I'm outraged. Benefit/asylum seekers in £2mil house

Status
Not open for further replies.
dejongj said:
I really fail to see the relevance in the context of this thread. Seems more like an opinion formed as an immovable object based upon other threads. And the funny is I am a foreigner, but it is not hard to understand what st4 is getting at here.

I would have thought that dramatic expressions aside it is just common sense and a fair approach.
Click to expand...

Its just the same tired old dinosaur liberal politics that hold hard work, enterprise and success in contempt.
 
ST4 said:
Its just the same tired old dinosaur liberal politics that hold hard work, enterprise and success in contempt.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and it comes across as being apologetic for things that don't even affect them and the people that supposed are affected by it don't even disagree with. It is madness, yet then others are being called names. Very immature and ironic in my opinion.
 
Frivolous benefits? :ROFLMAO: Now I've really heard it all. Some people can't see past their own nose.
 
I don't have the will, time or inclination to fully demonstrate and articulate the level to which your ignorance beggers belief. Any way, as you were.

Whoever the daily fail or other so called journalistic outfits point the finger at is the problem. Usually the most vulnerable members of society. You know, the ones living it up on benefit street.
 
Last edited:
"The most vulnerable members of society". I've never heard such sanctimony in all my life. I'd apply that phrase to children, the elderly and infirm not the pensioners of the state liberal thinkers like yourself have created.

What part of people not working when they could do you think is wrong? It's very simple.
 
Last edited:
Epiphany said:
I don't have the will, time or inclination to fully demonstrate and articulate the level to which your ignorance beggers belief. Any way, as you were.

Whoever the daily fail or other so called journalistic outfits point the finger at is the problem. Usually the most vulnerable members of society. You know, the ones living it up on benefit street.
Click to expand...
In that case why not give every vulnerable person a multi million pound house. How exactly is that going to make them any less vulnerable? Further more, whilst I appreciate that this particular property was already council owned,it is still a ridiculous situation where the labour council deliberately is valuing it below the threshold so that these people can live there for free.
 
Let's get back to the point - who would you deport: the asylum seekers in the house, the council or both?!

edit: I am just posing an open-ended question to the OP here regarding his usual stance in this forum, no more no less. That should be more than obvious. I am not personally suggesting any actual physical violence against anyone. Edited to make everyone more happy.
 
Last edited:
I don't know whether you're seriously advocating physical violence?

Either way, congratulations on getting pretty worked up about a story that's well over two years old, getting your facts wrong, and possibly committing a criminal offence in one comment.
 
Let's introduce a few more facts into this discussion

• We know, at least as far as is possible the Mail article, that there are ten people in the family, including at least three adults, of which two are male and one female.

• We also know that the house has six bedrooms and has been owned by LB Islington for many years.

• The family's residency status is unknown, but they qualify for HB and council housing and therefore cannot be asylum seekers. Whatever their staus, the rules for qualification are clear that they derive no extra benefit from being immigrants to the UK; the points allocated to them are based on the same criteria as any other UK citizen.

Let us make some reasonable assumptions:

• Presumably the woman and one of the men are married. It is possible that the other man is living with his partner (grandparents perhaps).

• There are probably children, but their ages are unknown. We might assume two children aged over 16 and two boys and two girls aged between 10 and sixteen. That brings us up to the ten individuals mentioned.

• Regardless of current market values, the property did not cost LB Islington anywhere near £1.8m to acquire. Quite possibly it has been in their ownership for fifty or more years, when Islington was a relatively poor (and cheap) borough.

Rules for housing, from RB Kensington & Chelsea, though these are set nationally.

http://www.rbkc.hbupdate.co.uk/Help.aspx?helpfile=CalculatingYourBedroomEntitlement

Calculating your bedroom entitlement

The number of people who live with you as members of your family determines how many bedrooms you need and the size of the accommodation you will qualify for under Local Housing Allowance rules. Other rooms such as living rooms, kitchens or toilets are not included in Local Housing Allowance rules.

Couples

Couples are entitled to a bedroom under Local Housing Allowance rules. If they do not have any dependants then this means they get the 1 bedroom rate, unless they share facilities with other joint tenants in which case they get the shared room rate of Local Housing Allowance.

By couple we mean a man and a woman who are married or living together as if they are married, or two people of the same sex who are Civil Partners of each other or who are living together as if they were Civil Partners, and are members of the same household.

Single people

Single people aged 35 or over are entitled to a bedroom under Local Housing Allowance rules in the same way as couples. Like couples, if they they share facilities with other joint tenants they get the shared room rate of Local Housing Allowance.

Single people aged under 35 are limited to the shared room rate of Local Housing Allowance. For more information see shared room rate.

Children

The number of bedrooms allowed for children under Local Housing Allowance depends on how old they are and their sex.

The rules assume that:

two children aged 0-9 share a bedroom whatever their sex
two boys or two girls aged under 16 share a bedroom
a boy and a girl both aged 10-15 have separate bedrooms
Children aged 16-19 and adults
Children aged 16-19 are counted as needing separate bedrooms.

If your household includes adults who are part of your family (such as a grown-up child or a parent) then they should also be included in this category. If any of the adults who live with you are in a couple then they count as one adult for Local Housing Allowance. When entering the number of adults who live with you do not include yourself or your partner, any joint tenants or your landlord).
Click to expand...

On the basis of those rules alone we have

2 bedrooms for the two couples
1 bedroom shared by two girls aged 10-16
1 bedroom shared by two boys aged 10-16
1 bedroom each for the two children aged over 16

This gives us a total of six bedrooms required under national rules. The mix may be slightly different, but it justifies a six bedroom house for a family of ten.

In 2013 -14, Islington Council had approximately 25,000 homes in their social housing portfolio, of which only 1% (i.e. about 250 properties) have more than five bedrooms. Given the distribution curve for the number of rooms, it is not unreasonable to assume that the number having the six bedrooms required by national rules would be well below 0.5%.

Source: http://www.islington.gov.uk/publicr...14/(2013-07-25)-Social-housing-allocation.pdf

Of the entire estate, fewer than 1,000 homes become available to let in any year. If we assume that the same 0.5% figure, then in any given year, fewer than five properties would be available to house this family within national rules in any given year. The quoted comment that they are 'very lucky' would appear to be quite true, especially if they had previously been living in temporary accommodation.

It is worth noting, from the same document, that "People will not be able to join the Housing Register unless they have been resident in Islington for 3 of the last 5 years."

Equally, if Islington had allocated the one of these rarely available properties to a smaller family, then it would clearly be an inappropriate use of resources (and also attract the 'bedroom tax' that has been introduced since this story surfaced).

A property of this size anywhere in LB Islington is going to be worth a substantial amount of money and would be able to attract high rents. However, is anyone seriously demanding that council housing should be let at full market rates? If they are, then they are missing the point of it.
 
Yes I am demanding it is let at market rates, and no I'm not missing the point of it. In my opinion you are missing the point of it.

I'm not disagreeing that those are the rules, other than the market value. I'm not concerned with the family living there. I am concerned that we even make up such rules and accommodate what I find selfish families of our money. I am concerned with the labour council not managing their finances properly. I am concerned that those making the rules make it too easy for a small group of people to use the system beyond its intentions.

As a society we have that part wrong. If people decide to keep f*****g and reproducing whilst we then throw everything their way to support them. That is wrong and not a society I like. Too many governments, and especially labour, have been acting like drug dealers and getting people hooked on benefits. To the extends that people see it as part of their salary and income topup, and to the extend that it has distorted market forces not allowing to find and adjust its own pay equilibrium. With a side effect of where private companies can't see the true monetary market value of their employees. This ongoing state interference has messed up so many things, yet the people are hooked on it and even blaming private organisations and rich(er) people for it.

Sorry musicman, whilst you've neatly highlighted the rules, it is you who are missing the point of it.
 
I'm quite impressed with TP these days, less than a handful of rightwing loons in a thread that was designed to bring them out of the wood work, nice to see so many TP members with a social conscience.
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Why do they need to be accommodated in Islington. Poor people relying in state support shouldn't be homed in posh areas.
Click to expand...

So you'd rather they were all housed together in ghettos? What could possibly go wrong?
 
jakeblu said:
I'm quite impressed with TP these days, less than a handful of rightwing loons in a thread that was designed to bring them out of the wood work, nice to see so many TP members with a social conscience.
Click to expand...
Again comprehension seems to be lacking. This is not about a social conscience or not at all. On the contrary it is much kinder to provide a lasting and sustainable solution opposed to merely throwing other people's money at the challenge.
 
boyfalldown said:
So you'd rather they were all housed together in ghettos? What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...
I would want to see the rule book change. Stop this dependency creating and entitlement culture from this point onwards. Want a large family, fine pay for the additional rooms yourself, the state will cover upto three bedrooms for temporary emergencies there after your are on your own. So if you want more and still want the safety net why not insure it yourself and privately. Can't afford to live in a certain area, no problem join the others and move to an area that is within your means or work harder.

Where is the personal pride gone to look after oneself and take more responsibility for oneself. As I said before, I don't blame the people, but I do blame the system that has created this attitude and allowed it to happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
dejongj said:
Again comprehension seems to be lacking. This is not about a social conscience or not at all. On the contrary it is much kinder to provide a lasting and sustainable solution opposed to merely throwing other people's money at the challenge.
Click to expand...
Unfettered, laissez-faire markets do not provide a lasting or sustainable solution, they are inherently flawed, resulting in massive inequalities. That is why we have government intervention, without it capitalism would collapse.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
dejongj said:
I would want to see the rule book change. Stop this dependency creating and entitlement culture from this point onwards. Want a large family, fine pay for the additional rooms yourself, the state will cover upto three bedrooms for temporary emergencies there after your are on your own. So if you want more and still want the safety net why not insure it yourself and privately. Can't afford to live in a certain area, no problem join the others and move to an area that is within your means or work harder.

Where is the personal pride gone to look after oneself and take more responsibility for oneself. As I said before, I don't blame the people, but I do blame the system that has created this attitude and allowed it to happen.
Click to expand...

And with things as they stand at present how would you suggest Islington made better use of its housing stock?
 
On the contrary, it is the constant interfering that artificially distorts the markets and doesn't allow it to work. Each interference to benefit someone will be a disbenefit to someone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
boyfalldown said:
And with things as they stand at present how would you suggest Islington made better use of its housing stock?
Click to expand...
Rent it out at market value, use the income to help the many. Rehouse the family to a cheaper area. It is a typical display of a lefty labour lead council undermining central government policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
dejongj said:
Rent it out at market value, use the income to help the many. Rehouse the family to a cheaper area. It is a typical display of a lefty labour lead council undermining central government policy.
Click to expand...


Ignoring your politics :). You'd create ghettos of housing benefit families forcing the bill onto councils in less affluent areas. Creating numerous social problems in those areas to? It sounds noble saying you use the rent to help many, but there is 10 people in that house. Assuming it was rented at market value (say £8k pm) then how many more people would you expect to help with that? Of course you still need to pay 6 bedrooms rent with the cash as well. But stick them in a poorer area, it would stop the outrage. Probably save no money though
 
And that highlights another issue. The benefit bill should be a national bill, not a local one that would overcome such issues.

Whilst there may be 10 people, it sounds like only one family. It can definitely save money as an equivalent sized property even in other London boroughs, let alone in Scotland or where ever can be much cheaper. It is not like they've got economic ties to the area and if they did, they should think about that before having a family that size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
dejongj said:
And that highlights another issue. The benefit bill should be a national bill, not a local one that would overcome such issues.

Whilst there may be 10 people, it sounds like only one family. It can definitely save money as an equivalent sized property even in other London boroughs, let alone in Scotland or where ever can be much cheaper. It is not like they've got economic ties to the area and if they did, they should think about that before having a family that size.
Click to expand...


It's not a great plan is it? Force benefit claimant to live somewhere else. The most obvious flaw is that 'somewhere else' may not have the housing stock. Or would you force non claimant out from 'somewhere else', taking jobs and a level of social cohesion with them?

Or would you like a Chinese style social engineering experiment with family size?
 
dejongj said:
Too many governments, and especially labour, have been acting like drug dealers and getting people hooked on benefits. To the extends that people see it as part of their salary and income topup, and to the extend that it has distorted market forces not allowing to find and adjust its own pay equilibrium. With a side effect of where private companies can't see the true monetary market value of their employees.
Click to expand...

The logical conclusion of this argument is to leave everything to the free market and to dismantle any social and regulatory aspects of the state entirely.

That worked really well in the 19th century.
 
ST4 said:
I just see a lot of sanctimonious rhetoric vs basic common sense. Feel free to disagree.
Click to expand...
The only disagreement is likely to be over who is talking the common sense and who's talking the sanctimonious Thatcherite rhetoric.
 
boyfalldown said:
So you'd rather they were all housed together in ghettos? What could possibly go wrong?
Click to expand...


What about poor, hardworking English people (of all colours, religions and sexual preference) who have to live in so called "ghettos" - cheap housing. They live in those areas despite paying all their taxes, because that is all they can afford. In other words they have "cut their cloth to suit their purse". It is an absolute insult to see people who have not contributed anything to this country, being showered with gifts on their arrival. It is absolute lunacy to see people living in the most expensive areas without having to pay their way.
The fact is, that they should be housed in the most basic housing available, and if they are alloowed to stay in this country, then they will be able to work their way up the ladder, the same as the rest of us.
Both my parents worked hard when I was young, and our first two houses (council houses in the North of England in the 60's) had three small bedrooms and an outside loo.
 
andy700 said:
What about poor, hardworking English people (of all colours, religions and sexual preference) who have to live in so called "ghettos" - cheap housing. They live in those areas despite paying all their taxes, because that is all they can afford. In other words they have "cut their cloth to suit their purse". It is an absolute insult to see people who have not contributed anything to this country, being showered with gifts on their arrival. It is absolute lunacy to see people living in the most expensive areas without having to pay their way.
The fact is, that they should be housed in the most basic housing available, and if they are alloowed to stay in this country, then they will be able to work their way up the ladder, the same as the rest of us.
Both my parents worked hard when I was young, and our first two houses (council houses in the North of England in the 60's) had three small bedrooms and an outside loo.
Click to expand...




Where did I mention race? To make it simple regardless of race having communities entirely comprised of benefit claimants is a very bad idea
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Where did I mention race? To make it simple regardless of race having communities entirely comprised of benefit claimants is a very bad idea
Click to expand...

There's a couple in Sittingbourne, and they ain't pretty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top