Jump to content

Recommended Posts

But Tony, I thought we'd made it clear that that doesn't really happen, at least not to he degree you seem to think it does. Besides, if you'd seen some of the places I've seen, where asylum seekers have been housed, you wouldn't be so quick to want to take their place!

> 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.



This is just rubbish. It was your girlfriend Thatcher who wrecked social housing in the eighties, the new Tories have done nothing to improve things.

Yay!!!


I'm moving, got myself a Council flat and all. Just down the road from Westminster Bridge. Feel like I've one the lottery. Who'd have guessed. After all this time and me being a single white male.


Only needed to get a life threatening illness and wait 6 years. Sorted.


Shame that the SE1 forum is pants.

Chick Wrote:

This is just rubbish. It was your girlfriend Thatcher who wrecked social housing in the eighties, the new Tories have done nothing to improve things.


The two points are not mutually exclusive.


Dear Margeret did lower the Housing stock enormously. The successive Governments, as you say, have done nothing since.


However that doesn't in any way change the fact that while nearly 100% of Asylum Seekers are"Homeless" and go straight to the highest category of priority only a small proportion of Guys already on the list are already in the highest category i.e Homeless so everyone else is pushed further down, accordingly.

Keef Wrote:

But Tony, I thought we'd made it clear that that doesn't really happen, at least not to he degree you seem to think it does. Besides, if you'd seen some of the places I've seen, where asylum seekers have been housed, you wouldn't be so quick to want to take their place!


Its good to speak to someone who has "practical" experience of the situation rather than the endless stream of "thereorists" here who are not inconvenienced or involved in any way Keef.


That study only involved the last 5 years and the point, also, is that most Asylum Seekers gain Housing by way of Social Services finding them a place in the Private Sector. It did really happen for the 35/40 years before this study Keef.


Of course, as you know, some of the places are dreadful. I've seen some too and would not want to live there, for sure.

  Quote
most Asylum Seekers gain Housing by way of Social Services


Just to clarify, social services will fund it whilst the person is "destitute plus", and has not yet been granted leave to remain, thus has no access to public funds (you may argue that social services is public funds, but that is for another time). Once granted leave to remain, people will be expected to seek work, or sign on, and claim housing benefit.


I'm not sure "most" asylum seekers are in this boat (no pun intended), as lots and lots of them will be staying with family or friends, in over crowded flats.


Basically Tony, I wanted to defend you a bit in my first post, as I felt that people were labelling you as a biggot, without really reading your points. However, you do seem to just bash on and on and on with the same points, and pick very specific bits of other people's posts to suite your argument, often out of context from that in which they were written.


I agree strongly that to raise questions about immigration and asylum, DOES NOT make one a racist BNP/UKIP voting c**t. These things sometimes need discussing, and a lot of people need to worry less about appearing "right on", and saying the right things.


However, there are times when you do start to wonder if a person just plain doesn't want other people here.

Of course asylum seekers (as opposed to economic migrants) aren't allowed to work by law and thus have no other means of supporting themselves other than to rely on the state.


Perhaps if we allowed these people, many of whom are highly skilled professionals, to support themselves it may begin to alleviate the shortage of housing, perceived or otherwise.


In relation to other inquiries as to why migrants pick the UK rather than other EU countries that they may have passed through on their journeys I would proffer some of the following:


The UK is still one of Europe's most economically successful countries, despite the recent downturn


We have an existing variety of disapara (sp?) that other members would look to become part of. For e.g. New Malden has Europe' largest Korean population. It would seem logical if you were Korean looking for a new home in Europe to head to the UK rather than the first EU country you reached (which would be Poland if my geography is correct).


The UK has a deserved reputation, and one I am proud of, as a tolerant nation that has little racism - an attractive proposition for non-white migrants who may have come from "difficult" backgrounds.


And one last point. TLS, you asked how "YOU" would feel (your caps btw) if one of "THEM" continually got promoted at work despite your own longevity of tenure. I'm afraid the comparison doesn't hold water. Housing is assigned on basis of need on a points based system. Promotion at work is neither based on need nor on permanence but rather on skill and potential. Does that answer one of your many questions?

  Quote
n relation to other inquiries as to why migrants pick the UK rather than other EU countries that they may have passed through on their journeys I would proffer some of the following:


The UK is still one of Europe's most economically successful countries, despite the recent downturn


We have an existing variety of disapara (sp?) that other members would look to become part of. For e.g. New Malden has Europe' largest Korean population. It would seem logical if you were Korean looking for a new home in Europe to head to the UK rather than the first EU country you reached (which would be Poland if my geography is correct).


The UK has a deserved reputation, and one I am proud of, as a tolerant nation that has little racism - an attractive proposition for non-white migrants who may have come from "difficult" backgrounds.



All correct, but lets be honest here, some people probably come because they get the most benefits here.

My beef is not with asylum seekers or immigrants getting housed, but people who are cearly antisocial getting housed by the council. My old mum and dad live in a council flat and their neighbours on one side are a lovely South American family and on the other a lovely Polish family. Prior to these families moving in my parent's neighbours were a drunk white English guy who's mate assualted my 70 year old dad and a noisy English couple who used to throw loud parties every weekend. In the end both sets of neighbours were evicted. What gets me is that they appear to both have been rehoused by another council. Why?

DC, at the risk of a pedantry warning, I think "diaspora" is the word; not sure of the plural - "diasporae"?


"All correct, but lets be honest here, some people probably come because they get the most benefits here." I think this is a very small minority - many more come because of the ready availability of work compared to the (still) far more regulated and restrictive labour markets in other European countries.

I have no figures to be honest, and you may find that benefits are higher in another country, but perhaps rather than "better benefits", it's a case of easier to get benefits...


I know that lots of asylum seekers tried to come here from Holland because they felt they could get more here.

david_carnell Wrote:

And one last point. TLS, you asked how "YOU" would feel (your caps btw) if one of "THEM" continually got promoted at work despite your own longevity of tenure. I'm afraid the comparison doesn't hold water. Housing is assigned on basis of need on a points based system. Promotion at work is neither based on need nor on permanence but rather on skill and potential. Does that answer one of your many questions?


Yes david though I'm sure we could think of a similar situation that is based on being nearer the front of a queue and others continually, over a long period of time, suddenly appearring and being placed before you.

  Quote

Basically Tony, I wanted to defend you a bit in my first post, as I felt that people were labelling you as a biggot, without really reading your points. However, you do seem to just bash on and on and on with the same points, and pick very

specific bits of other people's posts to suite your argument, often out of context from that in

which they were written. I agree strongly that to raise questions about immigration and asylum, DOES NOT make one a racist

BNP/UKIP voting c**t. These things sometimes need discussing, and a lot of people need to worry less about appearing "right on", and saying the right things. However, there are times when you do start to wonder if a person just plain doesn't want other people here.



Keef this is what I wrote to you:


"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"....


To which Santerme replied to me:


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.


Sometimes you just cannae win..lol

Ok, back on dry land now so, some figures on migration


This is worldwide rather than EU based but still


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_net_mig_rat-immigration-net-migration-rate


plenty of other European countries above UK there


That's net migration to be fair, so immigrants as a percentage of a population


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_imm_pop_imm_as_per_of_sta_pop-immigrant-population-immigrants-percentage-state


or Asylum seekers per capita, shows Uk scraping into the top 10


http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_asy_see_percap-immigration-asylum-seekers-per-capita

Some surprising stats in there (for some of us, anyway).


However, I think it is noteworthy that the UK is #1 in terms of absolute numbers of asylum seekers

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/uk-united-kingdom/imm-immigration


This indicates that compared with other countries of similar population and economic standing (particularly Italy, France, Spain) we're doing more to accomodate them.


But we didn't need statistics to prove this - we already know from the numbers of refugees trying to get across from Calais, that the UK is seen as a more appealling prospect.

If other countries have been receiving proportionally more refugees it's a reasonable assumption to make that they will have made it progressively harder to enter those countries, and that the UK may be just catching up on that score


But given that people were suggesting other countries weren't doing their bit....

I think a lot of countries have done their bit, but per capita figures (from 2001) don't really tell a full story.


I'd also like to see the "asylum seekers acceptance rates" since 1999. I don't know for sure, but I'd hazard a guess that it would have gone up from the 43% of the 90s.

The point I'm making is... why should some countries in the EU make it harder for asylum seekers than others?


To me this seems like exactly the sort of thing the EU should intervene in... spread the costs of providing asylum fairly, make sure that asylum seekers are cared for adequately wherever they go, etc.


Or perhaps the EU are more interesting in governing fruit and vegetable shapes and enforcing the metric system.

I believe the EU laws on fruit size and shape are largely urban myth as well Jeremy


Keef - fair points on data age. The first link I posted was for 2008. I assumed thereafter the rest was as recent but I am as interested as you in the latest info


As for why would some countries make it harder than others - not all the countries are in the EU for starters are they?


And even moving together as an "EU", each country still has it's emotive hotspots where governments have to be seen to "showing" the EU that they are listening to their people. I dunno... My suggestion that legislation was more "advanced" in other countries was speculation - perhaps they are as open as ever and refugees have discovered museli and yoghurt does not a breakfast make so come here instead. Or maybe keef's point that they know the benefits are easier to obtain or are better in some way hold sway... they still go through a lot to get them... not sure if I would have as much gumption

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • of course most people would avoid the "stupid" term - but I'm sticking with it fact is no other European would be so dumb, and even with the same information, the  same media, the same everything, 2 of the countries within the UK saw ho stupid an idea it was - but only the English (who played a large part in the Welsh result) pushed ahead - there is something defiantly arrogant and stupid and it isn't just down to bad info and bad leadership But that was all 2016 - it's people in 2025 who claim it to be a good idea executed badly who are especially stupid Now - does calling people stupid help anyone? It's not especially politically gainful and just gets peoples' backs up - but it remains a truth and only when the country as a whole genuinely holds it's hands up and admits the stupidity (rather than downplaying it as a poor decision - no shade meant Mal - you are just nicer and politer than me) will it begin. to turn the tide Also worth mentioning that yes I am as intractable and blunt with friends and family who voted Leave as well - this isn't me hiding behind some online anonymous account. This is what I'm like
    • Hello My name is Lizzie and I work locally as a dog walker and nanny. I won’t be needed over Summer so will have full availability for a dogsitting job. I have a DBS certificate and will provide several dogsitting references as well. Please note that I can only watch your pet at your home since they are sadly not allowed in my flat! Looking forward to hear from you
    • The decision to leave the EU was a poor one, but I'd avoid the term stupid when applied to the masses (the decision was of course stupid) and blame those who willingly misled.  A certain N Farage (pronounced with a hard G rather than the soft G he affected, rather continental eh?) being one of the main culprits. He blames the Tories for not delivering Brexit, and not really clear how Labour are playing this.  But ultimately what sort of Brexit were people voting for?  And ditto what future were people voting for last Thursday?
    • "That’s very insulting! You are basically calling 17 million people that voted to leave the EU ‘thick’. " I'm certainly calling them wrong. And many of those 17 million agree with me now and have expressed regret. Many others were indeed thick, and remain so. You can see them being interviewed all the time. As for insulting, the losing side in that referendum have being called every name under the sun "enemies of the people" etc etc - so spare me the tears about being insulted But for clarity. there is a certain type of individual who even now thinks Brexit was a good idea, tends to side with Trump and holds views about immigrants - and yes I am happy to calll those people thick. - and even worse Jazzer posts a long and sometimes correct post about the failings of modern parties. I myself think labour are woefully underperforming. But equally it has been less than a year after 14 years of mismanagement and despite some significant errors have largely steadied the ship. You only have to speak to other  countries to recognise the improvement there. They have cut NHS waiting times, and the upside of things like NI increases is higher minimum wage - something hard-bitten voters should appreciate. They were accused of being too gloomy when they came in and yet simultaneously people are accusing them of promising the earth and failing to deliver - both of those can't be true at the same time Fact is, this country repeatedly, over 15 years, voted for austerity and self-damaging policies like Brexit despite all warnings - this newish govt now have to pick up the pieces and there are no easy solutions. Voters say "we just want honest politicians" - ok, we have some bad news about the economy and the next few years  - "no no not that kind of honesty!!! - magic some solutions up now!" Anyone who considers voting for Reform because they don't represent existing parties and want "change" is being criminally negligent in ignoring their dog-whistles, their lack of diligence in vetting, their lack of attendance (in Westminster now and in eu parties is guises past) and basically making all of the same mistakes when they pushed for Brexit - basically, not serious people   "cost of things in the shops and utility bills keep on rising, the direct opposite of what they promised." - can we see that promise? I don't recall it? Because whatever voters or govts want, the cost of things is not exactly entirely in their gift. People were warned prices would rise with Brexit and e were told "we don't care - it's a price worth paying!". Turns out that isn' really true now is it - people DO care about the cost of things (and of course there are other factors - covid, trump, tariffs, wars etc.    What the country needs is a serious, mature electorate who take a high level view of priorities and get behind the hard work needed to achieve that. There is zero chance of that happening so we are doomed to repeat failures for years to come, complaining about everything and voting for policies which will make things worse here we have labour 2024 energy manifesto commitments - all of it necessary long term investment - calling for immediate price cuts with no money in the kitty seems unrealistic given all of the economic headwinds   https://www.energy-uk.org.uk/general-election-2024-all-manifesto-energy-pledges/#Labour_Party
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...