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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Musicman said:
You really need to ask what wrong with housing and general conditions for the poor in 19th century Britain?
Click to expand...

Perhaps Glasgow workhouses were of a better calibre :lol:
 
Musicman said:
You really need to ask what wrong with housing and general conditions for the poor in 19th century Britain?
Click to expand...

Not everyone can be rich or live in houses that rich people live in, unless that is, you are an ex Somali Asylum seeker who has multiple kids which you cannot afford to house and feed, hell then yes, you can get an Islington townhouse...

If you do not see the flaw in there then er...
 
ST4 said:
Not everyone can be rich or live in houses that rich people live in, unless that is, you are an ex Somali Asylum seeker who has multiple kids which you cannot afford to house and feed, hell then yes, you can get an Islington townhouse...

If you do not see the flaw in there then er...
Click to expand...

Still waiting for what that's got to do with the conditions in which the poor lived in the 19th century.
 
ST4 said:
Not everyone can be rich or live in houses that rich people live in, unless that is, you are an ex Somali Asylum seeker who has multiple kids which you cannot afford to house and feed, hell then yes, you can get an Islington townhouse...

If you do not see the flaw in there then er...
Click to expand...


Not even the Fail claims them to be asylum seekers, just their reporters couldn't find out. But you've made the leap. Why ain't I surprised?
 
viv1969 said:
Still waiting for what that's got to do with the conditions in which the poor lived in the 19th century.
Click to expand...

You see you feel a lot better living in your mansion when everyone else is in gritty tenements. Well that is still the case in most of Glasgow, just it's not as grim as it once was. Now they have sewers and mobile phones.
 
Unlikely to be Asylum seekers.

What benefits do asylum seekers receive in the UK?

The majority of asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the United Kingdom and so must rely on state support. Housing is provided, but asylum seekers cannot choose where it is, and it is often ‘hard to let’ properties which Council tenants do not want to live in. Cash support is available, and is currently set at £36.62 per person, per week, which makes it £5.23 a day for food, sanitation and clothing. (Source: Home Office)

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/the-uk-and-asylum.html
 
daugirdas said:
You see you feel a lot better living in your mansion when everyone else is in gritty tenements. Well that is still the case in most of Glasgow, just it's not as grim as it once was. Now they have sewers and mobile phones.
Click to expand...

I've not mentioned mansions and tenements :thinking:
 
boyfalldown said:
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?
Click to expand...

Displacement of the poor from their localities, often far afield, as advocated by some people on this thread, is exactly what is happening as a result of rising rents and government benefit caps, BTW

http://m.lgcplus.com/5076230.article

30 Oct 2014

Local Government Chronicle said:
The number of families given council help to leave London rose sharply last year as welfare cuts and the housing crisis forced hundreds of households to move out of the capital.

This is the finding of an LGC study of 2,438 moves around and out of London between April 2012 and August this year.
Click to expand...

Short version: Central London boroughs are moving their poor to outer London boroughs such as Enfield (and elsewhere in the UK). Enfield are then having to move their residents out into Essex, notably Tendring.

The 277 households moved into Enfield by other boroughs have pushed up house prices and displaced its own residents as landlords sought to “maximise rental returns”, a spokesman for the borough said.

The relatively low cost of housing in north-east London was behind the “pattern of movement” into suburban boroughs such as Enfield, he added.

“Enfield has been particularly and disproportionately affected by inward migration of both families housed by other boroughs in temporary accommodation [for the homeless] and through other schemes,” he said.

In turn, Enfield helped the largest number of households leave the city.
Click to expand...

Paul Price, corporate director of Tendring DC in Essex, said migrations were having a “catastrophic impact” on council services and its new residents. “I understand the issues London boroughs have, but they are not quite grasping the effect they are having on local communities, the infrastructure and the people themselves.”
Click to expand...

My wife works as a Research Analyst for my outer London council, primarily dealing with Early Years education stats, and she is seeing the effects of this migration from inner London boroughs in demand for infant schools and nursery places from families with small children. The settlement pattern has directly (negatively) affected our ability to get our child into local schools - we had to take a place at a school two bus rides away for two terms while waiting for a place to come up in Reception class at a nearer school.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
Unlikely to be Asylum seekers.

What benefits do asylum seekers receive in the UK?

The majority of asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the United Kingdom and so must rely on state support. Housing is provided, but asylum seekers cannot choose where it is, and it is often ‘hard to let’ properties which Council tenants do not want to live in. Cash support is available, and is currently set at £36.62 per person, per week, which makes it £5.23 a day for food, sanitation and clothing. (Source: Home Office)

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/the-uk-and-asylum.html
Click to expand...


As a couple, my OH and I are currently budgeting on £50 a week for food and cleaning items, which includes a cheap bottle of wine per week. That is because we cook all our own food, including baking bread. We do not shop in supermarkets and buy in bulk. We have not eaten out in months, and I cannot remember the last takeaway we had.
Maybe the people who are giving out these benefits may consider the old saying - "charity begins at home".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
andy700 said:
As a couple, my OH and I are currently budgeting on £50 a week for food and cleaning items, which includes a cheap bottle of wine per day. That is because we cook all our own food, including baking bread. We do not shop in supermarkets and buy in bulk. We have not eaten out in months, and I cannot remember the last takeaway we had.
Maybe the people who are giving out these benefits may consider the old saying - "charity begins at home".
Click to expand...
Even if you can find a £3 bottle of wine that's almost half your weekly budget..to say nothing of your liver. I assume that should be per week?

Is your budget voluntary? - I cant decide if your post is making out that £36.62/person is generous because you can get by on £25/person, or critical because your circumstances cause you to only have £50/week to spend and you aren't in receipt of any benefits.
 
Alastair said:
Even if you can find a £3 bottle of wine that's almost half your weekly budget..to say nothing of your liver. I assume that should be per week?

Is your budget voluntary? - I cant decide if your post is making out that £36.62/person is generous because you can get by on £25/person, or critical because your circumstances cause you to only have £50/week to spend and you aren't in receipt of any benefits.
Click to expand...

I too smell a problem here. ~2 bottles is pretty much max you should consume per week (cheap or expensive is irrelevant). In fact you don't NEED any. I drink between 0 to 1 a week (usually 0) and I am not aiming for any specific expenditure target. Liver is sort of priceless. I'd replace the bottles with [more] fruit and vegetables on the dinner table.
 
viv1969 said:
Unlikely to be Asylum seekers.

What benefits do asylum seekers receive in the UK?

The majority of asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the United Kingdom and so must rely on state support. Housing is provided, but asylum seekers cannot choose where it is, and it is often ‘hard to let’ properties which Council tenants do not want to live in. Cash support is available, and is currently set at £36.62 per person, per week, which makes it £5.23 a day for food, sanitation and clothing. (Source: Home Office)

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/the-uk-and-asylum.html
Click to expand...

Don't ruin a perfectly good argument with facts!!


Steve.
 
viv1969 said:
Unlikely to be Asylum seekers.

What benefits do asylum seekers receive in the UK?

The majority of asylum seekers do not have the right to work in the United Kingdom and so must rely on state support. Housing is provided, but asylum seekers cannot choose where it is, and it is often ‘hard to let’ properties which Council tenants do not want to live in. Cash support is available, and is currently set at £36.62 per person, per week, which makes it £5.23 a day for food, sanitation and clothing. (Source: Home Office)

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/the-uk-and-asylum.html
Click to expand...

Former asylum seekers who stayed on. Maybe just benefit tourists.

Why should people who cannot afford themselves get to live in a posh house in a posh area.
 
ST4 said:
Former asylum seekers who stayed on. Maybe just benefit tourists.
Click to expand...

The fact is Steve, that you have zero knowledge of the circumstances of those housed in the Islington townhouse. Zero.

Their story simply leapt out at you as fodder for yet another bargain basement anti immigrant / EU / benefit recipient (delete as appropriate) “wah wah” rant; with no basis in fact, no knowledge of either immigrant or asylum policy, and no desire to travel beyond your own internal outrage.

Instead of bothering to type this line:

ST4 said:
Why should people who cannot afford themselves get to live in a posh house in a posh area.
Click to expand...

…….You may as well have stamped your feet, clenched your fist and shouted “It’s not fair!”
 
Alastair said:
Even if you can find a £3 bottle of wine that's almost half your weekly budget..to say nothing of your liver. I assume that should be per week?

Is your budget voluntary? - I cant decide if your post is making out that £36.62/person is generous because you can get by on £25/person, or critical because your circumstances cause you to only have £50/week to spend and you aren't in receipt of any benefits.
Click to expand...


Cheers, duly edited.

We are not in receipt of any benefits at all, and yes our situation is critical.
Perhaps the reason why I am so upset at this state of affairs, is that I have contributed over thirty five years of tax and NI, and when I could do with some help, it is not forthcoming.
 
andy700 said:
Cheers, duly edited.

We are not in receipt of any benefits at all, and yes our situation is critical.
Perhaps the reason why I am so upset at this state of affairs, is that I have contributed over thirty five years of tax and NI, and when I could do with some help, it is not forthcoming.
Click to expand...
The system generally treats people the same regardless of your background..
  1. Deny you're entitled to help
  2. Delay the help
  3. Provide the help your entitled to slowly and piecemeal
I've worked with social services and the NHS and seen this approach taken repeatedly - not because the people you're dealing with directly want to do it this way (99% of front line staff in both services genuinely want to help you), but because it starts at the top and their access to the funds/resources needed to help you is equally denied/delayed. When things look like they're about to get critical the important thing is to refer yourself to social services as soon as possible - it reduces the impact of the deny/delay stage when you really need the help. And never ring them on a Monday or a Friday if you can possibly help it (no political will fund 24/7 coverage of social services yet most demand is around the weekend).

Unless you've other assets, it sounds like you should be getting some sort of help. Speak to CAB as soon as possible of you haven't done so already.
 
Alastair said:
The system generally treats people the same regardless of your background..
  1. Deny you're entitled to help
  2. Delay the help
  3. Provide the help your entitled to slowly and piecemeal
I've worked with social services and the NHS and seen this approach taken repeatedly - not because the people you're dealing with directly want to do it this way (99% of front line staff in both services genuinely want to help you), but because it starts at the top and their access to the funds/resources needed to help you is equally denied/delayed. When things look like they're about to get critical the important thing is to refer yourself to social services as soon as possible - it reduces the impact of the deny/delay stage when you really need the help. And never ring them on a Monday or a Friday if you can possibly help it (no political will fund 24/7 coverage of social services yet most demand is around the weekend).

Unless you've other assets, it sounds like you should be getting some sort of help. Speak to CAB as soon as possible of you haven't done so already.
Click to expand...


I think that the problem in my case, is that I will get some short term contract/temporary work, finish it, then have to start the procedure all over again regarding claiming. This has been going on for the past five years, and it is taking its toll on me.
 
andy700 said:
I think that the problem in my case, is that I will get some short term contract/temporary work, finish it, then have to start the procedure all over again regarding claiming. This has been going on for the past five years, and it is taking its toll on me.
Click to expand...
I know the feeling - I'm self-employed and reliant on multiple short-hour and/or short-term contracts. It took me years to build-up a reserve to even out the peaks and troughs of this way of life, and I've been fortunate with a partner with a steady income alongside my frequently erratic one.

It's definitely worth speaking to CAB - they can help you to manage any claims for support under this type of unpredictable circumstance. They're under less time pressure to deal with your case than anyone at JCP or social services.
 
viv1969 said:
The fact is Steve, that you have zero knowledge of the circumstances of those housed in the Islington townhouse. Zero.

Their story simply leapt out at you as fodder for yet another bargain basement anti immigrant / EU / benefit recipient (delete as appropriate) “wah wah” rant; with no basis in fact, no knowledge of either immigrant or asylum policy, and no desire to travel beyond your own internal outrage.

Instead of bothering to type this line:



…….You may as well have stamped your feet, clenched your fist and shouted “It’s not fair!”
Click to expand...

All I know it is wrong that the tax payer is footing the bill for people to live in posh houses in posh areas. Imagine the outtrage is this was an MP on the expenses swindle. You'd be oh so out raged then. These people don't need to live in a posh house in a posh area - no one does, but if they want to they need to save and earn the money to have the privilege of doing so. Soon we will be giving those on the dole Mercedes and Jaguars.
 
ST4 said:
All I know it is wrong that the tax payer is footing the bill for people to live in posh houses in posh areas. Imagine the outtrage is this was an MP on the expenses swindle. You'd be oh so out raged then. These people don't need to live in a posh house in a posh area - no one does, but if they want to they need to save and earn the money to have the privilege of doing so. Soon we will be giving those on the dole Mercedes and Jaguars.
Click to expand...

As I said....wah wah wah....
:arghh: :sleep:
 
Finally, what I've been looking for. Somewhere to come for political, moral and social guidance. Or so, for a moment, I thought.

If only, went my thinking, I could find someone who was a cross between Gordon Gekko and General Lord Kitchener to show me the true path of enlightenment that only the capitalist, military system can deliver.

Then I discovered I was being lectured to about how I should think by someone who is a cross between Uriah Heep and Colonel Blimp.

But I shall not be deterred. My quest for truth continues.
 
ST4 said:
These people don't need to live in a posh house in a posh area - no one does
Click to expand...

OK. Serious question: where should they live? Is your plan to create some sort of ghetto with adequate but unappealing housing? Maybe somewhere that's close enough to walk to Lidl but a safe distance from Waitrose. Presumably it would be helpful if there were some basic but ill paid jobs so they could serve their debt to their benefactors. But obviously ones that don't take jobs of hard working honest Brits.

Should we, basically, just round them up and park them in a dormitory block near a call centre on the outskirts of Hull?
 
Jonathan - the family in question appeared to be working as drivers/chauffeurs, I believe the preferred C19 option was to have the staff living over the garage with the home tied to the job..
 
JonathanRyan said:
OK. Serious question: where should they live? Is your plan to create some sort of ghetto with adequate but unappealing housing? Maybe somewhere that's close enough to walk to Lidl but a safe distance from Waitrose. Presumably it would be helpful if there were some basic but ill paid jobs so they could serve their debt to their benefactors. But obviously ones that don't take jobs of hard working honest Brits.

Should we, basically, just round them up and park them in a dormitory block near a call centre on the outskirts of Hull?
Click to expand...

Sounds about right. Poor people live in certain areas, rich in other areas. It's called the market forces.

Why put people who cannot afford housing of their own into an area where the top 1-2% of earners live? It makes no sense.
 
Alastair said:
Jonathan - the family in question appeared to be working as drivers/chauffeurs, I believe the preferred C19 option was to have the staff living over the garage with the home tied to the job..
Click to expand...
Bus drivers. Not chauffeurs who drive the clients Mercedes or Rolls Royce, nor are they in the employ of people like that.
 
ST4 said:
Why put people who cannot afford housing of their own into an area where the top 1-2% of earners live? It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Well, it's going to be a hell of a commute for them to drive buses in Chelsea if you insist they live in Hull.
 
ST4 said:
London has poor areas to live in . Chelsea isn't one of them
Click to expand...

You may be missing the point.....

Chelsea needs buses (really, the Mayor says so). So they need bus drivers. So those bus drivers need to live somewhere. Since the thread is about some bus drivers, I'd be interested to see where you would ask them to live that's (a) close enough to Chelsea to get to work by, you know, public transport and (b) at least as cheap to live in as Hull.

The thing people forget about London is that even the cheap bits are really really expensive.
 
JonathanRyan said:
You may be missing the point.....

Chelsea needs buses (really, the Mayor says so). So they need bus drivers. So those bus drivers need to live somewhere. Since the thread is about some bus drivers, I'd be interested to see where you would ask them to live that's (a) close enough to Chelsea to get to work by, you know, public transport and (b) at least as cheap to live in as Hull.

The thing people forget about London is that even the cheap bits are really really expensive.
Click to expand...

London has a tube network. Dint tell me a bus driver couldn't live in Harlseden or a place like Brixton and tube it in. Particularly as us tax payers are footing the bill. A council should not be discounting it's rent by half to move in people that cannot afford it. The house should be owned or rented by affluent people who can afford to be there. It's not "social housing" but a top drawer house in a top drawer area. Why should a bus driver get to live there but not a lawyer or dentist who could afford it at market rates?

London wages are often higher too in order to compensate the expense of living there.
 
Average house prices in Harlesdon: £652,372. Median price £550,000. In fact:

No. of properties Average price Median price Average ToM
Flat 222 £430,168 £404,975 101 days
Terraced 85 £835,959 £800,000 95 days
Semi-detached54 £1,035,364 £997,475 81 days
Detached 4 £1,504,988 £1,475,000 194 days

(Source: Home.co.uk who aggregate them from Estate Agents - Land Registry figures will be lower but also less current).

So you're (now) saying we should be buying these people million pound houses to live in?

London costs more than you think. Always.
 
Last edited:
JonathanRyan said:
Average house prices in Harlesdon: £652,372. Median price £550,000. In fact:

No. of propertiesAverage priceMedian priceAverage ToM
Flat222£430,168£404,975101 days
Terraced85£835,959£800,00095 days
Semi-detached54£1,035,364£997,47581 days
Detached4£1,504,988£1,475,000194 days

(Source: Home.co.uk who aggregate them from Estate Agents - Land Registry figures will be lower but also less current).

So you're (now) saying we should be buying these people million pound houses to live in?

London costs more than you think. Always.
Click to expand...

That surprises me, the area is a dump.

What about Brixton. Where do all the tube drivers/waitresses/students live?

We shouldn't be buying anyone houses to live in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top