Another Family given a 5 bedroom house for lying about being.........................

Malcolm.

ninky wrote: »

well no i don't think we can. but that is a different issue isn't it. and counters the view that she kept someone else from the list from getting the expensive house - because surely your argument is that no one on that list deserves a 'free' home like this.

there is also the issue that the house is only this expensive because some landlord thought they could up the rent for housing benefit. in which case, who is actually playing the system?

Nope. I take the moral hazzard viewpoint. If one allows liars to benefit, then one is encouraging people to lie, which I'm not keen on. My view that someone else should be given the home, and a suitable punishment needs to be found to discourage others following her lead/example.

moneypenny2k

ninky wrote: »

no i didn't. i said it was not hard to see why some immigrants felt historically justified to take what they could. i didn't say i agreed with 'an eye for an eye' philosophy. kindness and forgiveness are both virtues.

Yes kindness and forgiveness are virtues, but being taken for a ride is not. I have no problem with people accepting our kindness when they pass societies benchmark for receiving it. Let's face it, the UK is pretty lax on deciding who can stay and who can't. Is it too much to ask that they treat our rules and regulations with respect?

Would you turn around and snarl at the person who had shown you kindness?

ninky wrote: »

tbh if someone was genuinely starving and destitute then i hope i would find it in myself to feel compassion it they stole from me. the right thing to do is not always the easiest thing to do.

[COLOR="rgb(46, 139, 87)"]I don't have a problem with feeling compassion but I expect to be treated with equal compassion by those availing themselves of our kindness.[/COLOR]

I'm going to nail my colours to the mast. My husband came here to study in the 1980s and we met and married and he now has the right to stay in the Uk. I'm not a hang em high anti immigration militant nor am I a wishy washy liberal. I am a pragmatist

We have limited resources in the UK, we have to hand them out fairly according to set rules. There should be consequences for those that abuse our systems. The fact is that this woman committed perjury and obtained goods (?) by deception. The judge should have punished her. Yes it would have cost money to put the kids into children's homes but it would have been an effective deterrent. It sounds like some of them were of adult age anyhow.

I don't particularly care if she feels she was justified in doing what she did to secure her family. If the justice system felt the need to consider that then perhaps I should go and raid a bank and tell the judge my family is making do in a 3 bedroom house and my boys have to share a bedroom and I felt it was justified? There has to be a cut off point and the law should uphold that cut off point. If it doesn't then we will continue to push the barriers back further and further until there is anarchy

wageslave

Ninky, I strongly suspect you are a decent person but what you think of as compassion is actually dangerously close to patronisation.

We are all equal under the law. It is, or was, one of this countrys greatest strengths.

Justice is blind for a reason.

neverdespairgirl

ILW wrote: »

I cannot understand why this woman and her kids are not being kicked out and put into temp accommodation. Then the house could be given to someone who qualifies for it legally. Seems to send out a very wrong message that crime in fact does pay and is supported by the authorities.

Different systems. Crown Court judges don't have eviction powers.

kabayiri

Ninky is right to indicate we should stick to the facts.

Fact 1 : the woman is a convicted criminal
Fact 2 : the son aided the woman in her criminal activity
Fact 3 : her ex is a convicted criminal
Fact 4 : the woman has no qualms about trying to ruin the life of her ex; she wasn't aware of his prison status. She does not demonstrate any of the compassionate qualities espoused by Ninky
Fact 5 : I guarantee I could find a family of non criminals for this very nice house. A family who don't feel the need to resort to criminal blackmail to achieve their goals. A family which don't use their offspring to support their criminal activity.

Get a grip people. If we don't put a lid on stupid abuses like this we have no excuse when the right wing tendencies use them to bolster their ranks.

wageslave

kabayiri wrote: »

Ninky is right to indicate we should stick to the facts.

Fact 1 : the woman is a convicted criminal
Fact 2 : the son aided the woman in her criminal activity
Fact 3 : her ex is a convicted criminal
Fact 4 : the woman has no qualms about trying to ruin the life of her ex; she wasn't aware of his prison status. She does not demonstrate any of the compassionate qualities espoused by Ninky
Fact 5 : I guarantee I could find a family of non criminals for this very nice house. A family who don't feel the need to resort to criminal blackmail to achieve their goals. A family which don't use their offspring to support their criminal activity.

Get a grip people. If we don't put a lid on stupid abuses like this we have no excuse when the right wing tendencies use them to bolster their ranks.

That bit I wholeheartedly agree with.

At the risk of sounding like Asheron, if we don't do something to address the stupidity of the system, and the ideology, left behind by Blair and Brown the whole country is in danger of imploding.

A._Badger

I don't mind what the satirist Peter Simple used to call 'socialist thinkers' like Ninky.

What I mind is the way they make the rest of us pay for their hyper-inflated consciences.

The woman is a thief. She should have been punished. Why we are expected to offer Liberty Hall to people from Somalia, the source of so much trouble, I have absolutely no idea - and even less why we are supposed to feel sympathy for the thieves it exports.

treliac

moneypenny2k wrote: »

There has to be a cut off point and the law should uphold that cut off point. If it doesn't then we will continue to push the barriers back further and further until there is anarchy

Ain't that true.... and, I think, we are coming perilously close to the point of anarchy.

That barriers are continuously and dangerously pushed back is evident to most of us. It's a subtle form of pervasive indoctrination.... until people come to accept the unacceptable.

ninky_2

there are some points people are choosing to ignore;

this woman was already eligible for this house due to her circumstances. lying merely fast-tracked her and her children into it.

the taxpayer was already paying for her accommodation and would have continued to do so until she was permanently rehomed. the existing accommodation may well have been costing the taxpayer more.

i'm not condoning her actions but without knowing more about her situation i don't think it is right to condemn her out of hand.

a judge with access to more information than we have has seen fit to allow her to continue living in the property and has given her punishment deemed adequate for the offence.

ruggedtoast

ninky wrote: »

a woman of somalian origin lies to move up the queue for housing.

but how many of africa's resources have been unfairly exploited by western countries including the uk?

it's not hard to see why many of these people feel historically justified to take all they can.

Unfortunately you're quite correct. Nevertheless plenty of other continents were plundered by the Europeans and have no compunction in racing ahead of us now, if they didnt decades ago.

I dont pretend to know the reasons why, but immigrants of African origin dont tend to do very well compared to most other groups, except possibly Bengalis.

For all the problems the chaotic stateless chaos of Somalia has, I doubt very many of them are solved by tales of 3rd cousin watserface who went to London where they pay you thousands of pounds not to work.