I would still buy the same paper i always do, regardless of the headline, as for a backlash, just wait and see, eventually the govt will not be able to sweep under the carpet the problems immigration is causing, and the floodgates will open, then you will get your backlash.

and if after this backlash, all the imigrants got sent home, and this country was still in the toilet who will you blame then ?

I would also ask a question. If you saw two newspapers, and one headline says "war hero mugged by Muslim" and the other said "war hero saved from mugging by Muslim" which would you choose to buy, assuming you only had enough to purchase one copy? I fear you would choose the one which fuelled your sense of righteous indignation.

What a ridiculous question - everyone knows that muslims are incapable of performing any good or noble deeds unlike pure bred white christians...

...hang on a minute why does that sound familiar?

which in truth was because we had a shortage of man power due to the second world war that left the country short of a new generation that would have filled the gap, remember the fighting men of britain were away from home for over six years during the war

Indeed they were - either way we still invited people from the commonwealth over here. Part of this was through the 1948 British Nationality Act (or similar) which allowed members of the commonwealth (nee the Empire) to relocate here. Proof that you can't go round invading other countries and not expect it to come back and bite you on the arse at some point. The immigration act of 1971 is testament to that.

Stories like this are very dangerous and appeal to the embittered benefit receiving under/working/struggling middle classes who feel that they are being hard done by and some how missing out of a share from the pot. Although that said, I am somewhat envious myself, in this instance. I'd love a 7 bedroom double fronted house (with cleaner as I can barely manage a 5 bedroomed semi).

I take your point - but in the case of the OP I think the use of the term was nothing to do with frustration and everything to do with racism.

And as someone who would prefer to see our own (white, if you must) population get treated better than immigrants, then yes i must be a racist, so what? that reference holds no stigma anymore anyway, if wanting better treatment for our elderly ahead of immigrants makes me a racist, then yes i must be a racist, if sticking up for our own people, wanting better treatment for them makes me a racist, then yes i am a racist, and in this case, if that is what makes one a racist then let me say loud and clear, I AM A RACIST, AND PROUD TO BE SO.

And as someone who would prefer to see our own (white, if you must) population get treated better than immigrants, then yes i must be a racist, so what? that reference holds no stigma anymore anyway, if wanting better treatment for our elderly ahead of immigrants makes me a racist, then yes i must be a racist, if sticking up for our own people, wanting better treatment for them makes me a racist, then yes i am a racist, and in this case, if that is what makes one a racist then let me say loud and clear, I AM A RACIST, AND PROUD TO BE SO.

That sounds more like 'nationalism' to me, bit more twisted version of 'patriotism' ;) But yeah, I get your point.

Stories like this are very dangerous and appeal to the embittered benefit receiving under/working/struggling middle classes who feel that they are being hard done by and some how missing out of a share from the pot. Although that said, I am somewhat envious myself, in this instance. I'd love a 7 bedroom double fronted house (with cleaner as I can barely manage a 5 bedroomed semi).

Bet you wouldn't if it was stuck in the middle of the Flower estate, Suff. :hihi:

That sounds more like 'nationalism' to me, bit more twisted version of 'patriotism' ;) But yeah, I get your point.

It worries me not one iota whether people class me as nationalist, patriot or racist, nothing will change my opinion that immigration is ruining this country, and thank god that papers do publish these stories, and long may they continue to do so, so that the general public will see quickly the problems we are facing, and the impending recession (depression?) will allow people to realise what a mess the govt have made of immigration to this country.

If others wish to pigeonhole me, so be it, class me as you wish, i will wear whatever term i am called with pride, as it proves to me that i am right and they are wrong.

and if after this backlash, all the imigrants got sent home, and this country was still in the toilet who will you blame then ?

You .

One minor point.

Whilst all the articles do put the blame on Govt rules. It is not clear to me that there is any basis for that analysis. the actions of the Council in sacking 3 otheir members of staff for allowing this to happen, can only be on the basis that they have not followed rules and procedures.

The sackings indicate that it was not the rules that are at fault, but poor or corrupt decisions made by some of the members of staff. With such poor and misleading reports on the issue it is very difficult to know which of these two options it is. Sackings do seem harsh for a mistake, but public sector managers make harsh decisions like this from time to time the same as private sector employers.

I've tried staying away fromthe technicalities involved with this as I'd like more information.

I actually worked on the implementation of Local Housing Allowance (posted a thread on Sheffield Discussions regarding it) and some points of the article don't ring true, unlike Daily Mail I know), but before I get further information I'm having to speculate.

The first thing I would say is that all rates of LHA must be displayed on the Councils website, a quick glance at Westminsters shows the 6-room rate at £1895.00 per week (yes available to all claimants, irrespective of nationality and might we see some white city workers claiming this over the next few months), for 7 room properties the Local Authority needs to apply to the Rent Officer for a valuation and this is the bit I don't get as the Local Authority must use their valuation and as they are Civil Servants then I can't see how any Local Authority worker can be sacked for following the rules correctly.

I'm going to try and dig out some more details on these sackings as it doesn't ring true to me.

You .

Quite probably.

It worries me not one iota whether people class me as nationalist, patriot or racist, nothing will change my opinion that immigration is ruining this country, and thank god that papers do publish these stories, and long may they continue to do so, so that the general public will see quickly the problems we are facing, and the impending recession (depression?) will allow people to realise what a mess the govt have made of immigration to this country.

I don't think if global recession, the one like we're in now, was really caused by immigrants... But maybe I'm wrong.

if wanting better treatment for our elderly ahead of immigrants makes me a racist, then yes i must be a racist, if sticking up for our own people, wanting better treatment for them makes me a racist, then yes i am a racist,

Doesn't the desire for better treatment for all make you a Socialist?:huh:

It worries me not one iota whether people class me as nationalist, patriot or racist, nothing will change my opinion that immigration is ruining this country, and thank god that papers do publish these stories, and long may they continue to do so, so that the general public will see quickly the problems we are facing, and the impending recession (depression?) will allow people to realise what a mess the govt have made of immigration to this country.



No paying landlords ridiculous amounts of money is ruining this country, heaven help us all if the City Workers in Westminster start having to claim.

Doesn't the desire for better treatment for all make you a Socialist?:huh:

No. Wanting equal treatment for all, however bad, makes you a Socialist.

Wanting better treatment for all makes you more intelligent.


But we digress...

Doesn't the desire for better treatment for all make you a Socialist?:huh:

If wanting better treatment for our own makes me a socialist, doesnt that make socialists racist, using the same arguments used by others, this could get confusing:hihi:

Unless you missed it, i referred to banning immigrants now, and the deportation of those of no benefit to us, never have i said anything about those working and supporting themselves already,

Apologises, yes, I did see it, but I construed your argument to be one about immigrants who inappropriately claim benefits, rather than anyone who does it, perhaps they're two separate issues.

my mother contributed throughout her life to the system, yet is unable to claim anything in return, apart from the 25% reduction on council tax because she lives alone, she gets no pension credit due to having contributed to a pension scheme when working, which leaves her a couple of quid a month better off than if she had not bothered saving for her own retirement, and claimed pension credit, yet because of her thrift whilst working she is now denied the help that seems to be given out to families such as those referred to in this thread, one per cent of the amount given to this family would allow my mother, and probably a damn sight more, not to have to worry about how to pay their bills, now please feel free to explain how this can possibly be acceptable, or justifiable.

My own mother's experience is not dissimilar to your mother's, in that she had a lifetime working and contributing and in her dotage doesn't enjoy the quality of life she'd hoped for, which is a shame for both these old ladies, so I share your concern and feeling of responsibility.

However, if there were no immigrants falsely claiming benefits, then her position wouldn't be ameliorated, as the significant wastage in the benefits system is created by members of the indigenous population primarily.

I have strong feelings about anyone who is in receipt of benefits undeservedly and the system should be rigorously controlled to prevent this happening.

I've tried staying away fromthe technicalities involved with this as I'd like more information.

I actually worked on the implementation of Local Housing Allowance (posted a thread on Sheffield Discussions regarding it) and some points of the article don't ring true, unlike Daily Mail I know), but before I get further information I'm having to speculate.

The first thing I would say is that all rates of LHA must be displayed on the Councils website, a quick glance at Westminsters shows the 6-room rate at £1895.00 per week (yes available to all claimants, irrespective of nationality and might we see some white city workers claiming this over the next few months), for 7 room properties the Local Authority needs to apply to the Rent Officer for a valuation and this is the bit I don't get as the Local Authority must use their valuation and as they are Civil Servants then I can't see how any Local Authority worker can be sacked for following the rules correctly.

I'm going to try and dig out some more details on these sackings as it doesn't ring true to me.
exactly,they have been used as scapegoats to cover up the governments blunders,heres another one thats ripe for abuse..not by everyone concerned,but you can bet some will try http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/article1786327.ece

If wanting better treatment for our own makes me a socialist, doesnt that make socialists racist, using the same arguments used by others, this could get confusing:hihi:

I'm struggling with this and what its definition is.

If wanting better treatment for our own makes me a socialist, doesnt that make socialists racist, using the same arguments used by others, this could get confusing:hihi:

I do think you have Socialist leanings if this thread is anything to go by, to date you've succesfully highlighted one of the many problems with Capitalism (people making ridiculous amounts of money form the poor) and identified an urgent need for more Social Housing.

Unless of course you are arguing that what has happened is acceptable.

I do think you have Socialist leanings if this thread is anything to go by, to date you've succesfully highlighted one of the many problems with Capitalism (people making ridiculous amounts of money form the poor) and identified an urgent need for more Social Housing.

Unless of course you are arguing that what has happened is acceptable.

The OP is a Daily Mail reading racist, anything is possible.

The OP is a Daily Mail reading racist, anything is possible.

Just because they read the DM doesn't make them a bad person. Im not going to read through this whole thread to see if your other accusation is true, but if you have nothing interesting, or of use to say, keep yer gob closed.

I do think you have Socialist leanings if this thread is anything to go by, to date you've succesfully highlighted one of the many problems with Capitalism (people making ridiculous amounts of money form the poor) and identified an urgent need for more Social Housing.

Unless of course you are arguing that what has happened is acceptable.

Being (till recently) a labour voter, i suppose i do have some socialist leanings, but the social housing issue? we wouldnt need such a massive house building programme without the mass immigration we have already faced, and projections show we are yet to face, yet we are already facing a shortfall in the number of house being built in relation to those required, further adding pressure to the existing housing stock.

No. Wanting equal treatment for all, however bad, makes you a Socialist.

Wanting better treatment for all makes you more intelligent.

But we digress...

Socialism comes from a principle of :

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"

It is therefore about treating everyone as equal in terms of rights. It makes a distinction based on need such that the treatment itself is fair but not the same for everyone.

Being (till recently) a labour voter, i suppose i do have some socialist leanings, but the social housing issue? we wouldnt need such a massive house building programme without the mass immigration we have already faced, and projections show we are yet to face, yet we are already facing a shortfall in the number of house being built in relation to those required, further adding pressure to the existing housing stock.

Nonsense. Social housing has been sold off since the 80s when the beloved Iron Lady was at the helm and not been replaced. Instead of social hosuing we have 100s of 1000s of luxury city apartments uninhabited and vacant.:rant::rant::rant:

Nonsense. Social housing has been sold off since the 80s when the beloved Iron Lady was at the helm and not been replaced. Instead of social hosuing we have 100s of 1000s of luxury city apartments uninhabited and vacant.:rant::rant::rant:


Most, if not all, housing developments nowadays have to include a substantial % of social housing, so the social housing stock is on the increase, all of which is by the by, because, as has been shown in this thread, councils can use private housing for tenants requiring it, the problems lie in the estimated number of houses needing to be built to house the projected population increase, and has already been shown that house building is already behind the estimates needed, and likely to fall further behind during the recession, whereas i have yet to see anything to suggest that population projections are to be revised downwards, leading to more immigrants being housed in preference to our own population.

Most, if not all, housing developments nowadays have to include a substantial % of social housing, so the social housing stock is on the increase, all of which is by the by, because, as has been shown in this thread, councils can use private housing for tenants requiring it, the problems lie in the estimated number of houses needing to be built to house the projected population increase, and has already been shown that house building is already behind the estimates needed, and likely to fall further behind during the recession, whereas i have yet to see anything to suggest that population projections are to be revised downwards, leading to more immigrants being housed in preference to our own population.

The main reason for the requirement of social housing is due to the demolition programmes of council estates that occurred in the 90's to date.

What do you think happened to all the tenants that lived in Kelvin, Park Hill and Broomhall flats, these were massive estates.

The main reason for the requirement of social housing is due to the demolition programmes of council estates that occurred in the 90's to date.

What do you think happened to all the tenants that lived in Kelvin, Park Hill and Broomhall flats, these were massive estates.

Combined with Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy. There is a distinct lack of affordable housing, either in the private rent sector or to to buy - this in turn forces people to turn to social housing, that is why there is a greater demand, not because of immigrants per se.

Combined with Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy. There is a distinct lack of affordable housing, either in the private rent sector or to to buy - this in turn forces people to turn to social housing, that is why there is a greater demand, not because of immigrants per se.

Absolutely.

And as someone who would prefer to see our own (white, if you must) population get treated better than immigrants, then yes i must be a racist, so what? that reference holds no stigma anymore anyway, if wanting better treatment for our elderly ahead of immigrants makes me a racist, then yes i must be a racist, if sticking up for our own people, wanting better treatment for them makes me a racist, then yes i am a racist, and in this case, if that is what makes one a racist then let me say loud and clear, I AM A RACIST, AND PROUD TO BE SO.

You'd put a lefty, tree-hugging, yoghurt weaving Liberal do-gooder whitey ahead of, say, a Nazi immigrant?

Maybe there is some hope

Combined with Thatcher's 'Right to Buy' policy. There is a distinct lack of affordable housing, either in the private rent sector or to to buy - this in turn forces people to turn to social housing, that is why there is a greater demand, not because of immigrants per se.


Immigration adds to an already struggling social housing stock, that should be plain to all to see, to claim otherwise is simply idiotic.

Immigration adds to an already struggling social housing stock, that should be plain to all to see, to claim otherwise is simply idiotic.

all the immigrants i *know* here, live in either private rented or their own property

Immigration adds to an already struggling social housing stock, that should be plain to all to see, to claim otherwise is simply idiotic.

Immigration may add to it, but it's not the main reason, as you suggested, that's what is being disputed.

You'd put a lefty, tree-hugging, yoghurt weaving Liberal do-gooder whitey ahead of, say, a Nazi immigrant?

Maybe there is some hope

Priority to those born here, regardless of afflictions, never one to be accused of discriminating against the disabled.

Please feel free to find anything i have ever said on here that shows i have any alleigance with the Nazi party, for gods sake, i even watch jerry springer.

Priority to those born here, regardless of afflictions, never one to be accused of discriminating against the disabled.

Please feel free to find anything i have ever said on here that shows i have any alleigance with the Nazi party, for gods sake, i even watch jerry springer.

I never said you did, I was just using contrasting examples of people as illustration in a hypothetical question

Immigration may add to it, but it's not the main reason, as you suggested, that's what is being disputed.

How can you prove it is not the main reason?

You'd put a lefty, tree-hugging, yoghurt weaving Liberal do-gooder whitey ahead of, say, a Nazi immigrant?

.. never one to be accused of discriminating against the disabled.


..but you'd discriminate against a nazi immigrant ;)

..but you'd discriminate against a nazi immigrant ;)

In favour of a British born nazi, you mean?

How can you prove it is not the main reason?

Apart from studies into domestic population movements, the main visible fact is the large swathes of wasteland that were once council estates, in some cases replaced by 2 storey, semi detached and terraced properties, which clearly couldn't replace the housing stock that was knocked down, so unless all these people have emigrated or died, they need to be put somewhere.

The main reason for the requirement of social housing is due to the demolition programmes of council estates that occurred in the 90's to date.

What do you think happened to all the tenants that lived in Kelvin, Park Hill and Broomhall flats, these were massive estates.

How would he know, he's from Oxford. ;)

I haven't bothered reading all this because I can hazard a guess at who says what and when, but isn't the landlord a bit greedy claiming all that money? Surely that's expensive rent even for London?

This is why we need the 'flexible' council housing I was on about a while back, flats and houses that could be 'zipped' together to house unusual sizes of family.

Wasn't Park Hill the only place where you could get 5 bedroomed council property in Sheffield?

Immigration adds to an already struggling social housing stock, that should be plain to all to see, to claim otherwise is simply idiotic.

except when the immigrants are builders.

In favour of a British born nazi, you mean?

..no in favour of a tree eating, yoghurt hugging, Liberal weaving whitey!

How would he know, he's from Oxford. ;)


...and spent too long amongst the dreamy spires :D

..no in favour of a tree eating, yoghurt hugging, Liberal weaving whitey!

Or even a black one, if he was born and bred here.

A shocking waste of money, to be sure, and total incompetence on behalf of (Tory - hey, let's vote them in as the next government!!) Ealing Council.

I look forward to the OP's thread on how rich bankers are taking us for £500bn

...and spent too long amongst the dreamy spires :D

Many a pleasant evening was had in my youth, playing the age old game of town versus gown, particularly after a saturday night drinking, and baiting the students.

A shocking waste of money, to be sure, and total incompetence on behalf of (Tory - hey, let's vote them in as the next government!!) Ealing Council.

I look forward to the OP's thread on how rich bankers are taking us for £500bn

By all means feel free to start one, allow me to research the subject, and comment on it.

Many a pleasant evening was had in my youth, playing the age old game of town versus gown, particularly after a saturday night drinking, and baiting the students.

They play that in Sheffield but it's called Town Vs Ironic T-shirt rather than Gown ;)

Many a pleasant evening was had in my youth, playing the age old game of town versus gown, particularly after a saturday night drinking, and baiting the students.

..and there was me thinking you were alumni from Queens College :)

so what is your Sheffield connection??

Immigration adds to an already struggling social housing stock, that should be plain to all to see, to claim otherwise is simply idiotic.

It may add, but you maintain it's the principal cause of the shortage of social housing, so what I say to you that scapegoating a group of people not idignenous to these isles is simply idiotic/racist/xenophobic/narrow minded/short sighted*.

*any or all of the above.

..and there was me thinking you were alumni from Queens College :)

so what is your Sheffield connection??


Not quite, i used to be a waiter at Worcester college though;)

By all means feel free to start one, allow me to research the subject, and comment on it.

Reading the front page of The Mail counts as research now?

It may add, but you maintain it's the principal cause of the shortage of social housing, so what I say to you that scapegoating a group of people not idignenous to these shore is simply idiotic/racist/xenophobic/narrow minded/short sighted*.

*any or all of the above.

As i said previously, the insinuations listed above hold no worries for me, what is the saying ............. that which does not kill me makes me stronger:hihi:

As i said previously, the insinuations listed above hold no worries for me, what is the saying ............. that which does not kill me makes me stronger:hihi:

You must be so proud.

Reading the front page of The Mail counts as research now?


Research comes from many different sources, the Mail being just one, i also use the BBC, The BNP, The Sun, Telegraph, Mirror, Local news websites, or any other that google throws up in my quest for information, even as far as the Sheffield Star.

all the immigrants i *know* here, live in either private rented or their own property

It is also interesting to note that Shelter' website says black and ethnic minorities represent just under a quarter of all homeless households in England despite making up only 11% of the total population.

You must be so proud.

Oh i am:hihi:

It is also interesting to note that Shelter' website says black and ethnic minorities represent just under a quarter of all homeless households in England despite making up only 11% of the total population.

So 3 times as many white families are classed as homeless?

I think the interesting thing about this story is how the Daily Mail and Express have taken a story about possible fraud in Tory Council's housing department, and turned it in to a baseless attack on immigrantion policy.

So 3 times as many white families are classed as homeless?

Yes. But since they make up 89 percent of the population. They are half as likely to be needing a home as a non-white person. The statistics indicate housing provision is biassed in favour of whites. Ref (http://england.shelter.org.uk/housing_issues/the_housing_crisis#ftn_10)

Being (till recently) a labour voter, i suppose i do have some socialist leanings, but the social housing issue? we wouldnt need such a massive house building programme without the mass immigration we have already faced, and projections show we are yet to face, yet we are already facing a shortfall in the number of house being built in relation to those required, further adding pressure to the existing housing stock.

Let me try and understand this then!

When you were a Labour supporter you would have supported me in my stance that the problem here lies with Landlords being able to make lots of money out of the poor and vulnerable, and that a potential solution lies with increased and improved Social Housing.

Now as a BNP supporter you are arguing that Landlords should be able to abuse the Benefits system and that the bill for this should be met by the taxpayer, and that we shouldn't worry about the needs of the poor and vulnerable.

Are you one whi is normally associated with such political transplants.

By all means feel free to start one, allow me to research the subject, and comment on it.

You've had all day to read up on it and start one, but most bankers are white, so why bother eh?

You know, for years the rich have been using the newspapers they own and control to tell us that it's asylum seekers and immigrants who have all the money; that if we want there to be enough for good public services, it's the foreigners we need to sort out. And all the while they've been stuffing their pockets with so much cash they can't even think what to do with it, so they spend it on French chateaux and huge boats they hardly use. And now they've been caught, they're demanding we give them even more money. And we still have idiots like you trying to tell us it's the Afghans we need to worry about, lying in your thread title about how much they get in benefits (£150k of the £170k going to the scumlord).

You've had all day to read up on it and start one, but most bankers are white, so why bother eh?

You know, for years the rich have been using the newspapers they own and control to tell us that it's asylum seekers and immigrants who have all the money; that if we want there to be enough for good public services, it's the foreigners we need to sort out. And all the while they've been stuffing their pockets with so much cash they can't even think what to do with it, so they spend it on French chateaux and huge boats they hardly use. And now they've been caught, they're demanding we give them even more money. And we still have idiots like you trying to tell us it's the Afghans we need to worry about, lying in your thread title about how much they get in benefits (£150k of the £170k going to the scumlord).

Let's hope the landlord doesn't turn out to be a foreigner too after that outburst! ;)

Let's hope the landlord doesn't turn out to be a foreigner too after that outburst! ;)

Hahaha..I wondered the same!

Can see tomorrow's Mail headline now:

Afghani Warlord Fleeces British Taxpayer!

Let's hope the landlord doesn't turn out to be a foreigner too after that outburst! ;)

he is ...............

in the forum tradition of pouring oil on the fire ... here's Richard Littlejohn's predictable response:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1074429/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN--170-000-spent-Afghan-single-mother--A-story-sums-howling-insanity-modern-Britain.html

Let's hope the landlord doesn't turn out to be a foreigner too after that outburst! ;)

He appears to be of Asian descent, a Mr. Panesar. I'm sure mr contrite would have loved to have been able to weigh in with a "Paki landlord and Afghan asylum seeker take us for £170k!!" title, but that would be illegal now. Hence the need to concentrate on just the asylum seeker and immigrant tags, which have become bywords for all sorts of racial epithets.

I did enjoy the quote "I did think £12000 a month seemed a lot". No s&^t!!

I'm still not sure why they're supposed to need 7 bedrooms though, if there's only 8 of them in the family ... have I missed something? I understand that children over a certain age of different sexes aren't supposed to share a room ... but there are only two sexes ... so that would only mean a maximum of 4 or 5 rooms wouldn't it?

And in council speak, don't they count the living room as a possible bedroom too? I'm sure I've seen that somewhere on here actually. That a family was told to sleep one of the kids in the living room?

And some of the adult kids could go and live with their father or get their own place? I think the Council needs to take a serious and long look at their practices to ensure this doesn't happen again. It's not fair on the mother for a start, having to look after a massive house and garden, especially as her adult kids seem so idle and of little help to her.

I understand that children over a certain age of different sexes aren't supposed to share a room ...

A pure urban myth. There is no precedent whatsover.

A pure urban myth. There is no precedent whatsover.

Myths come in handy sometimes cloudy...;):suspect:

It's not fair on the mother for a start, having to look after a massive house and garden, especially as her adult kids seem so idle and of little help to her.

The fact that she was 13 when she had the first one and must only be 35 now is quite a thing too.

It'd take a damn sight more than a large house to make me happy with seven kids, no job and starting a new life in Ealing of all places as my lot in life.

A pure urban myth. There is no precedent whatsover. It must just be a council thing, not law, just their general guidlines, but they've been in place for many years AFAIK. Maybe someone from Housing can say definitely?

Quote from the link in the OP
In the Saiedi case, Ealing was obliged by law to provide her family with accommodation. No council home was available so it had to turn to the private sector. Seven bedrooms were needed because under guidelines boys and girls cannot share the same room after the age of ten. I still don't quite understand how this was turned into a bedroom for each person though? Does anyone?

It must just be a council thing, not law, just their general guidlines, but they've been in place for many years AFAIK. Maybe someone from Housing can say definitely?

Quote from the link in the OP
I still don't quite understand how this was turned into a bedroom for each person though? Does anyone?

I agree, as we discussed earlier, that the 7 bedrooms is excessive. Why could some of the kids not share? Blimey, who are these people? The Von Trapps?:suspect:

I agree, as we discussed earlier, that the 7 bedrooms is excessive. Why could some of the kids not share? Blimey, who are these people? The Von Trapps?:suspect:I've just seen your siggie! you mad woman! :hihi:

In the film didn't all the girls share a room? It was like a dormie in there, iirc! :D

A pure urban myth. There is no precedent whatsover.

Yes there is, and it's enshrined by the Rent Service (part of DWP). The age is 10, before children of different sexes should have separate rooms.

Yes there is, and it's enshrined by the Rent Service (part of DWP). The age is 10, before children of different sexes should have separate rooms.So do you have any opinion on how this was parlayed into 7 bedrooms for 8 people? And why?

This is the aspect I find the most confusing. I'd imagine a 4/5 bedroomed house could have been either provided or obtained by knocking a pair of semis together at far less cost? It has been done before I'm sure, even in Sheffield, iirc.

I've just seen your siggie! you mad woman! :hihi:

In the film didn't all the girls share a room? It was like a dormie in there, iirc! :D

Oooh I don't remember.:huh:

Mad - moi? No I'm not, yes I am, shut up Bertha, no you shut up Bertha - where's Grace?

Oooh I don't remember.:huh:

Mad - moi? No I'm not, yes I am, shut up Bertha, no you shut up Bertha - where's Grace?

:hihi:

Get that attic clean and stop waffling, you.

It must just be a council thing, not law, just their general guidlines, but they've been in place for many years AFAIK. Maybe someone from Housing can say definitely?

Quote from the link in the OP
I still don't quite understand how this was turned into a bedroom for each person though? Does anyone?

Probably because in this case the number of bedrooms means nothing. The LHA awarded simply goes on their circumstances (the same as if it were an indigenous family, mr far-from-contrite). It's a flat level rate awarded locally to people who rent privately.

How that is spent doesn't actually matter, legally. In the same way, if someone who is single with no dependants were to find a ten bedroomed house for rent privately for £30 per week, say, and that s/he were eligible for LHA, they'd be able to rent it with full assistance.

Also, it should be remembered that for a family which comprises of eight members or more (as this one does), three living/dining areas are considered. Now the property may originally have been designed as a multi-bedroomed property, and may well be described as such, but it certainly doesn't mean that all of the 'bedrooms' are used as such, or even are equipped to be used as such.

The Rent Service will work out the number of rooms in a property that you need. The maximum rent will be restricted to accommodation of that size, using the following conditions:

Children aged up to 10 are expected to share a bedroom, even if they are different sexes
Children of the same sex are expected to share a bedroom up to the age of 16
Children aged 16 and over are allowed a bedroom for their own use
Single people aged under 25 are allowed a Single Room Rent – the average figure for a single room with shared facilities
Families with up to 3 occupiers (including adults and children) are allowed one living/dining room
Families with 4 to 6 occupiers (including adults and children) are allowed two living/dining rooms
Families with 7 and over occupiers (including adults and children) are allowed three living/dining rooms


Example:

A couple and their four children move into a five-bedroom house. The children are aged 1, 3, 5 and 9. There are two girls and two boys. The Rent Service will restrict the maximum rent to three-bedroom accommodation with two living/dinning rooms. Even when the child turns 10 the decision will stay the same.

Linky, and the rules are the same all over the country. (http://www.thanet.gov.uk/advice__benefits/benefits/housing_benefit_-_rent_service.aspx)

My God, that house is gorgeous, I can't imagine how much that would be worth where I live, i never in my life saw a council house like that :o

My God, that house is gorgeous, I can't imagine how much that would be worth where I live, i never in my life saw a council house like that :o

It's not a council house.

:hihi:

Get that attic clean and stop waffling, you.

If only there were a painting up there.:(

Back on topic - I suspect this landlord found the house impossible to rent out privately, I mean who could afford it? And if they could, surely it would be better to buy somewhere rather than pay that amount in rent. A lot of property owners who have difficulty letting their properties in the private sector and wish to hang onto them for long term investment purposes, or because they have negative equity, do lease them to their councils.

in the forum tradition of pouring oil on the fire ... here's Richard Littlejohn's predictable response:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1074429/RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN--170-000-spent-Afghan-single-mother--A-story-sums-howling-insanity-modern-Britain.html

He lives in a total fantasy world (and I don't just mean Florida).

I find it astonishing that he can put so much rubbish and falsehoods in one article. There is almost an art to consistently being so wrong. :rolleyes:

Some analysis (http://5cc.blogspot.com/search/label/Littlejohn%27s%20made%20up%20Britain) of other LittleJohn articles to demonstrate it is not a one off.

That argument has been discredited simply by saying dont immigrants get old? who pays for them then? or perhaps a vicious circle of increasing immigration to pay for older immigrants? think about it, its fairly obvious.

If it were that simple, yes. Obviously everyone gets old. Three things make (working) immigrants socially valuable.

1. Immigrants are usually young adults of working age. Fairly self explanatory.

2. Immigrants are often prepared to fill lower grade jobs that it is really hard to get British people to do

3.

The important one. Old people per se aren't going to break the system. What matters is the ratio of working to non-working. Due to world war II, we have had a nice period in the Western world for the last few decades where an unusually large fraction of the population (those born in the 'baby boom' following the war) have been of working age. Rates of childbirth have been declining since the 50s, reducing the amount of young non-workers, and many of those who would have been among the retired aged were killed fighting.

In the next few years, we are looking forward to the baby boomers hitting retirement age. There has never been a better time to welcome young tax payers.

I don't see what there is to dislike about immigrants in general anyway. Ridiculous welfare immigrants such as these (in the OP) are ridiculous, but why wouldn't you like working immigrants?

If he had of asked or was offered a reasonable amount of rent this would never have been highlighted in the 1st place. What has been highlighted is the £170k rather than the £20k...plus the fact she's ethnic.

How many bedrooms or bathrooms or any rooms for that matter is totally irelevant to the op.

The crime here is the local authority IMO

He lives in a total fantasy world (and I don't just mean Florida).

I find it astonishing that he can put so much rubbish and falsehoods in one article. There is almost an art to consistently being so wrong. :rolleyes:

Some analysis (http://5cc.blogspot.com/search/label/Littlejohn%27s%20made%20up%20Britain) of other LittleJohn articles to demonstrate it is not a one off.

Anyone who can finish off their piece with 'we're going to hell in a handcart' with a straight face has demonstrated his utter contempt for his readers before you even get started on the politics.

He needs to read Martin Amis's 'The War Against Cliche'. And then stop pretending to be a journalist and out himself as a rabble-rousing propaganda machine.

The crime here is the local authority IMO

For which 3 people were sacked and presumably if they were involved in any fraud will face prosecution.

If he had of asked or was offered a reasonable amount of rent this would never have been highlighted in the 1st place. What has been highlighted is the £170k rather than the £20k...plus the fact she's ethnic.

How many bedrooms or bathrooms or any rooms for that matter is totally irelevant to the op.

The crime here is the local authority IMO

The crime is that a bile-fuelled rag has chosen to misrepresent the facts, along with the Oxford BNP OP.

For which 3 people were sacked and presumably if they were involved in any fraud will face prosecution.

Three people on temporary contracts too, it should be noted.

The crime is that a bile-fuelled rag has chosen to misrepresent the facts, along with the Oxford BNP OP.

Not really happy...that was a given anyway. :D

The crime is that a bile-fuelled rag has chosen to misrepresent the facts, along with the Oxford BNP OP.

Where have the facts been misrepresented, as far as i am aware the facts are all in the link provided, there is no misrepresentation of facts (except in the minds of those who feel there is nothing morally wrong with this)

I hope Sheffield people don't follow this example. Have 7 kids and get kicked out of your house and you won't be rehoused in a 7 bedroom house in S11. I guarantee it. Unless of course you come from a war-ravaged country recognised by 'right-on' idiot council staff as a trendy country whose refugees are entitled to the best we can offer.

It's not a council house.

Sorry, I read it too fast :)

The crime is that a bile-fuelled rag has chosen to misrepresent the facts, along with the Oxford BNP OP.

From another bile-fuelled rag, namely the London Evening Standard.



Will Brooks, the council's cabinet member for housing, said there were “very few seven-bedroom properties” available. As a result a private landlord was paid £12,458 a month in housing benefit, more than double the market rate. But in a matter of minutes the Standard found four similar homes, including one in the same street. The most expensive cost £4,500 a month, £7,500 less than it costs taxpayers now, and has eight bedrooms.

Another had period features, a large, well-kept garden with terrace, and gold taps in the main bathroom. It cost £3,400 a month.

When shown details of the home, Mrs Saindi's 20-year-old son Jawad said: “There is no driveway, I need somewhere to park my car.”

Where have the facts been misrepresented, as far as i am aware the facts are all in the link provided, there is no misrepresentation of facts (except in the minds of those who feel there is nothing morally wrong with this)

That would be a link which doesn't appear to be working at the moment too. Have a look at a couple of my responses above, and that would be a start.

Let's also look at the way the story was described though (from memory).

"Jobless Afghan ......".

The implication is very clear, and very divisive. An indigenous Ealing (let alone just British) resident would receive the same help. Simple facts like "they've done nothing illegal", and "they've been here for seven years" (long before the rules by which they simply conform were introduced), are there, but lost within the usual Daily Heil nonsense, and screaming racist headlines.

[edit to add - link works again now]

That would be a link which doesn't appear to be working at the moment too. Have a look at a couple of my responses above, and that would be a start.

Let's also look at the way the story was described though (from memory).

"Jobless Afghan ......".

The implication is very clear, and very divisive. An indigenous Ealing (let alone just British) resident would receive the same help. Simple facts like "they've done nothing illegal", and "they've been here for seven years" (long before the rules by which they simply conform were introduced), are there, but lost within the usual Daily Heil nonsense, and screaming racist headlines.

Funnily enough i dont know any women with 7 kids with which to compare like for like.

From another bile-fuelled rag, namely the London Evening Standard.

Will Brooks, the council's cabinet member for housing, said there were “very few seven-bedroom properties” available. As a result a private landlord was paid £12,458 a month in housing benefit, more than double the market rate. But in a matter of minutes the Standard found four similar homes, including one in the same street. The most expensive cost £4,500 a month, £7,500 less than it costs taxpayers now, and has eight bedrooms.

Renting privately is just that. If the levy is set at a rate which is daft (not saying it isn't), that is not a reason to set the 'they get everything' bells ringing. The same would be available for a British family in the same circumstances. Unfortunately, you'll never accept that as it completely defeats your argument. Just because there were other properties available is neither here nor there.

Again, the number of bedrooms is a moot point.

Another had period features, a large, well-kept garden with terrace, and gold taps in the main bathroom. It cost £3,400 a month.

When shown details of the home, Mrs Saindi's 20-year-old son Jawad said: “There is no driveway, I need somewhere to park my car.”

Provide a link, and I'll provide a direct answer to that statement ..... ;)

Funnily enough i dont know any women with 7 kids with which to compare like for like.

So be quiet then.

That would be a link which doesn't appear to be working at the moment too. Have a look at a couple of my responses above, and that would be a start.

Let's also look at the way the story was described though (from memory).

"Jobless Afghan ......".

The implication is very clear, and very divisive. An indigenous Ealing (let alone just British) resident would receive the same help. Simple facts like "they've done nothing illegal", and "they've been here for seven years" (long before the rules by which they simply conform were introduced), are there, but lost within the usual Daily Heil nonsense, and screaming racist headlines.

Face facts. This family has massive earning potential compared to many British families but chooses not to take advantage of it. You choose to ignore the fact they were wealthy in Afghanistan and living in an even bigger house on their own farm. They would have been highly entrepreneurial
so what happened to that entrepreneurial spirit once they got to the UK? Why did WE make i so easy for them to get into this position. They make no bones about it - they feel like lottery winners which should make it clear, even to any mung bean-munching right-on lefty idiot, that something quite extraordinary has happened in the allocation of the house to the family. People aren't as idiotic as you think, even Daily Mail reader:).

Face facts. This family has massive earning potential compared to many British families but chooses not to take advantage of it. You choose to ignore the fact they were wealthy in Afghanistan and living in an even bigger house on their own farm. They would have been highly entrepreneurial
so what happened to that entrepreneurial spirit once they got to the UK? Why did WE make i so easy for them to get into this position. They make no bones about it - they feel like lottery winners which should make it clear, even to any mung bean-munching right-on lefty idiot, that something quite extraordinary has happened in the allocation of the house to the family. People aren't as idiotic as you think, even Daily Mail reader:).

:rolleyes:

Maybe their spirit was totally crushed after the horrors of the Taliban and living in war torn Afghanistan.

There are a lot of white people more than capable of earning a live who choose to fleece the state by claiming benefits then working cash in hand on the sly.

Face facts. This family has massive earning potential compared to many British families but chooses not to take advantage of it. You choose to ignore the fact they were wealthy in Afghanistan and living in an even bigger house on their own farm. They would have been highly entrepreneurial
so what happened to that entrepreneurial spirit once they got to the UK? Why did WE make i so easy for them to get into this position. They make no bones about it - they feel like lottery winners which should make it clear, even to any mung bean-munching right-on lefty idiot, that something quite extraordinary has happened in the allocation of the house to the family. People aren't as idiotic as you think, even Daily Mail reader:).

You'd only complain if they went out and worked and took your jobs blah blah...Working or not working, it's a no win no win situation.

So be quiet then.

You invited me to comment, heres the link, by the way.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23569747-details/We+re+scapegoats%2C+say+council+staff+sacked+over+ 1.2m+home+for+refugees/article.do

You'd only complain if they went out and worked and took your jobs blah blah...Working or not working, it's a no win no win situation.

Im complaining because they are here, why dont they go home to the house they own which is much larger, although i assume that as she doesnt like cleaning, she employed maids to do her cleaning.

Face facts. This family has massive earning potential compared to many British families but chooses not to take advantage of it. You choose to ignore the fact they were wealthy in Afghanistan and living in an even bigger house on their own farm. They would have been highly entrepreneurial
so what happened to that entrepreneurial spirit once they got to the UK? Why did WE make i so easy for them to get into this position. They make no bones about it - they feel like lottery winners which should make it clear, even to any mung bean-munching right-on lefty idiot, that something quite extraordinary has happened in the allocation of the house to the family. People aren't as idiotic as you think, even Daily Mail reader:).

Allocation of a house? It's privately rented! It's not social housing at all! I couldn't care less whether they owned half of Afghanistan or not, but what seems to be being lost, is that they are being treated exactly the same as any other UK citizen.

Might I remind you that they are UK citizens? This hasd nothing to do with their ethnicity, but once again the Heil and our cuddly BNP man have to mention it, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the price of fish whatsoever.

:rolleyes:

Maybe their spirit was totally crushed after the horrors of the Taliban and living in war torn Afghanistan.

There are a lot of white people more than capable of earning a live who choose to fleece the state by claiming benefits then working cash in hand on the sly.

Yes the pictures shown do seem to be of a family whose spirit is totally crushed.

You invited me to comment, heres the link, by the way.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23569747-details/We+re+scapegoats%2C+say+council+staff+sacked+over+ 1.2m+home+for+refugees/article.do

And as promised, with regard to the comment from the son, I shall make mine.

He's an ungrateful bugger, on the face of it.

Then again, there's this quote from the same fella, in the same article.

The student said the family wanted to live somewhere that was less of a burden to the taxpayer: “We support what people say, but it is not just us involved. There are three parties — us, our landlord and the council. If the council allows it, we will move.”

Bet that bit gets buried too.

And as promised, with regard to the comment from the son, I shall make mine.

He's an ungrateful bugger, on the face of it.

Then again, there's this quote from the same fella, in the same article.



Bet that bit gets buried too.

So why wait till the story goes public to make that statement?

So why wait till the story goes public to make that statement?

I wasn't aware that law abiding citizens had to make statements about their lives at every given point?

Do you?

I wasn't aware that law abiding citizens had to make statements about their lives at every given point?

Do you?

It's a shame they ever opened the front door, to be honest. The photo of the mother in the original link was clearly her standing IN the front door, probably faced with a load of pap lenses in her face :gag:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1072729/Its-like-winning-lottery-Jobless-Afghan-mother-seven-gets-170-000-benefits-lives-1-2million-council-house.html


An Afghan family living in a £1.2million home paid for by the taxpayer admitted yesterday they felt as if they had won the lottery.

Mother-of-seven Toorpakai Saiedi, 35, receives £170,000 a year in benefits.
A staggering £150,000 of that is paid to a private landlord for the rent of a seven-bedroom house in West London.


Another case of bloody immigrants being looked after in comparative luxury, whilst 100s of 1000s of pensioners worry about heating or eating, and millions of families can look forward to job insecurity, mortgage payments, and worrying about how to pay for christmas, its time to stop this blatant misuse of public money, and send these scroungers back.

:hihi: :hihi: :hihi:

Sour grapes am happy for them :thumbsup: hope i goes up next April

they are being treated exactly the same as any other UK citizen.



I wouldnt realy agree with this to be honest fella.
I know lots of people who are not treated anywhere near as good.

For what its worth i think there should be a cut off point in benefits, ie you have more than 3 kids for example you get no extra money for them,you go out and pay for them yourself, whether your white,brown,black or oranage.
maybe have a back up if they are usualy working and fall on hard times for a set period of time.

7 bedrooms is a disgrace i havent even seen a 7 bedroom house in my life.

Nothing to do with where there from or what colour they are, you want loads of kids you pay for them.

Yes the pictures shown do seem to be of a family whose spirit is totally crushed.

What would be yoru thoughts if it was a family from the Uk born n bred etc but in the same situation as this family?

I wouldnt realy agree with this to be honest fella.
I know lots of people who are not treated anywhere near as good.

For what its worth i think there should be a cut off point in benefits, ie you have more than 3 kids for example you get no extra money for them,you go out and pay for them yourself, whether your white,brown,black or oranage.
maybe have a back up if they are usualy working and fall on hard times for a set period of time.

7 bedrooms is a disgrace i havent even seen a 7 bedroom house in my life.

Nothing to do with where there from or what colour they are, you want loads of kids you pay for them.

They are though Ian; they're being treated in exactly the same way as anyone else.

I'm not necessarily saying it's right (though most will know my stance!), but it's being made into a racial issue, when it isn't one at all.

I wouldnt realy agree with this to be honest fella.
I know lots of people who are not treated anywhere near as good.

For what its worth i think there should be a cut off point in benefits, ie you have more than 3 kids for example you get no extra money for them,you go out and pay for them yourself, whether your white,brown,black or oranage.
maybe have a back up if they are usualy working and fall on hard times for a set period of time.

7 bedrooms is a disgrace i havent even seen a 7 bedroom house in my life.

Nothing to do with where there from or what colour they are, you want loads of kids you pay for them.


Tha should visit Bishops Avenue Hampstead ;)

What would be yoru thoughts if it was a family from the Uk born n bred etc but in the same situation as this family?

For the umpteenth time, my views on single mums popping out sprogs at that rate and relying on benefits is no different, but i dont know any with 7 kids, and if she had been uk born and bred, i would have hoped that her husband would have been arrested for having sex with a 13 year old.

For the umpteenth time, my views on single mums popping out sprogs at that rate and relying on benefits is no different, but i dont know any with 7 kids, and if she had been uk born and bred, i would have hoped that her husband would have been arrested for having sex with a 13 year old.

Calm down, I was only asking.

They are though Ian; they're being treated in exactly the same way as anyone else.

I'm not necessarily saying it's right (though most will know my stance!), but it's being made into a racial issue, when it isn't one at all.

I wouldnt say so, i know people who have 5 kids andlive in 2/3 bedroom houses in places that would make that look like paradise.
I know people who have waited 12 months with 2 kids to get a crappy 2 bedroom massonaite with loads of problems. while they have to live apart living in bedsits or sofa surfing.

You are right that the colour of their skin is not the point though i wouldnt care if they were white/black whatever its still a pish take.

I blame the muppets who make the decions, they are hardly going to turn a house like that down are they.

I wouldnt say so, i know people who have 5 kids andlive in 2/3 bedroom houses in places that would make that look like paradise.
I know people who have waited 12 months with 2 kids to get a crappy 2 bedroom massonaite with loads of problems. while they have to live apart living in bedsits or sofa surfing.

You are right that the colour of their skin is not the point though i wouldnt care if they were white/black whatever its still a pish take.

I blame the muppets who make the decions, they are hardly going to turn a house like that down are they.

Thing is though mate, this isn't a council property; it's rented privately. Whole set of different rules. I mentioned the rules about rooms per family earlier too.

The other thing is that the £££££££££££ is going to the landlord, NOT the family concerned.

Thing is though mate, this isn't a council property; it's rented privately. Whole set of different rules. I mentioned the rules about rooms per family earlier too.

The other thing is that the £££££££££££ is going to the landlord, NOT the family concerned.


Yeah i know that bud, thing is though thats what i am on about what numpty came up with that ? good job they have been sacked.. as pished off with the landord i would liek to be, if i am honest and someone wanted to pay me x amount more than its worth i would snap their nuts off to be honest :D

Yeah i know that bud, thing is though thats what i am on about what numpty came up with that ? good job they have been sacked.. as pished off with the landord i would liek to be, if i am honest and someone wanted to pay me x amount more than its worth i would snap their nuts off to be honest :D

To be honest, I can't see what the hell the temporary staff have done wrong, in line with the legislation.

I just wish that people would see the truth, as opposed to the usual hue and cry after a Heildline.

We'll have racist horses again soon.

To be honest, I can't see what the hell the temporary staff have done wrong, in line with the legislation.

I just wish that people would see the truth, as opposed to the usual hue and cry after a Heildline.

We'll have racist horses again soon.

Considering there were 3 to pool their experience...I thought a lack of good judgement maybe?

Considering there were 3 to pool their experience...I thought a lack of good judgement maybe?

Temporary staff will always be admin; never in a position to make decisions. They've also said as much.

Temporary staff will always be admin; never in a position to make decisions. They've also said as much.

That should be the case but we are talking about a Tory Council, that will be keen on cost cutting and keeping headcount down. If they know their employment law they will know that you can only normally go to a Tribunal after having been employed for a year, so these temps are probably on 51 week contracts. The Civil Service is being casualised I expect in Councils, particularly Tory ones, the effect is even greater and it really wouldn't surprise me if decisions were being made by temps.

In response to Mr Contrite's question. Where are the articles misleading? The misleading point is focussing on the immigrant family, who are innocent of the Council's decision but understandably grateful. The fault lies with the Council who have sacked 3 of their members of staff. It is only mentioned as one sentence in the middle of the article and in conflict to the rest of the piece. The other articles like the LittleJohn one make no mention of that fact at all. They all use the coincidental immigrant status of the family as an excuse to attack immigration policy. There may or may not be problems with immigration policy, but this case says nothing about it when the Council is clearly blaming the employees for not following the Govt regulations that would have prevented this from happening.

The original Daily Mail articles are misleading because they omit any explanation of the Council's version of events. The article is a half story, that they use as an excuse to have a dig and an innocent party because of their immigration status and a dig at an immigration and housing policy that condones these events.

The story as it is, is a misleading biased load of rubbish that shows how far into the gutter our press have gone.

The real story appears to be about inefficiency or corruption in a Tory Council's housing department. Nothing to do with immigration.

That should be the case but we are talking about a Tory Council, that will be keen on cost cutting and keeping headcount down. If they know their employment law they will know that you can only normally go to a Tribunal after having been employed for a year, so these temps are probably on 51 week contracts. The Civil Service is being casualised I expect in Councils, particularly Tory ones, the effect is even greater and it really wouldn't surprise me if decisions were being made by temps.

In response to Mr Contrite's question. Where are the articles misleading? The misleading point is focussing on the immigrant family, who are innocent of the Council's decision but understandably grateful. The fault lies with the Council who have sacked 3 of their members of staff. It is only mentioned as one sentence in the middle of the article and in conflict to the rest of the piece. The other articles like the LittleJohn one make no mention of that fact at all. They all use the coincidental immigrant status of the family as an excuse to attack immigration policy. There may or may not be problems with immigration policy, but this case says nothing about it when the Council is clearly blaming the employees for not following the Govt regulations that would have prevented this from happening.

The original Daily Mail articles are misleading because they omit any explanation of the Council's version of events. The article is a half story, that they use as an excuse to have a dig and an innocent party because of their immigration status and a dig at an immigration and housing policy that condones these events.

The story as it is, is a misleading biased load of rubbish that shows how far into the gutter our press have gone.

The real story appears to be about inefficiency or corruption in a Tory Council's housing department. Nothing to do with immigration.

I see you are making much of the fact that Ealing is a Tory council. Maybe this ,ight help you out with your facts:

http://www.ealing.gov.uk/press_releases/2008/news_stories/benefit_statement.html

Council statement on housing benefits case

There has been extensive media coverage over the last two days about a family of eight living in Acton who have their £2,875 per week rent paid for them as housing benefit.

The council believes the story highlights some of the absurdities of the housing and benefit system.

Although the money is paid by central government and does not come from Ealing Council Tax payments, it is still public money and ultimately all taxpayers lose out.

In this specific case, the family came to the council asking for housing as they were homeless. The council had a legal obligation to help them.

The government sets national rules about what type of accommodation is appropriate and how much rent can be paid to landlords. The Department for Work and Pensions told us to house this family in a seven-bedroom property.

What will surprise and anger people is that the government publishes these rent levels so landlords are fully aware of the maximum levels that can be paid. In cases such as this, where there are very few seven-bedroom properties, landlords will obviously seek the absolute maximum. This clearly puts the council, the government and taxpayers at a significant disadvantage.

The council believes that urgent changes are needed to the government’s system and that the publication of maximum rent levels should be ended. This would enable all councils to be able to negotiate more competitive rent agreements.

Up to date news on the sacked council workers. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3167389/Council-workers-sacked-over-giving-mother-170000-a-year-in-benefits.html

Said this before and it was erased,the lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Yes the 3 have been made scapegoats,the fat cats in their offices who make the rules get off scott free,it appears these 3 were temps so I suppose a bit scared to question their superiors.

I'm not necessarily saying it's right (though most will know my stance!), but it's being made into a racial issue, when it isn't one at all.

Can I petition for introduction of the phrase "black herring"

Said this before and it was erased,the lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Yes the 3 have been made scapegoats,the fat cats in their offices who make the rules get off scott free,it appears these 3 were temps so I suppose a bit scared to question their superiors.

It was the DWP that instructed the council to house them in a seven bedroom house and the details of the rent were passed on to the DWP who authorised it as the funds come direct from central government. The DWP is a Labour government department and nothing to do with the council.

I would like to find out though why the workers were sacked for following orders from the DWP though.

I also wonder why this family happened to find themselves "homeless" when they approached the council who have a legal duty to help them. I mean, they had been in the Country for seven years so they must have lived somewhere else before? There is more to this than meets the eye.

I also wonder why this family happened to find themselves "homeless" when they approached the council who have a legal duty to help them. I mean, they had been in the Country for seven years so they must have lived somewhere else before? There is more to this than meets the eye.

People find themselves homless for all kinds of reasons. I'm not saying these people were genuinely homeless, but there are many people born and bred here who find themselves homeless and 'they must have lived somewhere before'.

It seems like the tenants could have been "introduced" to the landlord.

I remember watching a programme last year where Anne Widdicome visited a family of 13 who were on benefits. The guy in question was like some sort of Viz character and had 2 women on the go at once, both had his children and both were present at the same time. 13 kids - they lived well indeed, hard a large house (not 7 bedrooms, but large nonetheless) had back garden that looked like a children's playground, 2 very good cars, one being a four by four etc etc.

It is one thing to find yourself in a situation where you need to claim and already happen to have a large number of children, however, it is entirely another to continue having child after child when you know you cannot afford to support them and the state will. It's so irresponsible not only to themselves and their children - but where is their social responsibility?:mad:

People find themselves homless for all kinds of reasons. I'm not saying these people were genuinely homeless, but there are many people born and bred here who find themselves homeless and 'they must have lived somewhere before'.

I agree but in all the seven years of living here they have been in receipt of housing benefit and welfare payments so it just seems odd how they find themselves homeless. I'm sure the DWP didn't make them homeless.

summat fishy going on here:suspect:

What would be yoru thoughts if it was a family from the Uk born n bred etc but in the same situation as this family?

you have already asked this question , and had it answered .It would still be a disgrace .
reverse the question , where could a homeless british couple get the same treatment ?

It seems like the tenants could have been "introduced" to the landlord.

Would it have made any difference to the rent assessment if they'd had prior knowledge of each other?

Would it have made any difference to the rent assessment if they'd had prior knowledge of each other?
it may if they are planning on divvying the money up

I agree but in all the seven years of living here they have been in receipt of housing benefit and welfare payments so it just seems odd how they find themselves homeless. I'm sure the DWP didn't make them homeless.

If you were asked to leave your property as the present Landlord wanted it back for instance then you would go to the council to be re-housed and the Landlord would have to wait till appropriate accommodation before moving you out otherwise he would be acting illegally, however, these days the rent is paid directly to the claimant and under present LHA rules, the claimant can bargain the rent with the Landlord and pocket the difference of the ceiling payment on that property. The only way that rent can be paid directly to the Landlord is if a person is more than eight weeks in arrears or mentally unable to deal with money.

To be making a claim as homeless, you would have to be homeless. I guess it does beg the question why? eviction from the last address maybe?

I agree but in all the seven years of living here they have been in receipt of housing benefit and welfare payments so it just seems odd how they find themselves homeless. I'm sure the DWP didn't make them homeless.

They may well have behaved anti socially where they lived previously and been evicted from council accommodation ;)

it may if they are planning on divvying the money up

If they were in cahoots how would that make any difference to rent assessment?

it may if they are planning on divvying the money up

Yes, it may, if they'd had some influence over the rent assessment, but they wouldn't have. This is just a cock up from the council's perspective.

To be making a claim as homeless, you would have to be homeless. I guess it does beg the question why? eviction from the last address maybe?

..great minds eh! :D

..great minds eh! :D

Not so sure about mine lately. :hihi:

Yes, it may, if they'd had some influence over the rent assessment, but they wouldn't have. This is just a cock up from the council's perspective.
you may be right bf but where money is concerned or the chance to make money i wouldn,t put anything past anyone

you may be right bf but where money is concerned or the chance to make money i wouldn,t put anything past anyone

Well it must have been collusion between, the landlord, the tenant and the council then..don't answer!

If they were in cahoots how would that make any difference to rent assessment?

Perhaps they were the ones doing the assessing.

Well it must have been collusion between, the landlord, the tenant and the council then..don't answer!



http://heathrowlettings.com/UserFiles/file/docs/bond_scheme_process.pdf

http://heathrowlettings.com/UserFiles/file/docs/bond_scheme_process.pdf

Thanks for that, but it's just a link to a pdf document explaining the landlord accreditation process in Ealing, it doesn't refer to this particular case.

Thanks for that, but it's just a link to a pdf document explaining the landlord accreditation process in Ealing, it doesn't refer to this particular case.

Look at the names at the bottom.

Look at the names at the bottom.

One of the names is one of the sacked employees. Why are you suprised to see their name on this document?

It's a disgrace. She has to bring up 7 children(some who have beards) on only £20,000 a year! :rant::rant:


:hihi:

Beards aren't cheap you know.

One of the names is one of the sacked employees. Why are you suprised to see their name on this document?

I'm not surprised at all.