snipvoid

It sounds like that belief is worth having a look at again.

Are you even a DJ!?

A stupendous attempt to save face.

I am completely open to debate your claims factually. However, it looks like the facts don’t support your little narrative. So it’s probably a good idea for you to throw in the towel now.

Truly amazing. You’re doubling down.

Tell me ‘fellow migrant’, what length of time must you have been living in the UK, on what terms of immigration, and what stipulations must be fulfilled before a claim can be made (that will be processed and NOT automatically declined) by the Department for Work and Pensions.

If someone was furloughed, then they weren’t on UC. Also, I had to travel back to my home country during the pandemic because my mother died from covid and I’m an only child. I had been claiming UC at the time and my benefits were stopped while I was there because I left the country for more than 30 days.

The more you carry on with this lie, the more evident it is that you have zero idea what you’re talking about.

You absolutely do not.

I was an audiotypist for benefit fraud interviews for many years. My partner at the time worked in the BDC. I’m also a first generation immigrant. What I’m trying to say is that you absolutely are talking out your arse.

I can assure you that even if anyone immigrates to the UK, the road between stepping foot in the country and being able to claim benefits is long and complex.

Why would you even lie?

Thanks for the kind thoughts. <3

Norway have a strong PR game, but their financial and geopolitical interests are pure filth.

I got key-logged by an abusive parent when I was 14. If that doesn’t make you take digital privacy and security seriously, nothing else will.

You seem confused. Let me be clear:

• I have no criticism for the Finnish Parliament or their choice of soft drink selection.

• I have no belief that a government office cafeteria is equally as complex as a pension fund.

Now if you’ve made it this far, why are Finland choosing not to support Pepsi? Let’s look to the article:

The Finnish parliament will no longer carry Pepsi products as the American soft drink giant continues to support the Russian economy by continuing its operations in the aggressor country

So, from the article, the Finnish Parliament have taken a stand against Pepsi because Pepsi won’t cease operating in Russia. And Pepsi Co failing to stop their operations in Russia is bad. Right?

Still with me? Great.

Norway’s Sovereign Wealth Fund also isn’t ceasing their operations (by way of their investments) in Russia.

Again: where is the equivalent outrage? Why isn’t anyone taking a stand against Norway for not divesting? They said they would, but haven’t. The amount is pennies when compared to their other investments. So why are they hanging on to them? Why don’t they do what they said they would? And why isn’t anyone speaking out against them for failing to divest, especially while their former PM is leading NATO?

Hope that helps!

I did not. Happy to help!

My original comment (to which you responded) regarding the obligations of Pepsi Co were highlighting a critical comparison between a corporate drinks manufacturer and the pension fund. The Finnish Parliament can do what they like. If they’re doing it because Pepsi Co hasn’t fully pulled out of Russia, and thus Pepsi deserves to be shunned, what does Norway deserve?

If action is mandated for entities that don’t divest from Russia, then it must equally be applicable to all entities where this is true. Otherwise, hypocrisy.

Sure, but now tell me how the richest pension fund in the world, currently valued in the trillions, has such fiduciary obligation that it can’t divest ~$300 million of Russian investments.

Make it make sense.