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.
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.
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.
Sounds like someone’s previous policies led to a brain drain in their business and now he’s hoping other employers will blindly follow this rhetoric (and shoot themselves in the foot) so he can poach their employees for his company gain.
I’m fine with billionaires eating each other so we don’t have to.
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?
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.
And yet all the investments, their value, and what percentage of ownership the Norwegian Sovereign Wealth Fund possess are all publicly available on their website.
If I filter by ‘Russia’, they still show 51 companies. Today. Let’s look at their top five, which you can also view by accessing their own data.
Highest Percentage of Ownership:
Lenta International Co PJSC: 2.25%
Rosseti Centre PJSC: 2.69%
Ufaorgsintez OAO: 0.99%
Segezha Group PJSC: 1.16%
Bank St Petersburg PJSC: 1.76%
Highest Amounts of Investment in NOK:
Gazprom PJSC: 731,368,780
LUKOIL PJSC: 536,571,485
Sberbank of Russia PJSC: 523,299,961
Novatek PJSC: 118,267,597
Surgutneftegas PJSC: 76,130,966
^ these alone = ~$185,140,710 USD.
What fiduciary obligations does a pension fund have that is somehow more complex, important, and forgivable vs obligations belonging to Pepsi Co?
Let’s break down that January 31, 2023 article once more:
1: The investments in Moscow listed equities dropped from $2.7 billion to a mere $300 million.
It would be laughably naive to think this is purely because they've been 'pulling out' of Russia. By all means, review the article and let me know if it states the exact reason for the decrease in value.
2: By December 31, 2022, Norway still had shares in 51 Russian companies.
It's September 2023. If they were aggressively pulling out, wouldn't they have zero investments by now?
How would the richest sovereign wealth fund in the world pulling out their investments from Russia bring about living in the freezing cold?
It isn’t as if Norway’s fund haven’t already said they would divest. It’s just that they haven’t taken any concrete action on what they promised for more than a year.
the Norwegian oil fund still holds hundreds of millions worth of shares in petroleum companies like Gazprom, Novatek, Bashneft and Lukoil
Even if the value of their investments lower, they still haven’t pulled out any from Russia. The investments could be worth very little, but they still have something invested in Russia.
Norwegian Government on February 28, 2022, ordered the Oil Fund to freeze all investments in Russia and prepare a plan for divesting with the goal of totally exiting the Russian stock market
It sounds like that belief is worth having a look at again.