£1600 pw housing benefit!

[Osem]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/feedarticle/8832984

[AHN-David]

This really annoys me. I was unemployed because my boss had to drop my wages so I left as i would a have been better of on benefits.

I am only 19 and live in my own house so £5 an hour is not use to me and I end up with £30 after paying rent ETC.

When I left my job and applied for Job seekers & Housing benefit I was refused because I left my job at my own accord.

For the past month I have had 0 money from DWP or housing benefit and finding it hard to survive!

People wonder why we are racist against them.

why don't they help people who really need it.

[Woolly One]

She and husband Bashir Eden - both said to be unemployed - fled Somalia in 1991 and have been rehoused by Westminster Council after losing their previous home.

Nasra said: "It is quiet and convenient and we do not want to leave. It is better than the house we were in before. It was quite small and we were getting complaints from neighbours that the children were being too noisy."

So they were kicked out for being too noisy!?! It appears that Westminster Council were therefore obliged to rehouse them in the first 'suitable' property that came along.

On the plus side Westminster Council don't appear to like it either -

Local authorities claim from the Government the money they have to pay to rehouse people, and Westminster Council said it wants the system changed.

From - The Sun

Nasra and her family may have to move again.

The property is in the hands of receivers who claim it should not have been rented out.

So they may have their cake, but not be in there long enough to eat it!

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Woolly One

So they may have their cake, but not be in there long enough to eat it!

But there will be somebody working on their behalf to get them somewhere else equally as expensive and have enough capacity so that they don't have to keep bumping into each other.

then we'll look after our own homeless and over crowded problems.

[rogerdraig]

big issue here is more why we havnt got the council housing to house people

though i dont see a problem of putting them in a hostel instead that still costs more than if we had the council housing stock to do it with out using private landlords

[Russ]

I really don't see why it's mentioned that they 'fled somalia' when there are often stories of Nick Griffin's "indigenous Britons" doing exactly the same.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Russ

I really don't see why it's mentioned that they 'fled somalia'

Just so the reader knows the reason why and when they came over here.

Originally Posted by rogermevans

big issue here is more why we havnt got the council housing to house people

though i dont see a problem of putting them in a hostel instead that still costs more than if we had the council housing stock to do it with out using private landlords

The reason why we haven't got the housing stock is because of gross mis-management of the funds available from central gov.I think it was back in 1998 or there abouts that the gov announced a pledge to bring all social housing upto a "decent homes" standard by 2010 (it was a election manifesto promise)but what ended up happening in a lot of areas is mass demolition and only a small percentage getting included in the decent homes scheme

---------- Post added at 15:42 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Russ

I really don't see why it's mentioned that they 'fled somalia' when there are often stories of Nick Griffin's "indigenous Britons" doing exactly the same.

As garyl said we need to know why they are here ,and from what i can gather about somalia it can be a pretty nasty place

Also i would wonder how many more cases there are like this

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Russ

I really don't see why it's mentioned that they 'fled somalia' when there are often stories of Nick Griffin's "indigenous Britons" doing exactly the same.

Perhaps they didn't want this family being tarred with that particular brush...

Anyway my main concern here is not the origin of the family, it's the huge sum involved. I guess the number of children is the primary determining factor but that opens up a whole new debate - at what point (if any) should the state determine that personal choices (e.g. having 8 children) can no longer directly/indirectly determine the level of entitlement to benefits?

It can't, because the children didn't ask to be born into a reckless household. You can't watch them starve or become homeless, it's hardly their fault.

[Osem]

Well it's clearly a very difficult issue and I certainly agree that the children aren't at fault and ought to be properly looked after whatever else happens. However, does that necessarily mean providing benefits the amount of which increases according to their number?

I believe the housing benefit figure quoted above is the maximum payable under the current 'system' so what happens to the children if their parents decide to carry on issuing forth and run out of room all over again? Surely, sooner or later the state would be forced to intervene and take the children away as happened in the case of the woman who had 13 children taken into care.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/59...ant-again.html

I know these are extreme cases but in such circumstances is there ever an argument for the state taking action to prevent such people having more children in the first place?

Originally Posted by Osem

Well it's clearly a very difficult issue and I certainly agree that the children aren't at fault and ought to be properly looked after whatever else happens. However, does that necessarily mean providing benefits the amount of which increases according to their number?

I believe the housing benefit figure quoted above is the maximum payable under the current 'system' so what happens to the children if their parents decide to carry on issuing forth and run out of room all over again? Surely, sooner or later the state would be forced to intervene and take the children away as happened in the case of the woman who had 13 children taken into care.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/family/59...ant-again.html

I know these are extreme cases but in such circumstances is there ever an argument for the state taking action to prevent such people having more children in the first place?

maybe we should stop being so sensitive with them and explain that we as a country are doing them a favour letting them stay here so please stop having kids and respect the fact that we are giving you free money and a free house neither of which you had back home

[Osem]

Originally Posted by martyh

maybe we should stop being so sensitive with them and explain that we as a country are doing them a favour letting them stay here so please stop having kids and respect the fact that we are giving you free money and a free house neither of which you had back home

That wouldn't alter the actions of all those who, like the mother of 13 cited above, aren't asylum seekers and continue to act in a thoroughly irresponsible manner at the taxpayers's expense.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by martyh

maybe we should stop being so sensitive with them and explain that we as a country are doing them a favour letting them stay here so please stop having kids and respect the fact that we are giving you free money and a free house neither of which you had back home

That's straight to the point. we could vet them and if we get the feeling that they're taking the pee then we impose sanctions.

like they lose any benefit for a set period of time.

[soicky]

Originally Posted by Gary L

That's straight to the point. we could vet them and if we get the feeling that they're taking the pee then we impose sanctions.

like they lose any benefit for a set period of time.

It doesn't worry you that the children will suffer?