Grenfell ex-residents should get a 3-bed house with a garden if that's what they want

[pingodolcepo]

Daily mail outrage that some of the residents are asking for a 3-bed house with a garden. But honestly, they have been through a living hell that was caused by someone else's very bad choices.

There are plenty of people in London that have a 3 bed council house, why can't these people that have dealt with horrors get one also?

I know someone that got a council house in Highgate in the 80s, was a cabbie with a good wage, bought it when offered and sold it a few years ago for over a million and now lives in a fab place with loads of land and a pool in the south of France. If plenty of normal people got houses why can't these poor residents get one? They won't ever be able to afford to buy it due to the high cost of london houses now.

Chakra your beef seems to be with immigration policy.

Once people are resident in Britain they all have to have equality of access to services. You can't discriminate by nationality.

Once people are resident in Britain they all have to have equality of access to services. You can't discriminate by nationality.

Other countries do - Switzerland, for example.

I had to help my neighbour with his Somali tenants - they had 7 children - some grown up but none working - so needed a large flat. When the govt capped housing benefit, he simply refused to pay the balance. Then when my neighbour had to take him to court, he asked to be let off the balance so that the council would rehouse him, as he "couldn't possibly leave zone 1". He also tried to tell me that his wife was too emotional because women can't deal with serious matters.

The entitlement was astounding and he and his family cost the tax payer an absolute fortune every month. He genuinely believed he was entitled to a free house for all 9 of his family in zone 1.

There has to be a happy medium between like him people taking the piss and those in genuine need, but how do you identify them?

Why on earth should Britain build on its greenbelt land to accommodate the flow of immigration? Isn't that a bit strange? Can you think of one other country that would do such a thing?

• people like him

We have a lot of problems with Somalians in our neighbourhood (zone 2). Few are brave enough to talk about it, but the problem is there.

There's a 1960s-built tower block near Grenfell which has always been privately owned right from the start. People have mortgages and are earning well enough to pay a substantial Service Charge, but when the installation of sprinklers was discussed at a res meeting, the cost was prohibitive even for these well-heeled residents, so it hasn't been done.

There is no reason for the Grenfell people to berate the council for not doing a retrofit. The only difference between the Grenfell tower and this private one, is that Grenfell was 'padded' with material that was not fire-retardant and that is what RBK&C should legally answer for and pay death damages in respect of family member(s) who perished.

I reckon this thread will be pulled soon.
As soon as immigration/race is discussed, it will be reported and pulled.
A shame, as it does need to be discussed.

"Once people are resident in Britain they all have to have equality of access to services. You can't discriminate by nationality."

Battleax - This country is giving preferential treatment to newcomers, way ahead of those who hv been on a waiting list for quite a long time. This means that, those arriving with 3 or more children will always automatically be ahead of most others. My point is - accommodation should be provided, but not from stock for Brits waiting for a social housing home. Instead they are being pushed towards the private landlord in favour of newcomers getting purpose-built flats & houses.

It is this govt and previous ones who have chosen not to exercise discretion which EU law allows every member state.

I reckon this thread will be pulled soon.
As soon as immigration/race is discussed, it will be reported and pulled.
A shame, as it does need to be discussed.

It rather depends on the tenor of the discussion.

I quoted in a previous post, and I ask that you digest this ....... 25 years and just for newcomers. It's from MigrationWatch.

Housing. A new home will need to be built every five minutes over the next 25 years just to house future migrants and their families.

"Population. The UK population is projected to increase by around 500,000 annually - equivalent to a new city the size of Liverpool every year. 75% of this growth is due to future migration."

It is unsustainable. All our political parties are chasing the vote, no one wants to get off this juggernaut for fear of being branded all sorts.

Battleax - This country is giving preferential treatment to newcomers, way ahead of those who hv been on a waiting list for quite a long time.

No that's not what happens (although I understand it might feel like that when you're stressed and waiting).

What happens is that those in urgent housing need, including those that are actually homeless get additional priority.

Recent immigrants are more likely to be actually homeless than long term Brits and any homeless family will get high priority. "The waiting list" is not a one-speed queuing system. All the LAs operate points and/or banding systems to prioritise those in greatest need.

Battleax - This country is giving preferential treatment to newcomers, way ahead of those who hv been on a waiting list for quite a long time.

Can newly-arrived non-EU immigrants (not asylum seekers) join the housing register and gain access to the same services as British citizens?

Isn't the point of immigration checks to establish a candidate's ability to provide for themselves in the UK?

It's a Catch 22, Battleax.
If you arrive here or in Europe you are homeless. That's it, you qualify. You are prioritised, or whatever you care to call it. My point is by all means provide shelter/food/treatment, etc, but not from housing stock.

But people are not in urgent need if they are turning down properties because they are not everything they want, are they?
I agree with a pp who said that, increasingly Zone 1 is just occupied by the very rich and SH tenants - nothing in between.
Obviously, SH tenants need to access jobs in the city, but, given the fact that their rent will be a lot lower than private rented homes, their disposable income may not in fact be any lower than better-paid workers living further out and having to pay higher rent and travel costs.
I think there is sometimes a tendency to virtue signal our compassion for the 'vulnerable' when there may be equally vulnerable and ignored groups nearby.

There is definitely an issue with somalians not finding work.

www.economist.com/news/britain/21583710-somalis-fare-much-worse-other-immigrants-what-holds-them-back-road-long

The councils and HAs aren't "virtue signalling" there was precedent and case law built up in the 90s and 00s re "community support" and so on.

So if, say, a Somalian family heads straight for Kensington on arrival in the UK, because that's where their friends or family are, that's where they settle, and where they apply for housing once they are granted Asylum. It's the courts who have upheld the rights of prospective tenants to be housed near their support networks.

Isn't the point of immigration checks to establish a candidate's ability to provide for themselves in the UK?

The rules differ between applications for residency through the normal channels and those claiming to be refugees/asylum seekers

Which is doubtless why so many claim to be the latter

I can't see that Rebecca (paywall).

Somalians have long been identified by research as doing particularly badly in terms of striking out and leaving welfare dependency behind, but that's partly due to family size and partly due to highly traditional gender roles. Also an epidemic of khat addiction. It will be difficult to discuss sensibly here.

Regarding asylum seekers, we are signed up to International Treaties (we helped author the things).

BTW, the last Somalian I met x-rayed my broken ankle.

BTW, the last Somalian I met x-rayed my broken ankle.

Yes it's uncomfortable to discuss community-wide statistics if that will then cause stereotyping.

And the last 9 Somalians I met didn't work. At all. And had no intention of it. It's by no means all Somali immigrants. But as a group they do seem to struggle more than immigrants from other countries.

I completely agree that the problem seems to be that the girls are held back in some families. You find a country where the women are treated as lesser, and you'll find a country where it's not a particularly nice place to live!

Damn you guys really dislike brown people don't you.

I think it’s important that there should be a mixture of socio-economic classes within Zones 1 and 2 of London. But social /subsidised housing in those zones should go only to those who are in work. Those that have not worked (for whatever reason) for XX years (let’s say 8 yrs) should be asked to vacate and move to outer London or a county of their choice. (The only exemption would be the disabled).

I grew up in Zone 1 with my parents, living in private rented accommodation – not the standard of today, but rather the shared kitchen/shared bathroom type of arrangement. We then moved to Zone 2, to RBK&C actually, which was no hardship and the Tube and buses were just around the corner. My junior school in Zone 1 was a very mixed bag of children – from the obviously very poor families living in overcrowded conditions, to the very wealthy kids living in their white stucco houses. I don’t know whether at that age we gained anything from being in this mixed socio-economic bag, except to say I too feel it important that London is not reserved for the wealthy.

Having said that though, kids then were quite different to kids now. No one was ever bullied for their clothes or having shoes that had seen better days; neither did children show off owning an item that others did not have. Nevertheless, people need to be able to access their jobs easily and if work is in Zones 1 and 2 then, if they are eligible in terms of low income for social housing, then it is only fair they should be assisted as much as possible.

Are you suggesting we pull out of the International Treaties covering asylum seekers?