Who's telling LIES the BNP or Independent?


B

Bill Oreilly

In today's Independent Cahal Milmo writes "How the BNP is gaining ground in
Barking with a campaign of *lies and distortions*". If this is the case i
would urge anyone reading this to back up the charge given by this Milmo
character. The one statement i find particularly intriguing is the so called
"Africans for Essex" scam, where the BNP are claiming that immigrants are
being given grants of £50,000 to buy houses in the borough. The Independent
says "There are no such grants". So who is telling porkies? Any offers?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article358775.ece
 
Ad

Advertisements

U

Usenet Rulez

Den vedervärdige "Bill Oreilly" <[email protected]> fick mej nästan
att ramla ur stoeln med meddelandet
i uk.politics
In today's Independent Cahal Milmo writes "How the BNP is gaining
ground in Barking with a campaign of *lies and distortions*". If this
is the case i would urge anyone reading this to back up the charge
given by this Milmo character. The one statement i find particularly
intriguing is the so called "Africans for Essex" scam, where the BNP
are claiming that immigrants are being given grants of £50,000 to buy
houses in the borough. The Independent says "There are no such
grants". So who is telling porkies? Any offers?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article358775.ece
I say em commies, kill em all n let the Gods sort em out, white power.
 
M

Mel Rowing

Bill said:
In today's Independent Cahal Milmo writes "How the BNP is gaining ground in
Barking with a campaign of *lies and distortions*". If this is the case i
would urge anyone reading this to back up the charge given by this Milmo
character. The one statement i find particularly intriguing is the so called
"Africans for Essex" scam, where the BNP are claiming that immigrants are
being given grants of £50,000 to buy houses in the borough. The Independent
says "There are no such grants". So who is telling porkies? Any offers?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article358775.ece
Oh the BNP without hardly having to think about it.

The Rountree Foundation document which they seek to use to their
advantage agrees with the independent.

http://www.jrrt.org.uk/Far_Right_REPORT.pdf
page 8 is headed:

Case Study: The Big Lie
Africans for Essex

"It was once said that if you are going to tell a lie, tell a big lie.
This is certainly
the basis for BNP election campaigns in London and Eastern regions in
recent
years. In Barking and Dagenham the BNP peddled the story of a secret
'Africans
for Essex' scheme, whereby the ruling Labour Party were providing
Africans with
£50,000 grants to buy houses in the borough. This was, their
literature claimed,
a deliberate attempt to gerrymander in order to buy future council
victories

Note: Google doesn't accept uk.politics on your posting list.
 
M

Maria

Bill said:
In today's Independent Cahal Milmo writes "How the BNP is gaining ground in
Barking with a campaign of *lies and distortions*". If this is the case i
would urge anyone reading this to back up the charge given by this Milmo
character. The one statement i find particularly intriguing is the so called
"Africans for Essex" scam, where the BNP are claiming that immigrants are
being given grants of £50,000 to buy houses in the borough. The Independent
says "There are no such grants". So who is telling porkies? Any offers?

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article358775.ece
The BNP leaflet in Mel's link says nothing about grants - it does say
they will be 'allowed' up to 50% to buy homes, which is actually true.
You don't have to pay it back until you sell it or your circumstances
change.
Regarding housing assistance, Barking and Dagenham *does* actually have
schemes to enable people to buy houses - a shared ownership scheme and
an interest-free loan scheme. It says nothing on the web site that
particular ethnic groups are targeted under this scheme, but obviously
someone wouldn't be excluded if they were African either. Some
reasoning behind the grants is to make property in the area affordable
for key employees like teachers and health care workers, so some of
those will be black (or whatever) because people have been coming in
from other countries to fill these posts.

http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/6-living/housing/hs-low-cost-schemes.html

So there may be an honest and justifiable argument here somewhere if
you believe that foreigners should not be given assistance to buy
property in Britain - there are bound to be some white people trapped
in poor LA housing who see these people being given grants to buy
property while they are left to fester.
You do need to be approved and accepted by the Housing Options
registration people for either of these schemes - I don't know what
criteria they use.
The website states that the council no longer provide mortgages, but I
don't know when that changed (obviously they did once).

Combine that with the fact that there is (or was) a statutory
reponsibility to house asylum seekers, and you can perhaps see why
people are connecting those things.

The site which deals with home ownership applications is here

It has one slightly dodgy bit as far as I can see -

'Help ethnic groups who are disadvantaged in housing and employment, by
encouraging members of these groups to apply for jobs and homes.'

http://www.housingoptions.co.uk/ho2/ho2/eligible.asp

I don't know if Hackney ever had a programme called 'Africans for
Essex'.

Certainly the Independant is being a disingenuous when they say

'[...]claiming immigrants are being given grants of £50,000 to buy
houses in the borough. There are no such grants. '

They may not be 'grants' because a grant is not repayable, but they are
certainly cash incentives of up to £50,000 and they do not have to be
paid back until the property is sold.
 
M

Maria

Maria said:
The BNP leaflet in Mel's link says nothing about grants - it does say
they will be 'allowed' up to 50% to buy homes,
Sorry...typo - that should be up to £50,000, not 50%.
 
M

Mel Rowing

Maria said:
The BNP leaflet in Mel's link says nothing about grants - it does say
they will be 'allowed' up to 50% to buy homes, which is actually true.
You don't have to pay it back until you sell it or your circumstances
change.
Regarding housing assistance, Barking and Dagenham *does* actually have
schemes to enable people to buy houses - a shared ownership scheme and
an interest-free loan scheme. It says nothing on the web site that
particular ethnic groups are targeted under this scheme, but obviously
someone wouldn't be excluded if they were African either. Some
reasoning behind the grants is to make property in the area affordable
for key employees like teachers and health care workers, so some of
those will be black (or whatever) because people have been coming in
from other countries to fill these posts.

http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/6-living/housing/hs-low-cost-schemes.html
But Maria this entirely a different matter.

This is a government scheme administered by the council. There will be
hundreds of such schemes up and down the country.

It's a world away from the BNP suggestions carried by the Rowntree
Report that there is some scheme afloat for which only Africans are
eligible. Let me paste the criteria for eligibilty.

"Shared ownership is available to those who cannot afford to buy
outright on the open market.

Priority will be given to the following:

Council and Housing Association tenants who will move out of their
rented homes if they are successful in obtaining a shared ownership
home.
Local residents who are registered on the Council's Waiting List.
Key Workers who work in the Borough.
Applicants living with family and friends or privately renting in the
Borough."

The word 'African' doesn't appear on the document.

Of course Africans qualify if they are eligible. So do asians, chinese,
kosovians, poles and all the rest.

I would wager that the biggest group of beneficiaries are white
British.
So there may be an honest and justifiable argument here somewhere if
you believe that foreigners should not be given assistance to buy
property in Britain - there are bound to be some white people trapped
in poor LA housing who see these people being given grants to buy
property while they are left to fester.
No they are just as eligible as anyone else.
Combine that with the fact that there is (or was) a statutory
reponsibility to house asylum seekers, and you can perhaps see why
people are connecting those things.
If they are the people are wrong!

You cannot use that as an excuse for a responsible political party to
give a deliberately false impression. Bear in mind they are seeking
public mandate to partake in local government. On the basis of this
they are at best incompetent or at worst dishonest. Clearly I argue the
latter.

I would agree with you that people who perhaps have not had life as
easy as it could be can be persuaded that somehow others are benefiting
from that to which they should be due.

Nobody knows this better than the BNP who seek to exploit it. There's
nothing necessarily wrong with that in itself so long as truth
prevails. If truth is deliberately distorted which it has been here
then the exploitation extends to the victims of circimstance
themselves.
The site which deals with home ownership applications is here

It has one slightly dodgy bit as far as I can see -

'Help ethnic groups who are disadvantaged in housing and employment, by
encouraging members of these groups to apply for jobs and homes.'

http://www.housingoptions.co.uk/ho2/ho2/eligible.asp
This is part of the standard equal opportuniities clause.

It is required by law.
I don't know if Hackney ever had a programme called 'Africans for
Essex'.

Certainly the Independant is being a disingenuous when they say

'[...]claiming immigrants are being given grants of £50,000 to buy
houses in the borough. There are no such grants. '

They may not be 'grants' because a grant is not repayable, but they are
certainly cash incentives of up to £50,000 and they do not have to be
paid back until the property is sold.
But again this applies to absolutely everybody who enters one of these
schemes. The whole mechanism of these schemes centres around the
housing associaiton retaining a proportion of the equity in the
property bought.

Incidentally if you look you will note that the housing authority
retains a percentage of the equity. It is this percentage that must be
returned should the property be sold an not a fixed sum. I think you
will find also that the tenant commit themselves to a minimum period of
tenure.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Martin Davies

Maria said:
Sorry...typo - that should be up to £50,000, not 50%.
So sounds like someone is kicking up a fuss and making it look like
particular groups are being given help. Whereas in reality, it looks like
the help is being given to many groups, but not excluding certain ones.
Come to think of it, sounds rather like when housing association part-owns a
place - they get their share of the house paid for when the house is sold at
some later time. Usually with house prices going up, they make plenty of
money for little risk.


Martin <><
 
M

Maria

Mel said:
But Maria this entirely a different matter.
Not really - this is perhaps the scheme that the BNP has spun into this
article.
This is a government scheme administered by the council. There will be
hundreds of such schemes up and down the country.

It's a world away from the BNP suggestions carried by the Rowntree
Report that there is some scheme afloat for which only Africans are
eligible. Let me paste the criteria for eligibilty.

"Shared ownership is available to those who cannot afford to buy
outright on the open market.

Priority will be given to the following:

Council and Housing Association tenants who will move out of their
rented homes if they are successful in obtaining a shared ownership
home.
Local residents who are registered on the Council's Waiting List.
Key Workers who work in the Borough.
Applicants living with family and friends or privately renting in the
Borough."

The word 'African' doesn't appear on the document.
Indeed - which I already pointed out. But that it can and probably does
benefit immigrants is perhaps the problem since so many immigrants ar
filling these key workers jobs, and the administers of the scheme
saying that they actively encourage people from ethnic minorities to
apply for jobs and then for this scheme really doesn't help.

It is a valid point - why should the government (aka the taxpayer)
assist immigrants to purchase property when so many of the people who
are paying the taxes can't get the same help because they are not key
workers or cannot obtain a mortgage?
If this was simply a key-worker thing, then surely they could be given
subsidised rent - to give them a hand up onto the housing ladder which
has now become a mere dream for so many British first-time buyers while
using their tax money to subsiside the scheme really does seem quite
unfair.
Of course Africans qualify if they are eligible. So do asians, chinese,
kosovians, poles and all the rest.
Indeed.

I would wager that the biggest group of beneficiaries are white
British.
I wouldn't - I keep hearing from the pro-immigration camp that teaching
and the NHS would collapse were it not for them coming here and
propping up the service.
No they are just as eligible as anyone else.
They are not eligible if they are
1) not a key worker (shared ownership)
2) claim housing benefit or have claimed it within the previous 12
months. (Homebuy)
3) Unable to obtain a mortgage (Homebuy)

This is an area of long-term and hgh unemployment and low incomes -
many are probably reliant on loan sharks and heavily in debt. How
likely are they to ever qualify for such a scheme?

If they are the people are wrong!
Mel, if you use a little empathy, you will see why people are so
bitter. They may be 'wrong', but if their lives are hopeless, they see
'outsiders' getting something they can't, or getting it for less, or
getting it when they have never contributed to the system financially,
then they are not only likely to connect their poor situation with the
demographic changes of the area, but also are ripe pickings for any
nationalist party.
Even when I moved up here to sunny Northants, people saw us as 'London
overspill' and accused us of taking their jobs and houses, and this is
a relatively affluent area.
You cannot use that as an excuse for a responsible political party to
give a deliberately false impression.
Every pp uses information to give a false impression to one degree or
another - it's party propagand and it works because of the low interest
in politics in this country.
Bear in mind they are seeking
public mandate to partake in local government.
Indeed - a serious matter.
On the basis of this
they are at best incompetent or at worst dishonest. Clearly I argue the
latter.
I think they are simply spinning the situation to persuade people to
vote for them, but I don't (in this case) think they are blatantly
lying.
Make any statement and stick BNP above it and it is going to look like
panic-mongering lies. It isn't though. The council *does* give
taxpayers money to people to buy homes and that *does* include
immigrants. For me that would be sufficient (no I don't approve of the
scheme) but then I'm not looking to persuade people to vote for me when
large numbers of other people have been trying to brainwash them not
to!
I would agree with you that people who perhaps have not had life as
easy as it could be can be persuaded that somehow others are benefiting
from that to which they should be due.

Nobody knows this better than the BNP who seek to exploit it. There's
nothing necessarily wrong with that in itself so long as truth
prevails. If truth is deliberately distorted which it has been here
then the exploitation extends to the victims of circimstance
themselves.
I am totally against the truth being distorted in any way, but it has
become part and parcel of our political scenery now. I don't expect it
to change!
This is part of the standard equal opportuniities clause.

It is required by law.
Then it should not be allowed - it is discriminatory. *That* is the
kind of thing that people get up in arms about. I supported the notion
of equality of treatment for a long time, and still do, but I prefer a
level playing field, and I am against positive discrimination.
I don't know if Hackney ever had a programme called 'Africans for
Essex'.

Certainly the Independant is being a disingenuous when they say

'[...]claiming immigrants are being given grants of £50,000 to buy
houses in the borough. There are no such grants. '

They may not be 'grants' because a grant is not repayable, but they are
certainly cash incentives of up to £50,000 and they do not have to be
paid back until the property is sold.
But again this applies to absolutely everybody who enters one of these
schemes. The whole mechanism of these schemes centres around the
housing associaiton retaining a proportion of the equity in the
property bought.
I know...but I think you got the picture from what you said further
above.
Incidentally if you look you will note that the housing authority
retains a percentage of the equity. It is this percentage that must be
returned should the property be sold an not a fixed sum. I think you
will find also that the tenant commit themselves to a minimum period of
tenure.
Aye.
 
M

Maria

Martin said:
So sounds like someone is kicking up a fuss and making it look like
particular groups are being given help. Whereas in reality, it looks like
the help is being given to many groups, but not excluding certain ones.
The problem is that groups (aka poor white working-class council house
tenants with no job) are by excluded by default. They may be perfectly
reasonable reasons for excluding them, but if you are one of them, it's
going to feel very bad when you see a black teacher or nurse from
Africa walking in to a £50K handout so they can buy a house.
Come to think of it, sounds rather like when housing association part-owns a
place - they get their share of the house paid for when the house is soldat
some later time. Usually with house prices going up, they make plenty of
money for little risk.
It's academic really - the issue is that the council appears not to
give a toss about their poorer white tenants who have little or no hope
of bettering their situation, while ethnic minority tenants would be
actively encouraged to get onto the scheme. It looks like favouritism
because it is.
 
B

Bill Oreilly

Maria said:
The BNP leaflet in Mel's link says nothing about grants - it does say
they will be 'allowed' up to 50% to buy homes, which is actually true.
You don't have to pay it back until you sell it or your circumstances
change.
Regarding housing assistance, Barking and Dagenham *does* actually have
schemes to enable people to buy houses - a shared ownership scheme and
an interest-free loan scheme. It says nothing on the web site that
particular ethnic groups are targeted under this scheme, but obviously
someone wouldn't be excluded if they were African either. Some
reasoning behind the grants is to make property in the area affordable
for key employees like teachers and health care workers, so some of
those will be black (or whatever) because people have been coming in
from other countries to fill these posts.

http://www.barking-dagenham.gov.uk/6-living/housing/hs-low-cost-schemes.html
But Maria this entirely a different matter.

This is a government scheme administered by the council. There will be
hundreds of such schemes up and down the country.

It's a world away from the BNP suggestions carried by the Rowntree
Report that there is some scheme afloat for which only Africans are
eligible. Let me paste the criteria for eligibilty.

"Shared ownership is available to those who cannot afford to buy
outright on the open market.

Priority will be given to the following:

Council and Housing Association tenants who will move out of their
rented homes if they are successful in obtaining a shared ownership
home. Local residents who are registered on the Council's Waiting
List.......................

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

The problem stems from overcrowding, greedy landowners and Labours reckless
immigration policies. Combine all three and you have a severe housing
shortage. No sensible person can deny Britain is grossly over populated (4th
in the world) therefore who decides housing allocation and under which
criteria?

What the BNP are arguing (and rightly so imo), is that both genuine & bogus
refugees are given housing preference over the indigenous population, who
have been on the waiting list for years. This is not fair. Why should the
scrounging refugee be given priority housing over the local tax payers? As a
consequence, this positive discrimination ultimately breeds hatred and
resentment, leaving the goal wide open for the BNP to exploit.
 
M

MikeinCamden

Housing associations run ethnics only schemes but no whites only
schemes. A clear example of the way things are rigged without excluding
whites completely. That comes later..... The way it's done is to define
blacks as having 'special needs'.

The papers exposed this a couple of years ago.
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mel Rowing

Maria said:
Not really - this is perhaps the scheme that the BNP has spun into this
article.
No! This is not spin.

Spin occurs when the most attractive or the least unattractive
interpretation is put upon a non contentious fact. The bottle is half
full is a positive spin on the non contentious fact that half its
contents have been consumed.

What you have here is the blatant corruption of the underlying fact.

In other words a lie.

Indeed - which I already pointed out. But that it can and probably does
benefit immigrants is perhaps the problem since so many immigrants ar
filling these key workers jobs, and the administers of the scheme
saying that they actively encourage people from ethnic minorities to
apply for jobs and then for this scheme really doesn't help.
And these same jobs are open to anyone who cares holds the appropriate
qualifications.
It is a valid point - why should the government (aka the taxpayer)
assist immigrants to purchase property when so many of the people who
are paying the taxes can't get the same help because they are not key
workers or cannot obtain a mortgage?
Key workers are just one group that enjoys priority.
I wouldn't - I keep hearing from the pro-immigration camp that teaching
and the NHS would collapse were it not for them coming here and
propping up the service.
It might or it might not but housing costs must be a necessary
consideration of any worker thinking of taking up employment in any
area. It would not take too much of a shortage of any particular type
of worker before the service for which they work came under strain.

They are not eligible if they are
1) not a key worker (shared ownership)
2) claim housing benefit or have claimed it within the previous 12
months. (Homebuy)
3) Unable to obtain a mortgage (Homebuy)
They are not eligible in any case at all if they haven't the cash
regardless of race, colour, creed, etc. etc.
This is an area of long-term and hgh unemployment and low incomes -
many are probably reliant on loan sharks and heavily in debt. How
likely are they to ever qualify for such a scheme?
They can't. Such a scheme would be totally inappropriate for them
regardless of race, colour, creed, etc. etc.

Mel, if you use a little empathy, you will see why people are so
bitter. They may be 'wrong', but if their lives are hopeless, they see
'outsiders' getting something they can't, or getting it for less, or
getting it when they have never contributed to the system financially,
then they are not only likely to connect their poor situation with the
demographic changes of the area, but also are ripe pickings for any
nationalist party.
Even when I moved up here to sunny Northants, people saw us as 'London
overspill' and accused us of taking their jobs and houses, and this is
a relatively affluent area.
We cannot base social policy on the perceptions of those who have 'the
wrong end of the stick'. If it is the case, that people beleive wrongly
that immigrants receive considerations solely on the basis that they
are immigrants or from ethnic minorities then it is incumbant upon
responsible politicians and parties to address this misinformation.

It is simply malicious to reinforce these misimpressions and more
malicious still to develop and build upon baseless predudice.
Every pp uses information to give a false impression to one degree or
another - it's party propaganda and it works because of the low interest
in politics in this country.
Every party presents itself in the best possible light. Every party
spins in the appropriate direction as we have just discussed. Blatant
and deliberate lying is rare but when and where it happens does not go
unpunished by the electorate particularly in relation to the mass
parties which have a considerable voter base.

I think they are simply spinning the situation to persuade people to
vote for them, but I don't (in this case) think they are blatantly
lying.
I fail to see how anyone under these circumstances can see that.
Make any statement and stick BNP above it and it is going to look like
panic-mongering lies.
The wages of past sin perhaps.
It isn't though. The council *does* give
taxpayers money to people to buy homes and that *does* include
immigrants.
The council doesn't give anybody a brass farthing. The scheme allows
one to buy part of one's home and rent the other part just as they
would rent the whole of their council property.
For me that would be sufficient (no I don't approve of the
scheme) but then I'm not looking to persuade people to vote for me when
large numbers of other people have been trying to brainwash them not
to!
Whather you approve or not you cannot show it to be discrimatory.
Then it should not be allowed - it is discriminatory. *That* is the
kind of thing that people get up in arms about. I supported the notion
of equality of treatment for a long time, and still do, but I prefer a
level playing field, and I am against positive discrimination.
In itself, its neither discrimitory or the converse. It's simply a
statement making clear that no eligible person will be excluded from
the scheme on the grounds stated. If they were then the scheme would be
unlawful.
..
 
G

Greg Preston

What the BNP are arguing (and rightly so imo), is that both genuine &
bogus refugees are given housing preference over the indigenous
population, who have been on the waiting list for years. This is not fair.
Why should the scrounging refugee be given priority housing over the local
tax payers? As a consequence, this positive discrimination ultimately
breeds hatred and resentment, leaving the goal wide open for the BNP to
exploit.
In our local paper a short while back they ran a story about two young
families who could not be provided with council houses because the council
said they had none available. So these folks went looking and in one hour
they found more than twenty perfectly servicable houses that were
unoccupied. They went back to the council and reported their findings and
also contacted the media. Anyway cutting to the chase it turned out that HMG
had told the councils to set aside a certain number of empty houses for the
sole use of asylum seeker and refugee families.

After the publicity of this plain bias towards foreign nationals ahead of
the indiginous people the govt told the council to release some of these
houses for use.
 
M

Mel Rowing

Bill said:
What the BNP are arguing (and rightly so imo), is that both genuine & bogus
refugees are given housing preference over the indigenous population, who
have been on the waiting list for years.
The BNP are arguing nothing they are lying. Evidence of that lying is
contained in the very document they present (falsely) as evidence of
increased antional support.

There simply is not and never has been any Africans for Essex scheme.
 
M

Mel Rowing

Housing associations run ethnics only schemes but no whites only
schemes. A clear example of the way things are rigged without excluding
whites completely. That comes later..... The way it's done is to define
blacks as having 'special needs'.
Discrimination (either way) in the field of housing on racial grounds
is unlawful under the Race Discrimination Act.
The papers exposed this a couple of years ago.
Then you should have no trouble in providing chapter and verse.
 
B

Bill Oreilly

Greg Preston said:
In our local paper a short while back they ran a story about two young
families who could not be provided with council houses because the council
said they had none available. So these folks went looking and in one hour
they found more than twenty perfectly servicable houses that were
unoccupied. They went back to the council and reported their findings and
also contacted the media. Anyway cutting to the chase it turned out that
HMG had told the councils to set aside a certain number of empty houses
for the sole use of asylum seeker and refugee families.

After the publicity of this plain bias towards foreign nationals ahead of
the indiginous people the govt told the council to release some of these
houses for use.
There is no doubt Councils are given instructions (from Westminster) to
prioritise refugee housing for two reasons. The first reason is that
refugees are (wrongly imo) categorised as a 'vulnerable' group and therefore
automatically prioritised and secondly Blair relies on the immigrant vote to
remain in power. Only now, when overcrowding is a major issue, is this
subject brought out into the open by the likes of the BNP, UKIP & Migration
Watch. I can remember the days circa (1997-2004) when such discussions were
dismissed by the liberal elite as racist. Thankfully those days are long
gone, and labours lies & treachery are now coming home to roost.

The serious consequences relating to an overcrowded Britain cannot be over
stated. Overcrowding puts pressure not just on housing but on essential
services and jobs, not to mention the social consequences highlighted below.

This is what the homeless charity Shelter have to say.

FULL HOUSE
http://england.shelter.org.uk/howtohelp/howtohelp-4482.cfm?r=gaw

"A shocking new research for Shelter's million children campaign shows the
extent to which overcrowding is wrecking children's lives. The report
reveals that the health, education, and future chances of one in 10 children
in England are being blighted by cramped living conditions, where children
are sleeping with their parent or parents, frequently one or two children in
the same room and sometimes sharing the same bed children are having to
sleep in living rooms or hallways, teenagers of different sexes are forced
to share bedrooms, sometimes for years".

"Depression, stress, and harm to children's health were all cited as common
effects of overcrowding, as well as a lack of space to do homework and not
being able to have friends over. Shelter is calling on the Government to
build more affordable, family-sized homes. We need 60,000 more social rented
homes between 2008 and 2011 as a significant step towards ending this
crisis".
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mel Rowing

Greg said:
In our local paper a short while back they ran a story about two young
families who could not be provided with council houses because the council
said they had none available. So these folks went looking and in one hour
they found more than twenty perfectly servicable houses that were
unoccupied. They went back to the council and reported their findings and
also contacted the media. Anyway cutting to the chase it turned out that HMG
had told the councils to set aside a certain number of empty houses for the
sole use of asylum seeker and refugee families.
Asylum seekers are not eligible for council housing.

I paste the appropriate passages from the City of Westminster website.

http://tinyurl.com/o33y3

We will house you if all the following apply:

You are homeless
You are eligible for assistance based on your immigration status
You have a priority need for housing
You have not become homeless intentionally
You have a local connection with Westminster or you have no local
connection with any council in this country

These are legal terms. We explain what they mean below. Please remember
that we will only house you if all five apply to you.

You are homeless
By law, you are homeless if you do not have a home here or abroad in
which you have a right to live. You are also homeless, if you have a
home but it is not reasonable for you to continue living in it.

You are eligible for assistance
Being eligible for assistance means you are entitled to help with
housing from a local authority, if you need it. Although most UK
residents are entitled to such help, some people from abroad are not.
You might not be eligible if any of the following apply.

You are a visitor to this country
You are a student from another country or a sponsored immigrant
You are an illegal immigrant
You are seeking asylum
You claimed asylum but the Home Office refused to give you asylum
You are not habitually resident in the UK or Ireland
The Home Secretary has said you no longer have a right to stay in the
UK

Refugees/Asylum seekers are from time to time dispersed to various
regions. When this happens the appropriate local authority takes
responsibility as an agent of the government in housing these.

They are not allowed to use social housing stock for this purpose even
if it is available.

Provision is made in these cases through the renting of private
housing. The government picks up the tab.

This doesn't mean the highest possible standard of housing available.
It doesn't mean that unmarried persons of the same sex will not be
required to share accomodation on the basis of one per bedroom
available.
 
B

Bill Oreilly

Mel Rowing said:
Asylum seekers are not eligible for council housing.

I paste the appropriate passages from the City of Westminster website.

http://tinyurl.com/o33y3

We will house you if all the following apply:

You are homeless
You are eligible for assistance based on your immigration status
You have a priority need for housing
You have not become homeless intentionally
You have a local connection with Westminster or you have no local
connection with any council in this country

These are legal terms. We explain what they mean below. Please remember
that we will only house you if all five apply to you.
This is blatantly untrue Mel. Despite the official BS provided, an
individual is not automatically housed if considered homeless. Only those
considered 'vulnerable' will be offered housing . If you are not considered
'vulnerable' you are on your own and/or given a phone number to the local
doss house/hostel.

The Council considers those 'vulnerable' to be (a) disabled (b) infirm (c)
elderly (d) refugee (e) pregnant. If you are a pregnant, disabled refugee
with a larger than average family you have hit the social jackpot. These
scroungers can expect to be housed in million pound mansions, given all the
creature comforts and a work placement to boot. The BNP is the official word
on the street of the average working classes. They are not lying Mel, they
are merely telling it how it is. Bleak.
 
M

MikeinCamden

What the BNP are arguing (and rightly so imo), is that both genuine &
bogus refugees are given housing preference over the indigenous
population, who have been on the waiting list for years. This is not fair.
Why should the scrounging refugee be given priority housing over the local
tax payers? As a consequence, this positive discrimination ultimately
breeds hatred and resentment, leaving the goal wide open for the BNP to
exploit. >
Which idiot wrote that?

Labour wants immigrants since it calculates they will support Labour.

The argument used to discriminate against white Britons is simple and
four-step.

1. Everyone whether British or not is equal

2. Immigrants by definition have no housing and are homeless, while it
is said that white Britons are not generally homeless even if they are
camping with mum.

3. The homeless receive priority.

4. Thus immigrants get priority.

Any fooools not got how the system works yet?
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

Mel Rowing

Bill said:
This is blatantly untrue Mel. Despite the official BS provided, an
individual is not automatically housed if considered homeless.
See above
Only those
considered 'vulnerable' will be offered housing . If you are not considered
'vulnerable' you are on your own and/or given a phone number to the local
doss house/hostel.

The Council considers those 'vulnerable' to be (a) disabled (b) infirm (c)
elderly (d) refugee (e) pregnant.
Chapter and verse please!

If you are a pregnant, disabled refugee
with a larger than average family you have hit the social jackpot. These
scroungers can expect to be housed in million pound mansions, given all the
creature comforts and a work placement to boot.
Just rubbish! Councils don't have "million pound mansions" and they
have no responsibility to help job placement. That is the role of the
Employment (government)Agency.
The BNP is the official word on the street of the average working classes.
I'm afraid that you are pursuing the old adage that if you lie often
enough and loud enough some will come to believe you. You are probably
right in respect of those who want to believe and/or the truth is
secondary in any case.

However, a lie remains a lie whether it is believed or not.

I remind you that we began this discussion with the big BNP lie
"Africans for Essex"
You haven't cleared that one out of the way yet.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top