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.

Why are people thinking that the residents of Grenfall (some of which shouldn't have been there) are now a special case and trump all the other people on the K@C waiting list.

There were certainly some people who were sub letting. Following this thought. Are we saying that those people will now be given anything they like?

Really? For those who are saying we should give them anything they want. WHY?

Flowerpot1234 information about Grenfell is readily available. This is just a forum so I'm not going to do what you have demanded. Just read about it if you want. I was giving my opinion (Imo means in my opinion) which I thought was allowed on here? Apologies if not.
Also I'm relatively young and haven't seen many fires the scale of Grenfell. I have however had my fair share of personal tragedy and know what it's like to have no one help you or even sneer at you because of what you've been through.
I'm not saying they should get whatever they want. But I do think they should be housed appropriately and I don't think it's absurd to think that they may be suffering psychological trauma.

It's quite simple really. All council/HA property should be tenanted only to British-born people in need of it.

In any other situation, to give precedence to others would be seen as not only unfair but abnormal.

it would be abnormal. Very very few places give priority to native born over other citizens (the very definition of second class citizens).

The problem isn't priority for social housing. it's social housing itself. I understand why people want social housing, as private housing is outrageously expensive, but social housing isn't the answer. The whole housing market is broken. Social housing "solves" (but creates a whole host of other problems, including exacerbating housing problems for those that don't have social housing) for a small percentage of people.

If we continue to try to solve these problems this way, we will funnel ever more public money over to private hands, without even touching the problem.

Rebeccaslicker - So you haven’t looked at Kensington & Chelsea councils accounts???? 😀😀😀

And your still posting on a thread about it!!!!

RedForFilth

This is just a forum so I'm not going to do what you have demanded. Just read about it if you want. I was giving my opinion (Imo means in my opinion) which I thought was allowed on here?

Well, you have formed your opinion and stated you believe this and that. As a discussing forum usually posters say why they believe this or that, otherwise it just sounds random and absurd.

So when you say in your opinion the government did xyz, it would be good to know how you arrive at such an opinion, given there's no evidence anywhere for anything you have written. Unless you could provide it?

There are informed opinions and uninformed opinions. I am inviting you to enlighten us all with which one yours is.

Hillingdon - because some people believe their living illegally in a council flat is trivial. The reason council is being so generous is because It's all about collateral damage to the image of RBK&C, and govt not losing votes at the next election. Those tenants who were renting out to someone else should be struck off the housing list (that's what happens in such cases every day), but the fire has complicated thinking in some people's minds.

And those living in a sublet flat should be compensated for their losses and trauma, and their eligibility for housing assessed. If still not eligible, then that's it.

Years ago I worked in Housing and if you were found to be living elsewhere and renting out your council flat, you were evicted. No fannying around.

I'm not saying they should get whatever they want. But I do think they should be housed appropriately

What - even folk who may turn out to have no right to be here in the first place?

I confess I wondered at the time about the wisdom of offering an "immigration rules amnesty" to the Grenfell folk. I appreciate why it was done, but - just like Chakra's example of the three month guidelines being disapplied - it seemed to me to give out a message which may not have been sensible

Flowerpot1234 not sure why you're obsessed with gunning for me tbh? The information is out there for you to read 😊

Puzzledandpissedoff I haven't mentioned those who have no right to be here? That is an ethical dilemma tbh and should be looked at by a case by case basis.

Oh I have, Applebee, I have. That is why I am questioning your ability to read a balance sheet. Because your wild claims bear no resemblance to reality.

All you're good for is spouting utter woolly lefty fantast shite so far. I asked you to prove what you're saying - and all you've been able to do is say, "ahhhh, you google it!"

You're like the kid in the playground who just chants, "I know you are, I said you are, but what am I?" in response to everything. And they let you have a vote 🤦‍♀️

Rebeccaslicker - So you’ve read the accounts and you still don’t think the council housing surplus should be spent on rehousing the victims??

What would you suggest it be spent on??

Absolutely hundreds of things. Including housing those in real need who were already on the list. Any resident of the borough would be able to list all sorts.

I don't think buying up really expensive properties in RBKC to benefit a few compared to the many is the best use of cash.

I haven't mentioned those who have no right to be here?

That's true, but doesn't saying "they" (the ones affected by the fire) should be housed appropriately mean that could include those with no right to residency, let alone housing?

FWIW I agree about dealing with this on a case by case basis - in fact that's my whole point - but I do worry that important issues around entitlement are getting brushed aside in the uproar

“Absolutely hundreds of things“

Like making council homes safe & not flammable???

I’ve not seen anyone on this thread say that the greedy people who were sub letting their council flats should get another council home to keep sub letting,that would be ridiculous,

But the tenants who were paying rent to the council or to the greedy sub letters are going to get rehoused (rightly so).

Kensington & Chelsea are buying up local property’s daily for the victims,
With the council housing surplus (NOT TAX PAYERS MONEY)

People need to get over it , it’s happening.

... the council housing surplus (NOT TAX PAYERS MONEY)

Huh??!!!

This means they will be taking housing space that someone else could have had and their existence here will be fully subsidised by the taxpayer. Afterall, if there's no £ coming in how else will they live. The taxpayer is paying for non-contributors at our largesse

I haven't googled the figures but I am pretty sure I read EU immigrants mainly work, higher rates in work than UK citizens, and thus are contributing to the nation's coffers.

Last year The Royal “Bank” of Kensington & Chelsea took about £55 million in social housing rent,

The surplus is now being spent buying homes for Grenfell victims

I hope all London Boroughs learn a lesson from this awful event.

Further to my above post, I have found some figures from Full Fact

"EU nationals of working age are more likely to be in work than UK nationals and non-EU citizens. About 82% of working age EU citizens in the UK are in work, compared to around 75% of UK nationals and 64% of people from outside the EU."

I haven't read the full thread, nor know all the facts, but if the claim in the OP was reported in the Daily Mail, I would not be surprised it has been taken out of context and manipulated to whip up the Daily Mail readers. Daily Mail have an agenda.

@Applebee7, fully agree with you.

Was just about to say the same to you Nightshirt,

London has been built by immigration for hundreds of years,
It’s one of the things that make me proud to be a Londoner

"EU nationals of working age are more likely to be in work than UK nationals and non-EU citizens. About 82% of working age EU citizens in the UK are in work, compared to around 75% of UK nationals and 64% of people from outside the EU."

And how many of those pay-in more in terms of tax, NI than they take out in terms of benefits, education costs, healthcare costs, housing costs etc? There are lots of part-time (16 hour per week) low paid workers in this country who get lots of top-ups in the form of benefits (paid for from taxpayers money). Very few low paid people would be able to live in London on only their wage. What is the point of importing millions of people who take out more than they pay in and put even more stress on an already stressed infrastructure, not to mention the costs to cultural cohesion. That is why immigration should be restricted to skilled workers and benefits should be time limited, just as they are in almost all of Europe, including such terrible fascist places as Germany and Scandinavia. However, big business to be able to hire people on poverty wages subsidised by other taxpayers so they don't have to pay much tax or NI and they can make bigger profits.

Figures slightly out of date. But this is how much you have to be earning to be a net contributor:

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10638283/How-much-we-give-the-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

RedForFilth
Flowerpot1234 not sure why you're obsessed with gunning for me tbh? The information is out there for you to read 😊

I hardly think posting one comment asking you for the background to your claims, in reply to your many comments is "gunning for you". .

Like I said, there is no information on earth that is out there which substantiates your claims. That's why I asked you about where you got your information. If you can't supply it and you have nothing , fine. I didn't think so.

And it's making it very hard for the people already here to afford housing and afford to have families if they are not eligible for social housing.

Agree about importing low skill workers and the argument about the ageing population doesn't wash with me as the immigrant workers will age too.