andygardener Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Maybe they could be sent out of London to cheaper areas but there is not always enough housing supply and support services in other areas. A sensible place to send a Somalian who has had 8 kids and expects the British taxpayer to support them such as the freeloader in the article would be Somalia. I believe their house price boom has yet to take off so I'm sure he could find or build a nice spacious shack without dipping his hands into the British purse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 A sensible place to send a Somalian who has had 8 kids and expects the British taxpayer to support them such as the freeloader in the article would be Somalia. I believe their house price boom has yet to take off so I'm sure he could find or build a nice spacious shack without dipping his hands into the British purse. Some tax payer wouldn’t even mind paying for the flight and shack, maybe even a couple of grand to get him started in his new life back home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJC1 Posted February 8, 2013 Author Share Posted February 8, 2013 If you capped it at one child then over time the population would become disproportionately aged and still suck the state dry. There wouldn't be enough people working and paying tax to fund the pensions and care of older people. You'd need an influx of young immigrants to make up the difference. Young as in 18 years up, ready to work, young skilled. Not entire families with little kids, dads that don't work with wifes popping them out all over the shop when they get here because they realise they can procure more money from welfare. ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 16:16 ---------- A sensible place to send a Somalian who has had 8 kids and expects the British taxpayer to support them such as the freeloader in the article would be Somalia. I believe their house price boom has yet to take off so I'm sure he could find or build a nice spacious shack without dipping his hands into the British purse. Agreed Andy, Freeloader is the right term. No sugar coating it. Parasites basically. Leaving people who really need help without. ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 16:18 ---------- Some tax payer wouldn’t even mind paying for the flight and shack, maybe even a couple of grand to get him started in his new life back home. Unless there is a serious war going on, they can go back home for me, I'll throw in a couple of quid. I'm all for sheltering the most endangered asylum seekers but the system is being abused. ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 16:21 ---------- if people have no job but their housing costs are too high, they need to move, just like our forebears did. True. Even more so if you don't have actual family in the areas. What difference does it make living in Sheffield, Stoke or any cheaper area when it's all a foreign place. But no, they have to live in London, on benefits, not paying tax, never contributed, with a whacking great 3 grand rent and expect a 12 grand halfway house when homeless. Compared to how they get treated at home they must think it's christmas come early! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Unless there is a serious war going on, they can go back home for me, I'll throw in a couple of quid. I'm all for sheltering the most endangered asylum seekers but the system is being abused. Would it be cheaper to go in and end the war or house everyone running away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Wasn't this planned last year? A London council wanted to move people to the midlands or the north. See Post No 8. It's been done many times in the past. In the 50's and 60's it was called 'slum clearance' (you probably wouldn't be able to use those words nowadays because they're not politically correct.) Whole communities (mainly from the East End of London) were uprooted and re-located in new housing in places like Abbey Farm, Thetford , and The Oxmoor, Huntingdon. The people themselves were given decent housing (Which many of them then modified to suit their own needs.) The councils who moved them were able to obtain housing at a far lower cost than they could have done at home. The councils who moved them offloaded a problem onto somebody else. (Oops! - Mustn't say that!) The places which received them got many hundreds (if not thousands) of new residents and as we all know (and I1L2T3 reminded us) "You need an influx of immigrants to [work] and [pay] tax to fund the care and pensions of older people." If councils in areas where housing is very expensive were to house people in areas where housing is comparatively cheap, consider how many people those areas would gain! It would fill up all the empty schools, keep the shops in business, ensure that the buses don't run around empty, keep local GPs from sitting around waiting for trade and ensure that local services do not suffer from under-use. After all, if people are going to be out of work and are going to need housing, they can do that just as well in a lower-priced area as in an exremely expensive area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Labour MP Karen Buck says 'It's a scandal that these people are losing their homes due to their housing benefits being cut', and 'Westminster was cheer-leading for these cuts!, and now all this public money is being poured into these hotel costs.' - The bigger question for me here: is why, when there are ample intelligent women in society, do Labour seem to find so many illogical, emotion-stirring thickos to represent them as MPs? i thought she summed this up quite clearly -Westminster Labour MP Karen Buck called the situation a "scandalous waste of public money" and said it was a bad deal for both the taxpayer and the families involved what part of that didnt you understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted February 8, 2013 Share Posted February 8, 2013 Young as in 18 years up, ready to work, young skilled. Not entire families with little kids, dads that don't work with wifes popping them out all over the shop when they get here because they realise they can procure more money from welfare. You love your stereotypes don't you. Tens of thousands of afro-caribbean people, people from Africa and India & Pakistan have come here over the decades. They came here with skills and they came here to work hard. Whole sectors of the economy have depended on them. You have to face the reality though that not all jobs that need to be filled will be highly skilled work. And if people do have skills then securing their services ahead of other countries will probably require sweeteners like letting their families join them here. Who are these people that come here to scrounge off the state? And what perecentage of benefit spend goes on them? ---------- Post added 08-02-2013 at 17:53 ---------- A sensible place to send a Somalian who has had 8 kids and expects the British taxpayer to support them such as the freeloader in the article would be Somalia. I believe their house price boom has yet to take off so I'm sure he could find or build a nice spacious shack without dipping his hands into the British purse. Not a very sensible place to send them back to if they're a genuine asylum seeker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 I remember some idiot a while back saying the unemployed should all move to London and find work. What, so if three million unemployed all moved to London, they'd all be housed and there would be no unemployed? Dunno. Not sure what you are referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-21362391 Homeless families huge hotel rent bills 12k p/month! Firstly, why have so many kids if you can't afford to keep them? and what on earth are westminster council thinking?? this is a scandalous misuse of public money. We all know why this happened. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes_for_votes_scandal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 i thought she summed this up quite clearly I'm sure you did. Westminster Labour MP Karen Buck called the situation a "scandalous waste of public money" and said it was a bad deal for both the taxpayer and the families involved what part of that didnt you understand There is more than one scandal in this film and article, and she (as politicians do) flipped a scandal and implied that this was caused by a cheer-leading council (and opposition), and it blames them. See here... 'It's a scandal that these people are losing their homes due to their housing benefits being cut', and 'Westminster was cheer-leading for these cuts' then adds to it, by concluding that... 'and now all this public money is being poured into these hotel costs.'. It's several cheap shots, that most people don't see. She bypasses part of why this is a scandal. First by missing that it was ever not a scandal that people were claiming £700 a week in housing costs alone - that IS the real first scandal... and someone let it happen. The second scandal is (as you gathered from it) - that it is putting people up in hotels at stupid prices, and is a waste of public money. The correct conclusion I would think, is that the second scandal was caused by the first. i.e. whoever allowed housing benefit to be a scandalous waste of public money (in cases like this one) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.