a brilliant success.

 

Rowntree and the other "private sector" social reformers simply had a different idea of working class life to that which became prevalent in the 1930s and instutionalised in the 1960s slum-clearance programmes. For the 30s, take a look at a film called Housing Problems. You can view it here:

 

http://vimeo.com/4950031

 

Slum clearance is advocated not only on the grounds that the slums are dreadful (which they are undoubtedly), but also that "helpless" working class inhabitants, by their nature, need rescuing by the intervention of the state. (There's also an unstated motive - the film is sponsored by a gas company, whose sales would increase with larger and more connectable homes.) This patronising view of working class people, as a bunch of well-meaning but helpless dimwits, was the underpinning to the slum clearances of the 1960s. Where did the people go? Some into the towerblock wastelands that went up on former slum lands. Some went to what were euphemistically called "overspill estates", built 50 miles or more way. I happen to have grown up on one of these estates. It was a hellish place to live. The model villages and towns created by the late Victorian and Edwardian social reformers, by contrast, have by and large been enduring successes, both architecturally and socially.

 

Contrast this with your "idea" (the quotation marks are required). This is that you would screen out "scumbags", and that this would somehow ensure that all these "entire estates" would work. Frankly, it's a contemptible, stupid suggestion. Fortunately not even this government is moronic enough to pursue anything remotely like it.

 

Kudos to you for such an expansive and informative post. I happen to live near to Port Sunlight and am a good friend of a current resident. It's a place that very much proves my point.

 

The entire town was built on the behest of the Lever brothers. To this day, the town continues to ask the same questions of potential new residents that I would ask, and binds them into community responsibility from day one. It continues to be a successful experiment in social engineering, but it's got bugger all to do with the impressive quality of the architecture. It's more to do with the more restrictive social contract that all residents must adhere to.

 

I'm with you on Port Sunlight. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. They require that you will uphold certain responsibilities as a pre-condition of moving in. That isn't a million miles away from what I am suggesting; homes for decent people. You are crazy if you believe that can't be implemented. Already being done by umpteen credit agencies.

 

I'm pleased to hear of your background but I can't say I had the same experience, even though I've seen towns like yours. Similar schemes were played in Liverpool, people guaranteed a council house and a job if they moved to places like Kirkby or Skelmersdale. They kept their council houses, but the jobs did not last.

 

I have a rosier view of social housing. Most of my family were in it for ten years tops before moving into the private sector. I'm not talking about building New Kirkby. I'm talking about building desirable pockets of social accommodation that have strict entry requirements.

 

I have to say, I do wonder whether your hellish experience on these estates was a result of a failure to engage with the people around you. Assuming you're as bold and "brassy" in public as you are on here, I'd deduct that you were the recipient of quite a few slaps.

 

Mate, you can have a big mouth on a council estate without being especially hard yourself, but FFS, get a minder.

[hutch]

So let me get this right, is Japan planning to move into Welwyn Garden City?

[Barry Sanchez]

Kudos to you for such an expansive and informative post. I happen to live near to Port Sunlight and am a good friend of a current resident. It's a place that very much proves my point.

 

The entire town was built on the behest of the Lever brothers. To this day, the town continues to ask the same questions of potential new residents that I would ask, and binds them into community responsibility from day one. It continues to be a successful experiment in social engineering, but it's got bugger all to do with the impressive quality of the architecture. It's more to do with the more restrictive social contract that all residents must adhere to.

 

I'm with you on Port Sunlight. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. They require that you will uphold certain responsibilities as a pre-condition of moving in. That isn't a million miles away from what I am suggesting; homes for decent people. You are crazy if you believe that can't be implemented. Already being done by umpteen credit agencies.

 

I'm pleased to hear of your background but I can't say I had the same experience, even though I've seen towns like yours. Similar schemes were played in Liverpool, people guaranteed a council house and a job if they moved to places like Kirkby or Skelmersdale. They kept their council houses, but the jobs did not last.

 

I have a rosier view of social housing. Most of my family were in it for ten years tops before moving into the private sector. I'm not talking about building New Kirkby. I'm talking about building desirable pockets of social accommodation that have strict entry requirements.

 

I have to say, I do wonder whether your hellish experience on these estates was a result of a failure to engage with the people around you. Assuming you're as bold and "brassy" in public as you are on here, I'd deduct that you were the recipient of quite a few slaps.

 

Mate, you can have a big mouth on a council estate without being especially hard yourself, but FFS, get a minder.

 

You could not roll out a "Port Sunlight" situation across the whole Country as it would be far far too expensive, like Prince Charles Dorchester housing escapade.

 

Not practical.

[Barry Sanchez]

http://www.japantoday.com/category/lifestyle/view/new-immigration-laws-hinder-some-married-expats-returning-to-uk

 

That has nothing to do with japan's draconian laws on immigration and other people being allowed in, unless of course its comfort girls and English teachers......................

 

 

The law you use as an example of harsh immigration law is a farce as well, live and work in an EU Country for 3 months and you can enter no worries, poor example old bean.

Edited 25 July, 2013 by Barry Sanchez

[Tokyo-Saint]

Sorry Baz, you were right all along. You completely understood my joke/point and if anything added to it.

 

Well done. You're the greatest.

[Barry Sanchez]

Sorry Baz, you were right all along. You completely understood my joke/point and if anything added to it.

 

Well done. You're the greatest.

 

Cheers, I hired your avatar last night, was 6/10 comfort girl and sent her back to Korea......................