Family given £2m house... after complaining 5-bed London home was in "poor area" - DM

Tippytoes

drc wrote: »

Totally agree carolt. Sometimes I feel like adopting the old "if you can't beat them, join them", using our savings to go on holidays and buy tat and just not worry about "affording" things, so that we would qualify for a huge house in the heart of London, rather than our pokey little flat in north London which we pay through the roof for. Beats working for a living and doing things the 'right' way (rolls eyes).

Given this plenty of thought. Sell house, blow savings, travel the world, come back to Treasure Island and dump myself on the authorities. However, you will find yourself guilty of "deprivation of funds". If I had my time again, would I work round the clock, would I support my family, would I stay on the right side of the law? Would I hell. I'm paying a very high price for being a law-abiding grafter.

ILW

marklv wrote: »

The problem is the thuggish image that the BNP has, which has persisted for a long time, unfortunately. It doesn't change the fact that 20-25% of the electorate, as well as large swathes of the established political parties, are largely favourable to many BNP policies.

This sort of abuse of the system really does drive ordinary working people into the arms of the BNP and their like.
Does anyone know when the £400 weekk cap is due to come in?

CLAPTON

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

there was very little slavery at all from east Africa. I think you're thinking of west Africa?

Arab slave trade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
For the relation between the Islamic religion and the institution of slavery, see Islam and slavery.
Part of a series onSlavery Early historyHistory · Antiquity · Aztec
Ancient Greece · Rome
Medieval Europe
Thrall · Kholop · SerfdomSlavery and religionThe Bible · Judaism
Christianity · IslamBy country or regionAfrica · Atlantic · Arab
Coastwise · Angola
Barbary Coast
Britain and Ireland
British Virgin Islands
Brazil · Canada · India · Iran
Japan · Libya · Mauritania
Romania · Spanish New World
Sudan · Sweden · United StatesContemporaryModern Africa · Debt bondage
Penal labour · Sexual slavery
Unfree labour · Human traffickingOpposition and resistanceTimeline · Abolitionism
Compensated emancipation
Opponents of slavery‎
Slave rebellion · Slave narrativev • d • e
The Arab slave trade was the practice of slavery in the Arab World, mainly Western Asia, North Africa, East Africa and certain parts of Europe (such as Iberia and southern Italy) during their period of domination by Arab leaders. The trade was focused on the slave markets of the Middle East and North Africa. People traded were not limited to a certain color, ethnicity, or religion and included Arabs and Berbers, especially in its early days.
Later, during the 8th and 9th centuries of the Islamic Caliphate, most of the slaves were Slavic Eastern Europeans (called Saqaliba), people from surrounding Mediterranean areas, Persians, Turks, peoples from the Caucasus mountain regions (such as Georgia, Armenia and Circassia) and parts of Central Asia and Scandinavia, Berbers from North Africa, and various other peoples of varied origins as well as those of Black African origins.
Later, toward the 18th and 19th centuries, slaves increasingly came from East Africa, until slavery was officially abolished by the end of the 19th century.[1][2][3][4]
It still continues today in a smaller form in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, where women and children are trafficked from the post-Soviet states, Eastern Europe, Far East, Africa, South Asia and other parts of the Middle East, as well as to a much larger extent in the Arab states that border the Sahel belt in North Africa (such as Mauretania and Sudan). [5][6][7]

carolt

ILW wrote: »

This sort of abuse of the system really does drive ordinary working people into the arms of the BNP and their like.
Does anyone know when the £400 weekk cap is due to come in?

According to the OP, next April.

carolt

Malcolm. wrote: »

MSE tip: You may want double check your rental figure. If the letting agent claims there's 52 months in a year, they're lying.

I am expecting another of Martin's gold stars for that nugget. :money:

We're both right - you for pointing out that there are not 52 months a year , and me for giving the correct annual rent as 52 grand - the grand rent was per WEEK :eek:, not per month.

Had it been per month, I think we would all have thought that was acceptable to house a family of 7 in London, and this thread would never have been created.

hippy-chicy

The £400 a week cap is due to come into force in April 2011 . I work in housing benefits for a local authority in the north west. We will not be affected by the cap as non of our LHA rates are above the new caps.
Personally I think the cap and the limiting to the 30% rate is a good idea . I am shocked that it has been left to go on for so long as it has.

LHA has allowed a ridiculous amount of Housing Benefit to be paid to some families. For example a family of 5 in central London ( under the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea) have been entitled to claim up to a maximum of £2000 per week in housing benefit under LHA ( subject to a means test) or to look at it in a even more scary light £104,000 per year ! I am no longer shocked by articles like this.

I know that a lot of people have jumped on the fact that by capping LHA it will cause poorer pockets of society and higher crime rates in these areas. This is a ridiculous notion imho, i think people forget that LHA has only been in force since April 2008. Prior to that we referred every case to the rent officer for a decision on the rent (ROD) and they were no where near as generous as the LHA rates that were introduced. My LA had a significant amount of claimants having a voluntary break of a week to change onto LHA from a ROD. Did we have these pockets of deprivation before LHA that have been predicted when the LHA caps are introduced? No we didn't and we wont in April 2011.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

Housing benefit is a dumb idea. People out of work should get a single sum to cover all items as that way they can prioritise what is important to them. Want Sky? Fine, live in a cheaper house. Don't drink, don't smoke, don't eat meat? Fine, drive a nice car or take a holiday or live in a nicer place.

Sorry, but your suggestion is equally dumb.

Benefits should provide the minimum cover.
Enough to get by until you can get back on your feet.
Not enough for cars, holidays, sky etc.

kabayiri

leveller2911 wrote: »

Like others have said why have 7 Kids?? He is NEVER going to be able to bring them up financially.

To add to this, what sort of an influence does this have on his children, even if has solid aspirations for them (and it sounds like he does).

They might see friends with working parents living in fairly average housing, even with both parents working.

Then they see what sort of home they are living in.

It doesn't take a brain of britain to work out which lifestyle looks more rewarding does it?

So we created misguided moral standards too. Great! All that money wasted on little return.

I'd rather see the 2K a week sent back to Aid projects in Somali where it might help a hundred families, not just one.

lynzpower

The more I think of it, the more I wonder whether he has moved to try and get the children into better schools

I think moving to this location would place them in the catchment for Holland Park school, where Im guessing the previous location for secondary might have been Quentin Kynaston

nearlynew

lynzpower wrote: »

The more I think of it, the more I wonder whether he has moved to try and get the children into better schools

I think moving to this location would place them in the catchment for Holland Park school, where Im guessing the previous location for secondary might have been Quentin Kynaston

for f*cks sake lynz.


You just don't get it, do you?