Sentinel Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Migrants should only be given housing when the needs of the people who were born here have been met and take what is left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 So we have a survey that is bias showing there is no bias led by people who's own staff have complained about their behaviour which, has brought official statistics, the use of statistics and statistical work by official and public bodies into disrepute, swallowed hook line and sinker by the gullible. No, you've got that wrong. The complaint which you linked to was about employees of the Commission for Racial Equality. The CRE no longer exists, it was merged into the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The research under discussion was carried out by the Institute for Public Policy Research; this is an entirely separate organisation from the CRE or EHRC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 Presumably that's why the report tried to identify immigrants who had been in the country less than 5 years because then nationality and status would be much more closely aligned? For the rest of your post, you have described a process, just as Teafan has earlier. This is not the same as describing an outcome. And however you want to slice the cake as regards eligibility, it shouldn't be beyond the wit of a professional research organisation to come up with a proper test that measures whether any particular group, of those that are eligible, is getting a better/worse outcome than any other. I'm not saying there is any 'unfairness'. I'm just saying that this report is garbage because it claims to prove a point, whereas in fact it doesn't come remotely close to proving anything. Which is the point, really. The ippr report was intending to show that migrants aren't getting special favours in regard to social housing that the native population aren't. Essentially they've tried to demolish a straw man; it shouldn't be down to the ippr to show that there isn't bias towards migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, it should be down to those who claim there is that bias to prove it and provide evidence. Since no-one has, as far as I am aware, then we're still in the position of no bias towards people not born here. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 No, you've got that wrong. The complaint which you linked to was about employees of the Commission for Racial Equality. The CRE no longer exists, it was merged into the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The research under discussion was carried out by the Institute for Public Policy Research; this is an entirely separate organisation from the CRE or EHRC. EHRC chairman Trevor Phillips said, Trevor Phillips while working for the CRE (Former Chair of CRE, now Chair of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights seems like the same bloke the complaint was about to me, are you trying to fudge the issue again Teafan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeaFan Posted July 17, 2009 Author Share Posted July 17, 2009 EHRC chairman Trevor Phillips said, Trevor Phillips while working for the CRE (Former Chair of CRE, now Chair of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights seems like the same bloke the complaint was about to me, are you trying to fudge the issue again Teafan. Trevor Phillips commenting on the report doesn't in itself invalidate the report. He didn't write it. If you want to take issue with something in the report, do that. Personally I couldn't give a toss what Trevor Phillips thinks, he's a chuff, but that doesn't make everything he comments on a pile of cack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tricky Posted July 17, 2009 Share Posted July 17, 2009 Which is the point, really. The ippr report was intending to show that migrants aren't getting special favours in regard to social housing that the native population aren't. Essentially they've tried to demolish a straw man; it shouldn't be down to the ippr to show that there isn't bias towards migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, it should be down to those who claim there is that bias to prove it and provide evidence. Since no-one has, as far as I am aware, then we're still in the position of no bias towards people not born here. Unless someone has evidence to the contrary. I think that's what got me so annoyed. I had no reason to think there was any bias. They produced a report to prove there wasn't any, and will probably sway a few views on the basis of it. They didn't need to do it, so why did they do it so badly? This should be a huge own goal for both the EHRC and the IPPR but because of the ignorance of the populace and the indolence of the media, it won't be. The age of spin is still very much with us, there is a long, long way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 And it has been demonstrably proven that immigrants are not given priority to permanent social housing. No it has not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 No it has not. That is what the report has done. First by looking at the Policies and showing the only bias in allocation goes against migrants. And secondly by looking at the proportions in housing and showing that the numbers in social housing are no more than would otherwise be expected. That is as close to a proof as is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 We should consider the split of all housing types. 74% of UK born people live in their own properties - owner occupiers. Evidence perhaps that we're fairly well off as a nation. Also, over half foreign born people - 51.4% - are owner occupiers too. Evidence that all migrants aren't penniless benefit seekers? Around the same proportions of UK and foreign born are social housing tenants, approx 17% in both cases. However, foreign born people are much more likely to be in private rented homes, 26.9% as against 7.1% of UK born. Source: http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=6505360 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted September 20, 2010 Share Posted September 20, 2010 More than a quarter (27 per cent) of all black or minority ethnic householders are social tenants (including around half of Bangladeshi and 43 per cent of black Caribbean and black African householders), compared to 17 per cent of white householders. Looking at today’s social housing stock, 93 per cent of it was already within the sector nine years ago (although 750,000 dwellings were transferred between local authority and housing association ownership). For tenants, there is much less movement between dwellings than within the private rented sector, and more than 80 per cent of those living in social housing today were also within the sector ten years ago (if born by then). Hills, J. (2007) Ends and Means: The future roles of social housing in England, CASE report 34. London: ESRC Research Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.