Housing immigrants and queue jumping

[mockney piers]

no superiority, simply ennui with the plethora of tactics you employ to keep debate focussed on your agenda. One of which is to ignore points made and use distraction to change the subject. As you made no recernce to anything I mentioned I feel no need to answer your questions or assertions.

You might want to consider the extrememly long history of these isles and wonder why anyone turned up, those first anccestors following the herds, jumping the food queues of the indigenous non-human inhabitants. The Atlantic 'celts' from Spain who lived peacefully alongside the Mesolithic inhabitants, the roman auxilliaries from Germany who earned ciizenship and settled here, normans, Saxons, Huguenots and dutch, poles, Italians, when and where do you draw your lines aboutt who is and isn't indigenous? Genetic testing all round? You might not like what you find!!

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> mockney piers Wrote:

> I'm not sure why you lot are engaging with a

> man....

>

> Perhaps you could get off your high,

> "oh-so-superior" horse to tell me why:

>

> 1/ As Jeremy put it: "you do have to question why

> so many refugees strive to get into the UK - many

> of whom will travel the whole width of Europe to

> get here" ??

> Why do these people by-pass so many Countries to

> get to Britain when most have no natural

> connection with this Nation, historically?

>

> 2/ If these Guys are "fleeing pesecution" from

> their original countries why is it, almost

> exclusively, single males we see trying to cross

> the border from France in nearly every case?

>

> This means they are leaving their Women and

> children to survive in these persecuted lands?

>

> What is your answer to these 2 questions please

> MP?

[Jeremy]

Brendan Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I?m not taking issue at all. I?m just trying to

> open the conversation up.

OK.. apologies for being over sensitive!

> I mean what are the chances of this moving out of

> one dimension or of us hearing anything we haven?t

> a million times before?

Pretty slim, I'd say.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Very good post, as usual, Keef. You make some very salient points and are able to do so without rancour.

The Guys who mentioned that only 2% of people born o/s The UK are prioritised thus rubbishing the claims made about priority treatment conveniently omit to mention that most people from abroad joining our system do so, nowadays, on the basis that they will be housed by, as you say, a social services department who will find private accomodation for them.

Your scenario?

Of course it is wrong for anyone to abuse the system and many do ( many Council places are "Sub-let", many Women get places on the basis there is no Man around to support them and the children but the Man does live there but makes sure he is not around when "visitors" from The Council arrive. etc etc..

Many are on a higher priority level because of "imaginary" violence....

All abuses are wrong and The Council place should be forfeited and not be passed down the Generations.

Many people living in The Suburbs now have done so on the back of profiting from the sale of their Council place.

So I agree there have been many "White/British" abuses, as well.

[Eliza.D]

I saw the report on the BBC news yesterday and from what i heard immigrants do not get priority and jump the housing list despite the belief of some of those interviewed.

The two people who they spoke to who believed that immigrants got priority was a BNP Cllr who was perpetrating a myth to gain seats on the local council and a single white british women with 4 children and another on the way moaning she couldn't get a house,they didn't exactly sell the argument.

I'm with those that believe those in genuine need of sanctuary from persecution should be offered as safe haven. Those that want to sponge off society whilst not wanting to contribute are not welcome.

[Jeremy]

Please, please remember that "indigenous" is not an indication of immigration status or nationality. It's totally irrelevant and gives this thread a very, very nasty undertone.

[Santerme]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Very good post, as usual, Keef. You make some very

> salient points and are able to do so without

> rancour.

>

> The Guys who mentioned that only 2% of people born

> o/s The UK are prioritised thus rubbishing the

> claims made about priority treatment conveniently

> omit to mention that most people from abroad

> joining our system do so, nowadays, on the basis

> that they will be housed by, as you say, a social

> services department who will find private

> accomodation for them.

>

> Your scenario?

>

> Of course it is wrong for anyone to abuse the

> system and many do ( many Council places are

> "Sub-let", many Women get places on the basis

> there is no Man around to support them and the

> children but the Man does live there but makes

> sure he is not around when "visitors" from The

> Council arrive. etc etc..

> Many are on a higher priority level because of

> "imaginary" violence....

>

> All abuses are wrong and The Council place should

> be forfeited and not be passed down the

> Generations.

>

> Many people living in The Suburbs now have done so

> on the back of profiting from the sale of their

> Council place.

>

> So I agree there have been many "White/British"

> abuses, as well.

It is interesting that you think that it is White/British abuse to have profited from the purchase and sale of a Council property.

Why is that abuse of the system?

I know many non caucasians who benefitted equally from it.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

louisiana Wrote:

I'd also point out that things can be more difficult for immigrants because (a) they don't have the kind of family network that other people can often call on and (b) they can face discrimination in the private sector.

Firstly thanks for your comprehensive reply.

I believe this family network problem only applies to new immigrants though, in the main.

Discrimination in the private sector?

A Subject for another day but I had a lengthy ( how unusual:)) debate on Blacknet 4 years ago when I argued that most private sector employers would stab their own Grandmother to maximise profits by employing the best possible staff so I don't feel that this discrimination is too widespread though, naturally, there will be examples of this.

Tony, I also wonder whether you'd have preferred to have paid the costs of the education and health of immigrants when they were 0-18 (expensive, paid for by another country), and whether you've thought about who is going to pay for your

pension.

Surely that depends where the immigrants come from Louisiana?

Surely the cost of education and health of Refugees from Iraq/Afghanistan/Bosnia/Somalia isn't that high is it? ( though I realise its all relative).

I would expect that I've paid more than I'll take out Louisiana as I've paid in since 1971 and continue to do so.

[ontheedge]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Please, please remember that "indigenous" is not

> an indication of immigration status or

> nationality. It's totally irrelevant and gives

> this thread a very, very nasty undertone.

Apologies my use of the word "indigenous" was meant to be ironic in response to Tony and should have been in inverted commas.

[Keef]

Santerme, I suspect Tony was just responding to my post, which specifically mentioned a white british person. I doubt he was implying that only white british people benefitted from right to buy.

[Santerme]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Santerme, I suspect Tony was just responding to my

> post, which specifically mentioned a white british

> person. I doubt he was implying that only white

> british people benefitted from right to buy.

Ah, poor reading skills on my part

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Keef Wrote:

Santerme, I suspect Tony was just responding to my post, which specifically mentioned a white british person. I doubt he was implying that only white british people benefitted from right to buy.

Thats right.

Santerme buying your Council property is not an abuse ofthe system at all.

[AlfieNoakes]

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think we should ship-in any foreigners who are

> willing to get off their fat, lazy arses and do

> some work in order to better their lives - and

> give them a nice council house to get them started

> as an incentive.

>

> This would allow us to export homegrown feckless

> Brits who are unwilling to get off their fat, lazy

> arses, do some work and make something of

> themselves instead of sitting around demanding

> their right to council house (for life) and

> believing made-up drivel that just popped through

> the letterbox in a BNP leaflet simply because it

> suits them.

A 'Poles for proles' scheme, if you will.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

red devil Wrote:

Tony, it's one thing being resentful against the system, but it's another being resentful against immigrants, which is what you come across as, despite your 'Jamaican ladyfriend'...

I'm not going to try to change your opinion RD because I've learned that it is pointless "defensively" disputing this.

[woofmarkthedog]

Not enough social housing stock & a stupid policy of "right to buy" council houses many of which got sold on at a profit.

I heard last week of a London housing assoc/scheme building houses in Worthing to give people a chance to live somewhere decent

W**F

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Jeremy Wrote:

Please, please remember that "indigenous" is not an indication of immigration status or nationality. It's totally irrelevant and gives this thread a very, very nasty undertone.

The term is used to denote particular peoples and groups around the world who, as well as being native to or associated with some given territory.

The indigenous Australians are the Aboriginals.

Would you say thats a "nasty" term if applied to them Jeremy and why do you feel its a nasty term anyway?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

woofmarkthedog Wrote:

Not enough social housing stock & a stupid policy of "right to buy" council houses many of which got sold on at a profit.

I heard last week of a London housing assoc/scheme building houses in Worthing to give people a chance to live somewhere decent

Are you implying that living in Inner London is not "decent" Woof? :))

btw: Yesterday I returned to Walworth near where Dr. Crane had his practice.

I saw more anti-social behaviour in 10/15 minutes than I have done on x years elsewhere...lol

There was the drunk White Woman abusing everyone she passed followed by an equally drunk Guy who she met up with later and they both started abusing people. Then there was the crazy Rastafarian Guy who burst into the betting shop and called everyone "bitches" and acted crazily out on the street. Then we had a Mixed couple arguing loudly followed by a Mixed Raced Woman/Girl bashing her fist into her hand continually shouting to the Guy she was with "I'm gonna xxxxxx her" ( can't remember the charming phrase now) ....4 episodes in around 10 minutes from 4 different groups...how I miss the "vitality" of my Walworth..lol

[Santerme]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> woofmarkthedog Wrote:

> Not enough social housing stock & a stupid policy

> of "right to buy" council houses many of which got

> sold on at a profit.

> I heard last week of a London housing assoc/scheme

> building houses in Worthing to give people a

> chance to live somewhere decent

>

> Are you implying that living in Inner London is

> not "decent" Woof? :))

>

> btw: Yesterday I returned to Walworth near where

> Dr. Crane had his practice.

>

> I saw more anti-social behaviour in 10/15 minutes

> than I have done on x years elsewhere...lol

>

> There was the drunk White Woman abusing everyone

> she passed followed by an equally drunk Guy who

> she met up with later and they both started

> abusing people. Then there was the crazy

> Rastafarian Guy who burst into the betting shop

> and called everyone "bitches" and acted crazily

> out on the street. Then we had a Mixed couple

> arguing loudly followed by a Mixed Raced

> Woman/Girl bashing her fist into her hand

> continually shouting to the Guy she was with "I'm

> gonna xxxxxx her" ( can't remember the charming

> phrase now) ....4 episodes in around 10 minutes

> from 4 different groups...how I miss the

> "vitality" of my Walworth..lol

That's Weymouth in high season.

Are Northerners indigenous

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Santerme Wrote:

That's Weymouth in high season.

Or Chesil Beach in any season...B)

[Jeremy]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The indigenous Australians are the Aboriginals.

>

> Would you say thats a "nasty" term if applied to

> them Jeremy and why do you feel its a nasty term

> anyway?

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that "indigenous" was a nasty term - I don't think it is.

But I don't think it's constructive in the context of the current debate, that's all. Being white has no bearing on immigration status, let alone their right to housing. It's just totally irrelevant.

Anyway, let's get off this topic... with hindsight I shouldn't have brought attention to it.

[mockney piers]

Genetic research has shown that the majority of the inhabitants of the British isles are matrilineal descendants of the mesithic hunter gatherers who turned up after the ice age. The patrilineal picture is a little more complex but not muh more so.

That of course means that Irish have every much as a rIght as you as genetically there's almost no difference between an Irishman a welsh a scot or an Englishman. So what's the plan, a test? And what happens when you discover you aren't but are actually the descendant of the huguenots who built Denmark hill, or the direct descendant of a Nubian soldier garrisoning London in 300BC.

Nationhood is a very modern and esentially an entirely fabricated concept, so again is a red herrig, when this should be about politics and prioritisation of resources.

Make it about social responsibilty if you like, but leave race and asylum and immigration out of it. If that's what you want just start a thread about immigrants saying 'despite my evidet predeliction for making friends among the first generation of immigrants, I think it's time fir it to stop'

at least then we'll have an honest framework for this debate.

[Brendan]

Don?t bother, I doubt you?re going to get much engagement by brining perspective into things. It?s my experience that people aren?t willing to explore the actual questions but give them, ?My Entitlement vs. My Liberal Ideology? they?ll argue for decades. They may even kill each other over it without ever being any the wiser to their stupidity.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Well, at least, you are not referring to me Brendan as I make a point of replying to questions though, invariably, my questions go unanswered.

Many excuses are given for the lack of an answer, usually, but I heavily suspect people haven't got one most of the time.

I asked, for example, if people would be resentful if, at work, they were continually beaten to a Promotion by someone coming from outside and this continued to happen for decades. I asked how people would feel about that.

All the time the person was kept down ( the equivalent of not being promoted onthe Waiting List) as others continually came over their heads, and remembering many have no other accomodation to go to they can not go to another "job" as it were.

I also asked why it is, invariably, only Single Males trying to "flee persecution" when if the Countries they are fleeing from are so ghastly that they are prepared to leave their Women and children behind.

I also enquired why so many want to come to Britain and have crossed many Countries to do so when they have no natural association or connetion to this Nation ( this was partially addressed)...

Why do think this is Brendan?

[louisiana]

Perhaps a more interesting line of debate would centre on why we have allowed the UK planning system to push the countryside into becoming a playground for the rich, and pushing more and more of the rural poor into urban environments (and consequently in need of council housing).

There's reams of evidence that smallholdings in the UK have much higher productivity per acre/hectare than large industrial-style land holdings, and they are generally more sustainable too (less reliance on petroleum and gas products such as fertilizers), and yet it's almost impossible to create a smallholding legally in the UK (barring Scotland) these days. (Well, since around 1947)

I could hardly believe it when I saw a planning policy guideline specifically discuss 'Country House' (yes, with those caps) as just about the only form of rural residence that would be permitted/encouraged outside of urban-attached housing estates. Not sure if that one is still in force (I'm just about to check). Can such a policy be in line with the ethos of a Labour government?

In some areas of the country, more than 65% of house sales are now to second home owners who often have few plans to engage much with the local land and community.

We are turning our much-vaunted countryside into a sterile and dying environment, populated by wealthy people who contribute little to the locality, and driving out the very people who we might be relying on in the future to produce our food etc.

Rant over.

[Jeremy]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I also asked why it is, invariably, only Single

> Males trying to "flee persecution" when if the

> Countries they are fleeing from are so ghastly

> that they are prepared to leave their Women and

> children behind.

Seems like an oxymoron... single males don't have wives and children! But anway, you know as well as I do that it's not *only* single males. There are many families who have sought asylum in the UK.

Regarding economic migrants... what's so wrong with a young man wanting to go abroad to earn some money? I think this may be the point which we fundamentally disagree on...

[Tony.London Suburbs]

Jeremy Wrote:

Seems like an oxymoron... single males don't have wives and children! But anway, you know as well as I do that it's not *only* single males. There are many families who have sought asylum in the UK. Regarding economic migrants... what's so wrong with a young man wanting to go abroad to earn some money? I think this may be the point which we> fundamentally disagree on...

Of course I meant Males arriving here "solo". Why would those Males choose Britain?

We don't disagree at all on that Jeremy.

My problem and the problem of countless others who have been disadvantaged by the Housing System is "Asylum Seekers" automatically joining the small proportion existing applicants on the Housing List at the top of the queue, thus keeping everyone else who would like Social Housing where they are for far longer than they would have been or permanently in some areas.