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

lynzpower

kabayiri wrote: »

Yes you can blame them.

I find this obvious lack of any moral standards annoying.

We all have a duty to use public resources wisely. It doesn't take a genius to work out that it's a finite pot of money, and for those 'lucky' few who derive great benefit from it, it means there are others who have to accept a meagre amount - they should be just as angry about this.

On that basis do you think I should be angry at the person who is disabled and has over 2 grands worth of personal care per week?

ILW

lynzpower wrote: »

On that basis do you think I should be angry at the person who is disabled and has over 2 grands worth of personal care per week?

2 grand a week on personal care is based on need. Nobody "needs" to live in a £2m house when there are plenty worth much less than than that within the country.

lynzpower

Its the inflated costs of these necessaries that is the problem IMO.

The_White_Horse

lynzpower wrote: »

Its the inflated costs of these necessaries that is the problem IMO.

ahahahahahahHHAhahahahahahAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

that is one of the funniest jokes I have heard in ages. do you stand up?

carolt

lynzpower wrote: »

Its the inflated costs of these necessaries that is the problem IMO.

Not really. Even if they were cheap, we have to draw the line on what we give people who contribute nothing for free.

Eventually, we have to limit what we give people because we can't afford to cater for an entire country's umlimited desires, without any contribution from them.

rickbonar

Sure must have had a great mud hut back home in Somalia if he calls this poor housing!

Hey maybe that's what the council should build to make them feel more at home here!

kabayiri

lynzpower wrote: »

On that basis do you think I should be angry at the person who is disabled and has over 2 grands worth of personal care per week?

To map your analogy onto this example it would be akin to the disabled person currently receiving treatment from their local GP, but they didn't want to be seen to be receiving 'commoners' treatment, so they asked for the state to pay for visits to Harley street!

neverdespairgirl

lynzpower wrote: »

I am much more likely to bow to your knowledge on this one NDG

Thanks very much.

I do this for a living, I am very familiar with it (-:

neverdespairgirl

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Didn't we discuse this the other month (or perhaps it was the other year)? Asylum seekers get housed (some singles in shared rooms), given money weekly (it was £30) and can go on courses for free. Are not allowed to work.

Once they are allowed to stay here they become refuges and can claim housing (private or council) and other benefits or can work.

Was that right?

That's right. Asylum seekers are housed and supported by NASS. They can and are put anywhere in the country, except for London and the SE (NASS have almost no properties in London and the SE, for cost reasons). Stoke and Glasgow are common.

Not allowed to work. Get a small amount of money, less than income support.

If they are granted refugee status, then they can access mainstream benefits.

Llubrevlis

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

That's right. Asylum seekers are housed and supported by NASS. They can and are put anywhere in the country, except for London and the SE (NASS have almost no properties in London and the SE, for cost reasons). Stoke and Glasgow are common.

Not allowed to work. Get a small amount of money, less than income support.

If they are granted refugee status, then they can access mainstream benefits.

So did this guy go from asylum seeker to living in a better house than most people who have have above average jobs that they worked damn hard for?