Asylum Seekers Given £2m House After Complaining 5 Bed London Home Was In Poor Area

[benjii]

Of course it's not irrelevant, they come to our country for asylum yet demand a move because they didn't think the area they got was suitable - surely they should be grateful we have granted them asylum?

 

What is irrelevant is the colour of their skin.

 

It's not relevant at all.

 

They have been given asylum so what is happening to them now is as a result, if you believe it is wrong, in a failing in the housing benefit system. Nothing to do with asylum whatsoever. As Dune has said, it could just as easily be a repugnant family of Enggerrrllland slobs. The asylum point is utterly, utterly irrelevant.

[saint_mears]

It cannot be true its in the telegraph

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7883944/Former-asylum-seeker-on-benefits-given-2-million-house.html

[aintforever]

It's not relevant at all.

 

They have been given asylum so what is happening to them now is as a result, if you believe it is wrong, in a failing in the housing benefit system. Nothing to do with asylum whatsoever. As Dune has said, it could just as easily be a repugnant family of Enggerrrllland slobs. The asylum point is utterly, utterly irrelevant.

 

Of course it's a failure of the system, but to seek asylum in another country then complain about which area you get your free house in is ****ed up.

 

get what you are given or **** of back to the **** hole you came from.

[dune]

Of course it's a failure of the system, but to seek asylum in another country then complain about which area you get your free house in is ****ed up.

 

get what you are given or **** of back to the **** hole you came from.

 

If you read the aricle in the Telegraph it states

 

Mr Nur receives £2,000 per week from the council to cover the rent, which he then pays to the landlord, who is understood to be an associate of one of his friends.

 

According to local property sources before the Nur family moved in the house was being advertised for £1,050 a week.

 

I wouldn't be at all surprised if this isn't just a fiddle where Mr Nur and his "friend" are pocketing vast amounts of tax payers cash.

[InvictaSaint]

I live in a 6 bedroom house and I have 6 kids with 1 on the way, I get £90,000 benefits and a brand new people carrier every year. I don't work as I would lose my benefits, but I do a few cash in hand jobs that pays for my beer, fags and bets. I get £6000 a year holiday budget to take the family away and life is sweet in suburbia.

P.S. I am a white Englishman and also milk the system.

 

Nail on head. Well said that man. Anybody who takes anything the Daily Rascist says as gospel needs their head examining.

[Thedelldays]

Nail on head. Well said that man. Anybody who takes anything the Daily Rascist says as gospel needs their head examining.

 

what about the telegraph..?

 

I have lived in london and amazed how people can come over with nothing and actually live there...

[benjii]

Of course it's a failure of the system, but to seek asylum in another country then complain about which area you get your free house in is ****ed up.

 

get what you are given or **** of back to the **** hole you came from.

 

If the system allows him to move to a nicer house he would be mad not to wouldn't he? I presume he wants what's best for his family; is that fair enough? The problem is not one of him being ungrateful and not ****ing off back to his ****hole, it is our problem with our stupid housing benefit systems.

 

Nothing to do with the asylum system, asylum seekers, asylum laws, darkies etc...

[aintforever]

If the system allows him to move to a nicer house he would be mad not to wouldn't he? I presume he wants what's best for his family; is that fair enough? The problem is not one of him being ungrateful and not ****ing off back to his ****hole, it is our problem with our stupid housing benefit systems.

 

Nothing to do with the asylum system, asylum seekers, asylum laws, darkies etc...

 

I think it's ungrateful.

[benjii]

I think it's ungrateful.

 

It would be ungrateful as well, presumably, if it was Wayne and Waynetta?

 

Nothing to do with asylum.

[Thedelldays]

It would be ungrateful as well, presumably, if it was Wayne and Waynetta?

 

Nothing to do with asylum.

 

it does....of course it does...wayne or wayne etta, might have paid into the tax system for years before hand..add that to their parents paying into the tax system for years

[badgerx16]

I think it's disgraceful that a Conservative run council allows this sort of thing to happen.

[dune]

I think it's disgraceful that a Conservative run council allows this sort of thing to happen.

 

They are operating according to Labours legislation. Next year the Conservatives cap will prevent it.

[badgerx16]

They are operating according to Labours legislation. Next year the Conservatives cap will prevent it.

That'll hit the Rackman landlord's who are milking the system !

[aintforever]

It would be ungrateful as well, presumably, if it was Wayne and Waynetta?

 

Nothing to do with asylum.

 

How can handing out million pound houses to asylum seekers not be anything to do with asylum - you are talking rubbish as usual.

 

Of course the main issue here is our screwed up benefits system, there is also a quite obvious asylum issue. Any potential economic migrant can read that and know that if they are lucky enough to make it to England and tell the right stories they could end up in a million pound house.

 

Also not all benefit claimers are "Wayne and Waynettas" as you put it, there might be some severely disabled English person who's family have been paying tax for generations that quite fancy moving out of their run down council flat into a plush Chelsea pad. Or someone who has paid tax for decades but has been made redundant.

 

You have to question if these people are even genuine asylum seekers. You would have thought people who have been saved by us from certain death would show a little more gratitude.

[toofarnorth]

They are operating according to Labours legislation. Next year the Conservatives cap will prevent it.

 

 

I agree it's a bit rediculous, however a cap on immigration will have no effect on asylum numbers. Anyway as so many have correctly pointed out the asylum issue is completely irrelevent as its a welfare system failure.

[dune]

I agree it's a bit rediculous, however a cap on immigration will have no effect on asylum numbers. Anyway as so many have correctly pointed out the asylum issue is completely irrelevent as its a welfare system failure.

 

I was refering to a cap on the amount that can be claimed for renting a property.

[saint1977]

Lot of people seem to be attacking the Mail. Would point out that it is also in the Telegraph. So 2 right wing papers - must be a Nazi conspiracy.

 

Never fear though as I am sure the right wing council in Kensington will sort this out on Monday.

 

They are rightly being attacked because they are twisting stories so horrifically to the point where the truth is going out of the window. The public have a right to know this and I'm well aware that other papers do it as well but every other story in the Telegraph is like it at present. The Mail I would always expect this from. To give you an example, Eric Pickles recently commented on the need to reduce senior management and chief exec posts in local government which formed 98% of his comments and he just mentioned cultural information officers (or equivalent) as an example of one role he respected but we could reduce slightly. So what happens? Telegraph attacks viciously the junior role that in my experience in working with the public sector has been valuable, the people are often low paid or on fixed-term deals and ignores the vast majority of Pickles' reasonable comments because those senior managers Pickles rightly wants rid of that obstruct reform are likely Telegraph readers, many working for Tory Local Authorities.

 

I'm supporting many of the coalitions' changes but I would respect them even more if they ripped out all of these senior managers from Tory Local Authorities and took the lead, not to mention the savinfs in money and service improvements that it could bring.

[benjii]

 

You have to question if these people are even genuine asylum seekers. You would have thought people who have been saved by us from certain death would show a little more gratitude.

 

But he's not an asylum seeker - he's been granted asylum.

 

You seem to be confusing an awful lot of separate issues.

[bridge too far]

But he's not an asylum seeker - he's been granted asylum.

 

You seem to be confusing an awful lot of separate issues.

 

Absolutely right. As well as being granted asylum, he'd been working as a bus driver before being made redundant. So he'd been paying taxes and NI. Possibly the Wayne and Waynettas referred to earlier hadn't worked and paid taxes.

 

He has as much right to housing benefit etc as any other working person who has been made redundant. His ethnicity is totally irrelevant.

[dune]

Absolutely right. As well as being granted asylum, he'd been working as a bus driver before being made redundant. So he'd been paying taxes and NI. Possibly the Wayne and Waynettas referred to earlier hadn't worked and paid taxes.

 

He has as much right to housing benefit etc as any other working person who has been made redundant. His ethnicity is totally irrelevant.

 

What was wrong with him and his family staying at their previous address?

[EastleighSoulBoy]

What was wrong with him and his family staying at their previous address?

 

To you and I? Nothing. However he is using the rules applicable at the time, wrong though they be. These rules have been drawn up, improved ( ??? ) and

amended by many different administrations over the years. It's not just a total 'Labour at fault' issue. Again, wrong though I think the rules are.

[fish fingers]

What was wrong with him and his family staying at their previous address?

 

Like he says in the article, it is not close enough to the shops. We couldn't expect him and his family to walk too far to spend our money.

[dune]

To you and I? Nothing. However he is using the rules applicable at the time, wrong though they be. These rules have been drawn up, improved ( ??? ) and

amended by many different administrations over the years. It's not just a total 'Labour at fault' issue. Again, wrong though I think the rules are.

 

Of course it's Labours fault. They were in power for 13 years.

[benjii]

What was wrong with him and his family staying at their previous address?

 

Well, that is clearly a point worth debating but it has absolutely nothing to do with him being an asylum seeker.

 

It is shocking (well, it's not but it's terribly poor) that a national paper refers to him and his family as "Asylum seeker family" when they are not. I think the article said he was granted asylum in 1999. It is completely spurious, inflammatory and deplorable.

[Wes Tender]

They are rightly being attacked because they are twisting stories so horrifically to the point where the truth is going out of the window. The public have a right to know this and I'm well aware that other papers do it as well but every other story in the Telegraph is like it at present. The Mail I would always expect this from. To give you an example, Eric Pickles recently commented on the need to reduce senior management and chief exec posts in local government which formed 98% of his comments and he just mentioned cultural information officers (or equivalent) as an example of one role he respected but we could reduce slightly. So what happens? Telegraph attacks viciously the junior role that in my experience in working with the public sector has been valuable, the people are often low paid or on fixed-term deals and ignores the vast majority of Pickles' reasonable comments because those senior managers Pickles rightly wants rid of that obstruct reform are likely Telegraph readers, many working for Tory Local Authorities.

 

I'm supporting many of the coalitions' changes but I would respect them even more if they ripped out all of these senior managers from Tory Local Authorities and took the lead, not to mention the savinfs in money and service improvements that it could bring.

 

As the story is twisted so horifically in your opinion, no doubt you will wish to regale us all with the factual truth. What is factually incorrect about the story? Was he not granted asylum to stay here with his family? Was he not formerly a bus driver before being made redundant? Did he not have a perfectly adequate house for his family, before deciding that he didn't think it was in a good enough area? Is this new house not in one of the most desirable and expensive areas of England? Is the rent not inflated beyond what it was before he came across his mate who rented it to him?

 

And I'd be pleased of your opinion as to whether this is acceptable to you, when cuts will have to be made to local services in London and that they will have to dig still deeper because apparently this family was a bit picky about their perfectly adequate accommodation.

 

Unless you can prove to my satisfaction that he and his family were not granted asylum here, I'm inclined to think that they really ought to show a bit more gratitude and respect to this country and its peoples. We offer a civilised system of support for those in genuine need, but resent being taken advantage of, suckers and soft-touch as we are. But for every case like this, growing resentment makes us less liberal and accommodating of genuine refugees, which is a pity.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Of course it's Labours fault. They were in power for 13 years.[/quote

 

You really are an odious dolt.

 

Nothing is the fault of the Tories. Nothing can ever, in the remotest instance, be erroneous in anything they have done.

 

It's all Labour's fault.

 

You'll have us believing that Pontius Pilate was a Labour MP next.

 

No wonder people lose it with you.

 

Godwin's Law.

[benjii]

As the story is twisted so horifically in your opinion, no doubt you will wish to regale us all with the factual truth. What is factually incorrect about the story? Was he not granted asylum to stay here with his family? Was he not formerly a bus driver before being made redundant? Did he not have a perfectly adequate house for his family, before deciding that he didn't think it was in a good enough area? Is this new house not in one of the most desirable and expensive areas of England? Is the rent not inflated beyond what it was before he came across his mate who rented it to him?

 

And I'd be pleased of your opinion as to whether this is acceptable to you, when cuts will have to be made to local services in London and that they will have to dig still deeper because apparently this family was a bit picky about their perfectly adequate accommodation.

 

Unless you can prove to my satisfaction that he and his family were not granted asylum here, I'm inclined to think that they really ought to show a bit more gratitude and respect to this country and its peoples. We offer a civilised system of support for those in genuine need, but resent being taken advantage of, suckers and soft-touch as we are. But for every case like this, growing resentment makes us less liberal and accommodating of genuine refugees, which is a pity.

 

Indeed, you make some good points.

 

But this is fundamentally a story about the housing benefits system. The set of facts do not require the subject to be a person who has been granted asylum. Anyone in receipt of housing benefit could have done this (assuming all the other reported facts are correct - I have no idea).

 

The headline referring to them as "Asylum seeker family" is completely misleading and pointless.

[solentstars]

Of course it's Labours fault. They were in power for 13 years.[/quote

 

You really are an odious dolt.

 

Nothing is the fault of the Tories. Nothing can ever, in the remotest instance, be erroneous in anything they have done.

 

It's all Labour's fault.

 

You'll have us believing that Pontius Pilate was a Labour MP next.

 

No wonder people lose it with you.

 

Godwin's Law.

 

i think we can all see him fo what he is, you got to remember hes not a tory but a far right fascist distorting anything to get his beloved bnp in power,the enemy within and selective propaganda

Edited 12 July, 2010 by solentstars

[solentstars]

Indeed, you make some good points.

 

But this is fundamentally a story about the housing benefits system. The set of facts do not require the subject to be a person who has been granted asylum. Anyone in receipt of housing benefit could have done this (assuming all the other reported facts are correct - I have no idea).

 

The headline referring to them as "Asylum seeker family" is completely misleading and pointless.

 

you noticed that to

[bridge too far]

 

i think we can all see him fo what he is, you got to remember hes not a tory but a far right fascist distorting anything to get his beloved bnp in power,the enemy within and being selective propaganda

 

In the same way as he attributes absolutely everything wrong in this country to a Labour government, I think we can equally attribute his distortion of facts to his poor education that was surely undertaken when the Tories were in power (unless he's under 18 - hmmmm could be).

[buctootim]

Amongst all the Dune bashing, the point that its ludicrous for a family on benefits to be housed in a property that 99% of the working population couldnt afford and could only dream of seems to have been lost. Can anyone defend paying out £96,000pa on housing benefit, let alone other benefits to one family? To get £96,000pa by the way you need 25 working people on £26,000pa paying income tax.

[solentstars]

 

In the same way as he attributes absolutely everything wrong in this country to a Labour government, I think we can equally attribute his distortion of facts to his poor education that was surely undertaken when the Tories were in power (unless he's under 18 - hmmmm could be).

 

i expect he hates all the working class people who have achieved in life ,while he was left behind hence his hatred of labour.

[bridge too far]

Amongst all the Dune bashing, the point that its ludicrous for a family on benefits to be housed in a property that 99% of the working population couldnt afford and could only dream of seems to have been lost. Can anyone defend paying out £96,000pa on housing benefit, let alone other benefits to one family? To get £96,000pa by the way you need 25 working people on £26,000pa paying income tax.

 

It does seem extreme but it begs the question - are no families on benefits to be allowed to live in certain areas because of the high rental costs? Are we to have ghettos instead (with all the problems that could bring). Surely local councils should be allowed to build council housing again.

[buctootim]

It does seem extreme but it begs the question - are no families on benefits to be allowed to live in certain areas because of the high rental costs? Are we to have ghettos instead (with all the problems that could bring). Surely local councils should be allowed to build council housing again.

 

Why should they move to Notting Hill because they didnt like Brent. They have no long term connections there. There is a big difference between treating people decently and removing the incentive to work.

[solentstars]

Amongst all the Dune bashing, the point that its ludicrous for a family on benefits to be housed in a property that 99% of the working population couldnt afford and could only dream of seems to have been lost. Can anyone defend paying out £96,000pa on housing benefit, let alone other benefits to one family? To get £96,000pa by the way you need 25 working people on £26,000pa paying income tax.

 

yes but their have been lots of cases of this abuse and it needs sorting but hes being selective of far right agendas when he posts.

i could find the same abuses under thatcher/major years.

hopefully Cameron/clegg are starting to put right the abuse of the housing benefits to all .

[Wes Tender]

Indeed, you make some good points.

 

But this is fundamentally a story about the housing benefits system. The set of facts do not require the subject to be a person who has been granted asylum. Anyone in receipt of housing benefit could have done this (assuming all the other reported facts are correct - I have no idea).

 

The headline referring to them as "Asylum seeker family" is completely misleading and pointless.

 

On the face of it, labelling them as asylum seekers is incorrect, as apparently they have been granted asylum. Other than that, I see no other dispute of the facts. Whether they have applied for and been granted British Citizenship is not clear. However, there is a disparity whereby those granted asylum over here are able to claim benefits and housing, whereas those who come here as spouses of British citizens are not. On the contrary, the cost of visas to stay, indefinite leave to remain visas and the cost of citizenship has risen exponentially under Labour, so that it costs well in excess of £3000. As such, I would argue that the fact that they were granted asylum over here is not an irrelevance at all, although it is secondary to the main thrust of the story that the housing benefits system is open to this sort of abuse.

 

If some express dismay that a family given asylum over here can stoop to abuse the hospitality of their new host nation, then they are entitled to their views. After all, it might be that they consider it from the perspective that I mentioned, that where there are abuses of the system whereby people either claim for things fraudulently that they are not entitled to, or whether they claim beyond their needs, less money is available in the pot to pay for those in society who have genuine needs.

 

Nobody seems to have been able to disprove the facts behind this story and there are plenty of other stories about young mothers having numerous children by several unknown fathers and then being feather-bedded by the state in large houses. It is clear that the public have had enough of all this waste of resources and will welcome it being targetted so that cuts in expenditure on more needy and deserving cases will not have to be too deep.

[bridge too far]

Why should they move to Notting Hill because they didnt like Brent. They have no long term connections there. There is a big difference between treating people decently and removing the incentive to work.

 

Well no doubt the press has been selective in its reporting of the facts. I don't know why they were in Brent in the first place. Such families have to start somewhere. What if they'd been housed in Kensington in the first place? Or are you suggesting that no-one on benefits should be housed in Kensington? Which brings me back to the 'ghetoo' scenario and reminds me a bit of Dame Shirley Porter trying to tinker with the demographics in Westminster.

[Wes Tender]

It does seem extreme but it begs the question - are no families on benefits to be allowed to live in certain areas because of the high rental costs? Are we to have ghettos instead (with all the problems that could bring). Surely local councils should be allowed to build council housing again.

 

Why should they be able to live in areas of high cost rents? Next you'll be suggesting that they should have their groceries delivered to them from Fortnum and Masons because the local Spar isn't much cop. Should their children be educated at Westminster school because the local comprehensive is poor? Do try and get some perspective.

 

As for your last line, many large Council house estates became ghettos, therefore you contradict yourself.

[bridge too far]

Why should they be able to live in areas of high cost rents? Next you'll be suggesting that they should have their groceries delivered to them from Fortnum and Masons because the local Spar isn't much cop. Should their children be educated at Westminster school because the local comprehensive is poor? Do try and get some perspective.

 

As for your last line, many large Council house estates became ghettos, therefore you contradict yourself.

 

Indeed many council estates became ghettos. Where was I suggesting councils build estates? I said councils should be able to build more council housing. Housing associations build small developements.

 

You haven't answered the salient point. Are we to compartmentalise towns? In the case of London and other major conurbations, some people on benefits (but not unemployed) need to live near to their work. Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to because the area near to their employment has been 'gentrified'? I'm old enough to remember when Notting Hill was a sh*t hole - look at it now!

 

The local council is at fault in this case. Kensington Borough covers a very large area and, although most of it is expensive to live in, there are some cheaper pockets. The council is at liberty to say no to this family if it is so minded.

 

Here's the real information on Housing Benefit

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018926

 

and this on how the benefit is worked out

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTaxAndBenefits/BenefitsTaxCreditsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018928

 

and here is information on how much Kensington is mandated to pay as a maximum

 

https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/Secure/LHARateSearch.aspx?SearchType=LA

[Saint George]

It does seem extreme but it begs the question - are no families on benefits to be allowed to live in certain areas because of the high rental costs? Are we to have ghettos instead (with all the problems that could bring). Surely local councils should be allowed to build council housing again.

 

Your complete lack of reality is a typical symptom of someone who's spent far to long in and around the Public Sector...The land where you just hold out your hand and someone else's money pops out the Government cash machine...Like a child, totally oblivious to where it came from.

[bridge too far]

Your complete lack of reality is a typical symptom of someone who's spent far to long in and around the Public Sector...The land where you just hold out your hand and someone else's money pops out the Government cash machine...Like a child, totally oblivious to where it came from.

 

You have a right to your opinion but, as you don't live here, your opinion holds no sway with me (or with many others).

 

Apart from Family Allowance when my children were little, I have never claimed any state benefit because I've never needed to, thankfully. However, I have absolutely no problem with people legitimately claiming what is due to them.

 

No doubt you applaud hard-up pensioners and the like who don't claim what is rightfully theirs because they don't know about it or consider it to be charity, even though they've paid into the system all their lives?

[Thedelldays]

Your complete lack of reality is a typical symptom of someone who's spent far to long in and around the Public Sector...The land where you just hold out your hand and someone else's money pops out the Government cash machine...Like a child, totally oblivious to where it came from.

indeed...

 

can those who live in shirley warren now kick up a fuss and demand the council to move them chilworth....???

 

how would BTF react to this if it was a white single mother called mercedes who has not lifted a finger in her life and has 4 kids..all of a different colour..?

[bridge too far]

indeed...

 

can those who live in shirley warren now kick up a fuss and demand the council to move them chilworth....???

 

how would BTF react to this if it was a white single mother called mercedes who has not lifted a finger in her life and has 4 kids..all of a different colour..?

 

Be careful you don't resort to stereotyping TDD! What does is matter if she's white / black / whatever, single (maybe because her 'man' left her or died) or married.

 

I'm lucky enough to live on a very pleasant new private estate. Opposite me, there is social housing. The occupants cause no-one any trouble, including the large family living in a 4 bedroomed house. I'm delighted for them, and more particularly for their young children, that they are able to live in a nice area.

 

Oh - and just for you TDD - it seems the 'free laptops' scheme you so love might well be extended with David Cameron's support! See here:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10575266.stm

 

You'll need to read the whole article

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Amongst all the Dune bashing, the point that its ludicrous for a family on benefits to be housed in a property that 99% of the working population couldnt afford and could only dream of seems to have been lost. Can anyone defend paying out £96,000pa on housing benefit, let alone other benefits to one family? To get £96,000pa by the way you need 25 working people on £26,000pa paying income tax.

 

I don't think that anyone is defending the poor state of the benefits system. It's ripe for overhauling but to make throwaway comments such as 'it is all Labour's fault' are not conducive to the debate it just entrenches people, unless they can see past the trolling?

[dune]

It's all Labour's fault.

 

Yes it is all Labours fault. After 13 years in government Labour didn't address cases such as these. After a month the Conservatives addressed it and next year there will be a cap (£400 p.w I think) on the amount local authorities can spend on housing families. Get real ESB and just admit this is a Labour failure.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Yes it is all Labours fault. After 13 years in government Labour didn't address cases such as these. After a month the Conservatives addressed it and next year there will be a cap (£400 p.w I think) on the amount local authorities can spend on housing families. Get real ESB and just admit this is a Labour failure.

 

The irony of you asking me to get real is unbelieveable.

[bridge too far]

n the meantime, people are having a go at this family for quite legally making the best of a poor system.

 

A parallel with people who find ways to avoid paying tax, maybe?

[dune]

The irony of you asking me to get real is unbelieveable.

 

Well in that case i'd suggest you read this article and educate yourself.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/186391/Benefits-Pledge-to-end-this-bonanza

 

The Conservatives have been in office for 2 months and yet by next April they will have dealt with the problem. So what prevented Labour from dealing with the problem in 13 years?

[dune]

The generous benefits allowances brought in by Labour currently allow claimants up to £2,000-a-week for a five-bedroom property, £1,000-a-week for four bedrooms, £744-a-week for three bedrooms, £495-a-week for two bedrooms and £350-a-week for a one-bedroom property. From April, the Local Housing Allowance will be restricted to a maximum of four bedrooms for all claimants with maximum rates on the amount paid to private landlords.

 

Weekly rates will capped at £250 for a one-bedroom property, £290 for a two-bedrooms, £340 for three and £400 for a four-bedroom property. Anyone living in a more expensive property will be forced to leave or make up the difference in rent themselves.

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/186391/Benefits-Pledge-to-end-this-bonanza

 

This is what you get with the Conservatives, Mr Nur is what you got with Labour.

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

Mr Nur said his former five-bedroom home in the Kensal Rise area of Brent, which cost £900 a week in housing benefit, was suitable for the family's needs but he said they had felt compelled to move because they did not like living 'in a very poor area' and were unhappy with the quality of local shops and schools.

 

He said he found the new house through a friend who knew the landlord, arranged to rent it through an estate agent, then approached officials at Kensington and Chelsea council who said 'it would be no problem' to move.

 

Rules allow anyone who is eligible for housing benefit to claim for a private property in any part of the country they wish.

 

The £2,000 per week is paid directly to Mr Nur and his family, who then pay their landlord.

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1293730/Somali-asylum-seeker-family-given-2m-house--complaining-5-bed-London-home-poor-area.html#ixzz0tMK3QCHn

 

Stories like this make my bloody boil. Not only do we pay for him and his family to sit on their arses in the lap of luxury, but we pay him £2000 a week so he can pay the landlord the rent on a property that was advertised at £1050 a week. I bet he pockets a nice little chunk of the £2000.

 

2 things that dont make sense about this story and headline:

 

1: Where exactly does it say that they are asylum seekers?

2: How the f*ck does this add up to the quoted '2 million'?