Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
SarahBell

Asylum Seekers Are Richer Than You

Recommended Posts

http://www.lbc.co.uk/benefits-asylum-seekers-have-tvs-and-ipads-84137

Asylum seekers given homes and benefits were found to have iPads, mobile phones and flat screen televisions despite claiming they were "destitute", a report has found.

As of April 2013, the Home Office provided accommodation for around 23,000 asylum seekers with around 60% receiving financial support from the department.

"In some of these, it was clear that the occupants may have a level of income above that expected of someone receiving the minimum level of support."

It added: "There is a risk that individuals or families may be occupying properties to which they are not entitled, thus taking resources away from those more in need."

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/national-asylum-support-service-the-provision-of-accommodation-for-asylum-seekers/

he National Asylum Support Service was stretched to the limit when the number of asylum seekers in accommodation reached over 67,000 in March 2003. Although the Service managed to deal with this workload, its contracts did not always provide value for money.

Edited by SarahBell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every cloud has a silver lining. Hard pressed hard working families may be able to supplement their meagre incomes providing domestic help such as cleaning and ironing to their asylum seeking superiors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.lbc.co.uk/benefits-asylum-seekers-have-tvs-and-ipads-84137

Asylum seekers given homes and benefits were found to have iPads, mobile phones and flat screen televisions despite claiming they were "destitute", a report has found.

As of April 2013, the Home Office provided accommodation for around 23,000 asylum seekers with around 60% receiving financial support from the department.

"In some of these, it was clear that the occupants may have a level of income above that expected of someone receiving the minimum level of support."

It added: "There is a risk that individuals or families may be occupying properties to which they are not entitled, thus taking resources away from those more in need."

https://www.nao.org.uk/report/national-asylum-support-service-the-provision-of-accommodation-for-asylum-seekers/

he National Asylum Support Service was stretched to the limit when the number of asylum seekers in accommodation reached over 67,000 in March 2003. Although the Service managed to deal with this workload, its contracts did not always provide value for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, give safe haven to people in danger...but return them when the danger has passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're not asylum seekers. They are economic migrants. Real asylum seekers seek asylum in the first safe place, they don't travel through multiple safe countries to seek asylum in the one where there is the easiest benefits system to manipulate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who has passed through a safe country, such as France, on the way here is not a proper asylum seeker as it is then not safety that they are primarily seeking but a soft touch on benefits and law enforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60% of 23,000 people?

c. 14,000 ?!

Doesn't even register on my calculator.

Risible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my book asylum should be for high profile political dissidents/protesters - not any spud who simply rocks up on our doorstep, if were granting more that about 2 or 3 a year then were probably getting it wrong.

I understand the moral dilemma but at least blanket refusal is in some sense "fair" - with todays system we are mororless arbitrarily picking winners and losers. Lets imagine we remove the cost/logistic factor of the applicant getting here, our current policy amounts to deciding were going to "save" n thousand people and then holding a world wide lottery to see who gets lucky.

Id rather we spent the time and resources trying to fix the problems at source where feasible (the odd despot assassination or something)

Edited by goldbug9999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world i would prefer to give asylum to the babe on the left of him.

everyone was to the left of him *ithankyew*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wogga woggas who come to this part of the world get too much dosh from our public finances. So the solution is to give the State authorities more draconian powers to control people's free movements and rights to be in certain places. Not to stop handing out public money to private individuals left right and centre. No no no. Much better to keep the gravy train flowing, and then convince the plebs to support opressive social control of them and their peers. In fact why not plant inflammatory stories like this in the popular media to whip up more infighting amongst them? Then we can cement our political and financial dominance. Job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most asylum seekers are young people - because you need to be young and strong to escape in the first place and then make it all the way to good old UK. The elderly aren't going to flee.

Inevitably - particularly in cash economy Britain - they are going to do work on the side of some sort (legit or not) cash in hand. The alternative being stuck at home every day in your flat - which not everyone wants to do.

Blame the system - not the people who take advantage of it. That's our mistake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blame the system - not the people who take advantage of it. That's our mistake!

Why is this irrelevant point raised time and time again in any of these discussions.

Lets me get it out the way once and for all with a simple example that even the most hard of thinking can understand: if they brought in a new benefit rule of "all left handed people get £1000 a week", does that mean that by opposing this policy that I am declaring that I am somehow prejudiced against or hate left handed people or blame left handed individuals themselves for the policy ? - no it does not quite obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this irrelevant point raised time and time again in any of these discussions.

Lets me get it out the way once and for all with a simple example that even the most hard of thinking can understand: if they brought in a new benefit rule of "all left handed people get £1000 a week", does that mean that by opposing this policy that I am declaring that I am somehow prejudiced against or hate left handed people or blame left handed individuals themselves for the policy ? - no it does not quite obviously.

In your example is it better to campaign and argue for a change in the handout rules, or to campaign and argue for forcible re-education to make lefties learn how to use their right hands for all tasks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Flat screens etc could have been bought whilst in work. Did anyone ask?

If I were unemployed tomorrow I'd have a flat screen, a tablet, smart phone, netbook and various gizmo's.

Is that allowed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who has passed through a safe country, such as France, on the way here is not a proper asylum seeker as it is then not safety that they are primarily seeking but a soft touch on benefits and law enforcement.

Piffle. The main criteria people use when seeking asylum in another country are:

1) Do I know anybody there who can help me?

2) Can I speak any of the language?

3) Will I be able to support myself?

It's not rocket science. Imagine you had to flee a totalitarian UK - where would you go after crossing the Channel in the other direction? If you don't know anyone in France and can't speak any French, you could hardly be blamed for looking further afield!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

60% of 23,000 people?

c. 14,000 ?!

Doesn't even register on my calculator.

Risible.

Well indeed. We issue arou d 200,000 'student' visas every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody who has passed through a safe country, such as France, on the way here is not a proper asylum seeker as it is then not safety that they are primarily seeking but a soft touch on benefits and law enforcement.

Indeedy doody.

If they're not from Norway, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands, Belgium, France, Spain or Portugal - then they have no excuse for being here, and we, the British people, are being taken for a ride!

Edited by Joshua1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   222 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.