Social housing and Syrian Refugees

[Plentymoresharks]

Controversial one. A memo has gone out from the local council to local residents, asking whether anyone has a property they can offer for Syrian refugees, housing benefit will be paid as well as a premium and money to hold the property until it is occupied, money for decorating and repairing the property etc.

Aibu to find it ridiculous that basically the council will be housing refugees who have been flown around the world ahead of people already on the waiting list for social housing? Also, there are homeless people who I see every day, living in the park and under a car park bridge but they aren't getting this same help (the memo mentions the social and medical help the refugees will also be given).

Hi everyone - we're sorry to be a late with this one.

We just wanted to drop in and say please be nice to each other. We'd rather not zap the thread, especially if there can be an interesting debate surrounding this issue.

We've had quite a few reports about the thread, from a few different parties, so we'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone of the Talk Guidelines.

Thanks all.

Another poster who wishes to express a disgust and embarassment at the OP and those posting in support of nasty, 'we're okay', xenophobia positions that are founded in utter ignorance and inhumanity.

It is one of the hardest issues of our time. 1m refugees have come to Europe in 2015. There could easily be 5x that number in due course. We need to decide whom we can help and what as a nation we want to do. There are no easy answers but I certainly believe Cameron as ever has taken the right stance - in not taking those who have broken the law to sneak in but instead taken those in need from the camps out in Turkey or Syria as that sends out a message that the UK rule of law prevails.

The way I see it is this. The cost of relocating refugees from Syria/Turkey to London is very high (plane transport round the world, high rents paid in London etc). For that cost you could help a lot more refugees in Syria/Turkey, and/or you could help a lot more homeless in London already.

There isn't limitless housing or funds to help people (unless some of the ultra philanthropic people on this thread are going to live a very basic life and give their excess cash to charity ).

I don't think helping refugees in this way is very sensible or an efficient use of cash, I'd rather help a lot more people than a very few and I do believe there are many people in this country who need help. I don't think the UK is able to take in all the poor souls around the world who need refuge.

Ok firstly I haven't read the whole thread.
I have been on the council waiting list since we left exh. We were living with my parents sharing a small room with two children but not considered homeless. We ended up in horrible temporary rent. And I mean horrid. Horrendous damp, rain water coming in and running down the wall into the electric socket causing an electrical fire.

Currently in a one bed house with two teens. All we could afford. I sleep on a recliner chair in the living room. The kids have bunk beds.

BUT

I remember when a lot of Kosovans arrived a man near us on one of the roughest local estates crying because he could let his daughter play outside.

We would give up everything for a two bed house in council or to be able to afford a two bed private let and I work.

BUT
I have not been bombed
I have not been tortured, raped or had my family taken/killed or shot.

Could someone not at least change the title? It isn't even factually correct.

Can't be bothered arguing with the closed minds. This thread makes me think that maybe Mumsnet isn't the sort of community I want to be part of any more.

Oh and in our area they are using a budget hotel to house refuges instead of council housing and 2000 people in the village have set up petitions to get them moved so they cannot win really.

From UNHCR Refugees Daily:
This year the World Food Programme cut rations to 1.6 million Syrian refugees. The most vulnerable living in Lebanon now only have $13 to spend on food each month, a figure that the WFP warned would leave refugees vulnerable to recruitment by extremist groups.
And this pattern has been repeated around the world. Since the beginning of the year, the WFP has twice cut food rations for refugees in the Daadab and Kakuma camps in northern Kenya, as well as for Sudanese refugees in Uganda.
Dina El-Kassaby, a spokeswoman for the WFP based in Cairo, said the cut in rations was pushing refugees into making dangerous decisions, including returning to Syria or travelling irregularly to Europe.

See also 2015 UNHCR country operations profile - Jordan:
Financial information
The financial requirements for UNHCR's Jordan operation have increased dramatically, from USD 62.8 million in 2010 to a revised 2014 budget of USD 352.9 million, due to the needs arising from the Syria emergency.
The overall budget for Jordan in 2015 is set at USD 404.4 million, with the largest portion devoted to the emergency response for Syrian refugees. A shortfall in funding would require the reduction of core activities for refugees with critical needs, both in camp and urban settings, such as health, CRIs, cash assistance, and protection including services for women and children.

The UNHCR would be delighted if we gave more money to look after refugees closer to home. Although camps can still only be a short-term solution; ideally peace would be established and people would be able to go home. It doesn't look like happening soon in Syria or Daesh-contested territory.

For those asking about Saudi Arabia, that same 2015 UNHCR report states:
"The Office will continue to engage various entities, including Gulf donors, in funding the UN response, and cooperate with private-sector donors."

Can't scroll up, but I think someone above had actual figures for this.

MrsDv is correct.

Also, I work in MH in a large city but not London. There are numerous complex issues that lead to most people being literally street homeless. Lack of social housing usually isn't one.

For some it's active addiction but then there are some 'wet houses/hostels' for people in current alcohol addiction. There are some hostels available for heroin and crack users but as you can imagine, a lot of people would rather take their chances on the street. Crime and abuse are rife in these places.

If you have a history of violence (particularly to medical/housing staff) then many places won't take you.

If you have a history of arson you're pretty buggered as no accommodations insurance policies will risk it.

Refugees aren't taking properties that could be taken by homeless people. It's really not that simple.

We've been here before - the same arguments were used against Jewish refugees from nazi Germany www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/jun/08/immigration.immigrationandpublicservices

These are extra ordinary circumstances. As human beings we have a moral duty to respond.

Many of us are rather split on the issue. If there were some way they could help voluntarily (I know they are not allowed jobs until aslyum claims go through) with the local community and perhaps be helped to understand our equality rules for men and women and homosexuals and learn English and how to fit in and be good citizens that would certainly help. I am very pro immigration but concerned about taking in large numbers of young men who have few qualifications many of whom are just economic migrants.

I did find the statistics for women who are homeless due to domestic abuse but i cant find the article now.

Weather what you posted comes across as victim blaming.

I don't think the UK is able to take in all the poor souls around the world who need refuge.

Do you think the UK is within any neighbourhood of taking in all poor souls across the world?

I haven't had a chance to read the whole thread but had to post as someone who has worked with resettled refugees. The vast majority of refugees resettled in the UK are housed in private rented accommodation. They are entitled to benefits as residents of the UK. This includes housing benefit until they are able to find work. Very very few live in council houses as housing needs to be found quickly when people arrive and there are very few council properties available.

I'm still stuck at incredulous that this was triggered by space being offered to 50 refugees in Kingston upon Thames. Couldn't be more affluent. Certainly not teaming London. Huge number of private landlords not least because of the university. Average house price? £500k.

Many many reasons to be sickened by some of the comments here, but the opening post is just laughable.

I reported this thread earlier today as the title is incorrect but so far MNHQ haven't changed it

I was approached about this by an acquaintance who works for a major charity and is - I think - working in conjunction with the authorities, but our flats are tenanted currently so I had to decline. If circumstances were different I'd probably have said yes, but I'm ok with housing benefit clients in general anyway (it's our usual letting agent who isn't).

Thank you to mrs d and the others who have posted stuff that has helped me understand stuff better.

budgets for supporting homeless people in LA areas and those for supporting refugees are separate - so one is not damaging the other

it's not money we have a shortage of. it's housing. we already have a housing crisis in London. Where will everyone live.

I am all for a national effort to build homes, especially in London. But until that happens, I am curious as to where everyone will live.

Birmingham has plenty of social housing for those in need, hardly a ghetto and considerably cheaper for these poor souls to live in I would imagine. I doubt they'll be given a choice but I'd rather live anywhere but London if I was on a fixed income, feel quite sorry for them