PDA

View Full Version : Somali aslyum seeker gets free 2mil house



Eight.
12-07-2010, 03:53 PM
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/10/article-1293730-0A5F75A3000005DC-254_233x423.jpg
A family of former asylum-seekers from Somalia are living in a £2.1million luxury townhouse in one of Britain's most exclusive addresses at a cost to taxpayers of £8,000 a month.
Abdi and Sayruq Nur and their seven children moved into their three-storey property in a fashionable area of London last month because they didn't like the 'poorer' part of the city they were living in.

Mr Nur, 42, an unemployed bus conductor, and his 40-year-old wife, who has never worked, are now living in Kensington despite the fact that they are totally dependent on state benefits.

They live close to celebrities, including artist Lucian Freud, singer Damon Albarn and designer Stella McCartney, and their home is just minutes from the fashionable Kensington Place restaurant which was a favourite haunt of the late Princess Diana.

The family's new home is believed to be one of the most expensive houses ever paid for by housing benefit, which is administered by local councils but funded by the Department for Work and Pensions.
The disclosure that a single family has been paid so much will embarrass Ministers, who last month pledged to rein in Britain's £20billion-a-year housing benefit bill.

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.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/10/article-1293730-0A61B224000005DC-596_468x546.jpg Smart: The Nur family's new home has five bedrooms, two bathrooms and a fully fitted kitchen as is nearby several celebrities' London homes


Property sources say the house was being advertised locally at a cost of £1,050 per week.

The house is owned by Brophy Group Business Ltd, a British Virgin Islands company whose registered address is a post office box in Liechtenstein.

No one from the firm, which bought the house for £2.1 million in 2007, was available for comment.

Mr Nur said: 'The new house is good enough and it is near the school and the shops. We need a house this big because we have so many children.

'The old house was good but the area was not so good. It was a very poor area and there were no buses, no shops and the schools were too far.

'The old house was four or five bus stops away from the primary school attended by two of my children.

'Soon, all three of our younger children are going to be at primary school and we can't take them all on the bus. Now they are going to a school which is just down the road.'
From September, his children will attend a school located just 20 yards from their new front door - which has been rated as outstanding by Ofsted.
They previously attended a school in Kensal Rise which was rated as satisfactory.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/07/10/article-1293730-0A656B01000005DC-424_468x565.jpg 'Bad area': Mr Nur said their former home in Brent matched their family's needs, but they didn't like living in a 'poor' part of London

But Mr Nur said his neighbourhood also had other advantages. 'I like the neighbours and there does not seem to be much crime.'
He added: 'They have very full shops here and they are still open at 2am. Unlike at Kensal Rise, where they closed at 7pm or 8pm.'

Mr Nur, who lost his £6.50-an-hour job as a bus conductor 18 months ago, claims officials at Kensington and Chelsea council said they 'didn't care' about his decision to move into the borough, which they said was 'not a problem'.

The family's three-storey property, which dates from the 1840s, has five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a fully fitted kitchen and a garden.

The family's living room, which boasts a large bay window, is dominated by a 50in LG flatscreen TV. It also has two large black leather sofas, two elaborate rugs and lush houseplants.
Neighbours of the family last night expressed their shock at the amount of housing benefit being claimed.

Nigel Melville, 65, a company director, said: 'To be paying that much out in housing benefit is ridiculous - it's too much. I suppose they had to be housed somewhere, but it's an awful lot of money.'
Mr Nur worked for the Red Cross in Somalia and married his wife in 1993.

The couple subsequently fled their homeland because of civil war and were granted asylum in Britain in 1999.

The couple's four oldest children, who are aged between 12 and 16, were all born in Somalia. The youngest three children were born in Britain.

Mr Nur last night acknowledged the family was lucky to have the new home, but he insisted his family 'were no better or no worse off than anyone else'.

He also insisted he was doing his best to find a job.
'I am looking for a job. I am taking a course to train me in how to get a job. I would like any job. Anything in food production or warehouses would be fine.'

The current housing benefit system was overhauled by the last government in April 2008. Labour Ministers introduced new caps on the amount claimants could receive, depending on the size and location of the property.
But instead of bringing costs down, the new system encouraged many landlords to raise rents to the level of the maximum allowable.

The new government has announced further sweeping changes to the housing benefit system, which will come into effect next April.

The new rules mean claimants living in a four or five-bedroom house will no longer be able to claim more than £400 a week.

The changes have led to warnings that thousands of families will be forced out of existing homes into cheaper properties.

But critics say the changes are essential because of mounting concern about the size of some individual claims, particularly in London.

Earlier this year, it emerged that Essma Marjam, a single mother of six, was being paid nearly £7,000 a month so that she could live in a five-bedroom villa in Maida Vale.

In December, Francesca Walker, a mother-of-eight who also lived in Kensington and Chelsea, defended her £90,000-a-year housing benefit claims for a £2 million villa in Notting Hill.

She said the family were completely justified in living there because the council could not find a big enough property.

The London borough of Kensington and Chelsea last night declined to comment on the specific circumstances of the Nur family's claim.

The council said it had a responsibility to meet the needs of claimants who were eligible for benefits and was powerless to stop people moving into private accommodation in the area.
A spokesman said: 'We have been saying for some years now that the way in which the maximum level of housing benefit is calculated is flawed and we welcome the Government's new changes which begin next year.
'The sums of money that many families claim for housing in the capital and elsewhere is an example of an unreasonably generous benefits system which is open to abuse.'

A spokesman for Brent Council said: 'Households, whether they are claiming benefits or are in work, are able to make their own arrangements in terms of renting privately, as long as they can find a landlord with a suitable property.
'This includes decisions about where they live.'


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#ixzz0tU4EDN2j



Look inside for pictures.

Hitman
12-07-2010, 04:06 PM
Saw this, if the Government wants to save money HERE'S THE FIRST PLACE THEY SHOULD LOOK. :@

This-country-is-a-joke. Everyone-is-laughing-at-us. This-country-is-a-joke. Everyone-is-laughing-at-us. This-country-is-a-joke. Everyone-is-laughing-at-us. This-country-is-a-joke. Everyone-is-laughing-at-us.

Fez
12-07-2010, 04:53 PM
This angers me more than anything else:


Chelsea council who said 'it would be no problem' to move.

kuzkasate
12-07-2010, 05:07 PM
Terrible. I myself am not British, but that, I have to say is just way over the limit.

Moh
12-07-2010, 05:09 PM
Wow, that's just terrible :l

Theres been 2 claiming benefits for a lot.. this just tops it all off.

Special
12-07-2010, 05:11 PM
omg this is a joke. i'm leaving this country when i can!

Moh
12-07-2010, 05:20 PM
We can't even get homes for OUR homeless people and they give people from other countries this!

They now having a better life style than anybody working their arse off for it.

Nemo
12-07-2010, 05:24 PM
We can't even get homes for OUR homeless people and they give people from other countries this!

They now having a better life style than anybody working their arse off for it.
If you're homeless and you've been brought up in this country, then it's most likely that you've done something stupid and it's ur own fault to be fair.

Moh
12-07-2010, 05:28 PM
If you're homeless and you've been brought up in this country, then it's most likely that you've done something stupid and it's ur own fault to be fair.
Not always their fault. Some people run away from home, some people get into the wrong crowd (because the way they've been brought up).

This family aren't even working and I bet in their country they didn't get anything they get here.

Eight.
12-07-2010, 05:29 PM
If you're homeless and you've been brought up in this country, then it's most likely that you've done something stupid and it's ur own fault to be fair.

What if your that small minority that didn't do anything.

Nemo
12-07-2010, 05:32 PM
Not always their fault. Some people run away from home, some people get into the wrong crowd (because the way they've been brought up).

This family aren't even working and I bet in their country they didn't get anything they get here.
thats why i said most likely

What if your that small minority that didn't do anything.
Well they should be helped, but saying that all our homeless people should be helped ain't quite right

Eight.
12-07-2010, 05:34 PM
This dude grinds my gears because he doesn't like the area because it's poor but he's lucky to live there than Somalia.

Moh
12-07-2010, 05:34 PM
thats why i said most likely

Well they should be helped, but saying that all our homeless people should be helped ain't quite right
There's no way of determine which are which. You could go with the option car insurance companies do and punish the minority because of the majority or you could help them all to help the minority.

alexxxxx
12-07-2010, 05:42 PM
omg how unfair

Hitman
12-07-2010, 05:51 PM
omg how unfair
Do I smell sarcasm. :rolleyes:

alexxxxx
12-07-2010, 07:29 PM
Do I smell sarcasm. :rolleyes:

no im being serious of course it's unfair. but this is such a populist and sensationalist piece of journalism that's meant to provoke such reaction so i thought i might as well join in.

Jordy
12-07-2010, 08:18 PM
Saw this, if the Government wants to save money HERE'S THE FIRST PLACE THEY SHOULD LOOK. :@

This-country-is-a-joke. Everyone-is-laughing-at-us. This-country-is-a-joke. Everyone-is-laughing-at-us. This-country-is-a-joke. Everyone-is-laughing-at-us. This-country-is-a-joke. Everyone-is-laughing-at-us.Read the article fully and you'd see under the Coalition Government there's no way in hell this will be able to continue...


The new government has announced further sweeping changes to the housing benefit system, which will come into effect next April.

The new rules mean claimants living in a four or five-bedroom house will no longer be able to claim more than £400 a week.Now I'm expecting a torrent of abuse from somebody that it's taking the coalition too long but just be grateful you haven't got Labour in government, k?

Hitman
12-07-2010, 08:32 PM
no im being serious of course it's unfair. but this is such a populist and sensationalist piece of journalism that's meant to provoke such reaction so i thought i might as well join in.Regardless of who wrote it or where it appeared, it is unfair. Yes, sometimes papers try to hype things but this doesn't need hyping, it's crazy. I'm glad you think it's unfair.


Read the article fully and you'd see under the Coalition Government there's no way in hell this will be able to continue...

Now I'm expecting a torrent of abuse from somebody that it's taking the coalition too long but just be grateful you haven't got Labour in government, k?
JORDY YOU NOOB, THE COALITION IS TAKING TOO LONG!! Just kidding, I have seen MANY positive changes by the ConDems and I suppose most of the changes... much better than Labour. I will be glad to see more things change, but I fear they won't be big enough.

-:Undertaker:-
12-07-2010, 08:41 PM
Read the article fully and you'd see under the Coalition Government there's no way in hell this will be able to continue...

Now I'm expecting a torrent of abuse from somebody that it's taking the coalition too long but just be grateful you haven't got Labour in government, k?

Oh Jordy really, the coalition government/modern Conservative Party is just a slightly softer and slower Labour government;


Both support more powers to the European Union (Conservatives pretend they do not whilst signing it away).
Both support softer prison sentences for criminals.
Both support more money to foreign aid and the European Union.
Both support the diasterous non-grammer school based system we have that has ruined education.
Both support keeping the government quagnos in action.
Both have continued to run up the debt (government will not actually reduce the debt even if it carries out these cuts)

I mean we could be here all day, lets stop pretending there is any real difference between the main parties. I'd like to remind people that back before 1997 and during those early years, Tony Blair (David Camerons self-confessed idol) and his government also pledged to clean up the benefits system, get tough on the EU and the rest of it - they did the exact opposite. We have already had the prisons double track back, the EU double track back and I expect most other things will turn out the same way.

alexxxxx
12-07-2010, 08:45 PM
Oh Jordy really, the coalition government/modern Conservative Party is just a slightly softer and slower Labour government;



Both support more powers to the European Union (Conservatives pretend they do not whilst signing it away).
Both support softer prison sentences for criminals.
Both support more money to foreign aid and the European Union.
Both support the diasterous non-grammer school based system we have that has ruined education.
Both support keeping the government quagnos in action.
Both have continued to run up the debt (government will not actually reduce the debt even if it carries out these cuts)


I mean we could be here all day, lets stop pretending there is any real difference between the main parties. I'd like to remind people that back before 1997 and during those early years, Tony Blair (David Camerons self-confessed idol) and his government also pledged to clean up the benefits system, get tough on the EU and the rest of it - they did the exact opposite. We have already had the prisons double track back, the EU double track back and I expect most other things will turn out the same way.
you sound like a talking UKIP manifesto. i hope you don't talk like this off the forum.

-:Undertaker:-
12-07-2010, 08:49 PM
you sound like a talking UKIP manifesto. i hope you don't talk like this off the forum.

Well its true, and people following them are fooling themselves otherwise. I have just listed everything they have gone back on/are the same on. This week we had a Conservative Party wanting to do what the last government did, which was releasing thousands of criminals early - I suspect at the next election that Labour will savage the Tories on it and its the same old story that goes on and on and on.

They agree on Europe.
They agree on defence.
They agree on foreign affairs.
They agree widely on social policy.
They agree widely on economic policy.

At the election for example, we had the three of them arguing about £6 billion worth of cuts - an absolute charade, all three of them.

Often if you just sit down and watch PMQs - they dont actually debate anything, only small little hits at eachother. I suppose this is one of the reasons that parliament is so empty nowadays whenever bills are passed - they all pretty much agree on each thing (that or the whips are whipping them into party line). We have had a Conservative leader who was elected because he had a Blair-aura about him and who has named himself the 'heir to Blair' and the sad fact is that we cannot get rid of these two/three imitation parties unless proportional representation is brought in.

alexxxxx
12-07-2010, 08:53 PM
Well its true, and people following them are fooling themselves otherwise. I have just listed everything they have gone back on/are the same on. This week we had a Conservative Party wanting to do what the last government did, which was releasing thousands of criminals early - I suspect at the next election that Labour will savage the Tories on it and its the same old story that goes on and on and on.

They agree on Europe.
They agree on defence.
They agree on foreign affairs.
They agree widely on social policy.
They agree widely on economic policy.

At the election for example, we had the three of them arguing about £6 billion worth of cuts - an absolute charade, all three of them.

can you not accept that some people simply don't share your views? and i think the cuts will end up being a bit more than that. eventually.

Nemo
12-07-2010, 08:56 PM
can you not accept that some people simply don't share your views? and i think the cuts will end up being a bit more than that. eventually.
dont even bother, he'll never change

-:Undertaker:-
12-07-2010, 08:57 PM
can you not accept that some people simply don't share your views? and i think the cuts will end up being a bit more than that. eventually.

I'm not asking you to agree with me, i'm pointing out how they are all the same with examples provided - if you think they are all so differing from one another on them issues then please point those major differences out to me - as an ex-Conservatives supporter I had been looking for them and never found them. I rememeber when I supported the Conservative Party back in 2008/early 2009 - I found it harder and harder to actually believe in what they were saying because it was practically the same as what the government was doing/spouting. It is time to stop this stupid politics where we support one party because its red and the other because its blue.

Regarding the cuts, the cuts have already been increased to what they will be over the term of this parliament - however they talk about cutting the deficiet, not the actual debt itself which is predicted to go on increasing and increasing with no plans to bring this down. If the enormous debt is not brought down then we will end up spending a large proportion of our national budget on debt interest (we already spend more on debt interest than we do on the entire education or military budgets).


dont even bother, he'll never change

Do you have some big differences to point out between the main parties, or are you not going to reply with them? (as I suspect)

Nemo
12-07-2010, 09:04 PM
I'm not asking you to agree with me, i'm pointing out how they are all the same with examples provided - if you think they are all so differing from one another on them issues then please point those major differences out to me - as an ex-Conservatives supporter I had been looking for them and never found them. I rememeber when I supported the Conservative Party back in 2008/early 2009 - I found it harder and harder to actually believe in what they were saying because it was practically the same as what the government was doing/spouting. It is time to stop this stupid politics where we support one party because its red and the other because its blue.



Do you have some big differences to point out between the main parties, or are you not going to reply with them? (as I suspect)Eh im not really into politics, i dabble. But that wasn't what i was talking about.

Accipiter
13-07-2010, 10:05 AM
:llll

how come some ******* moaning ******* who hides in our country gets to live next to damon albarn :l

i want to live next to damon albarn :l

Bailey
13-07-2010, 02:54 PM
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/144140/BENEFITS-FAMILY-EVICTED/

evicted.

Hitman
13-07-2010, 03:04 PM
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/144140/BENEFITS-FAMILY-EVICTED/

evicted.
If they actually evict them (and not just say they will) then good! At least this new Government has it's eyes open, unlike Labour.

Bailey
13-07-2010, 05:21 PM
If they actually evict them (and not just say they will) then good! At least this new Government has it's eyes open, unlike Labour.

Won't be until next April though, meh.

Hitman
13-07-2010, 05:35 PM
Won't be until next April though, meh.
Great... I wouldn't be surprised if he was allowed to sue them or appeal or something. With what money, you ask? The Government's... really would not surprise me. Ah well, at least he's being kicked out.

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2010, 01:11 PM
Eh im not really into politics, i dabble. But that wasn't what i was talking about.

Well concerning my own views I have changed before, maybe it is you who has not yet changed.

I went from;

Conservative when first interested and from growing up (parental influence)
Liberal Democrat during the Iraq war (left wing phase most students have)
Conservative with Michael Howard (started to think for myself although still followed party line)
UKIP from 2009 (followed my beliefs, could see what Conservative Party was - a sham)

Next time when trying to have a dig, it'd be useful to back up what you are saying. The fact you are spouting "he'll never change" suggests to me that you disagree with me, so again i'd ask you to point out some differences between the main parties - if you cannot then I take it you actually agree with me.

Nemo
14-07-2010, 01:19 PM
Well concerning my own views I have changed before, maybe it is you who has not yet changed.

I went from;

Conservative when first interested and from growing up (parental influence)
Liberal Democrat during the Iraq war (left wing phase most students have)
Conservative with Michael Howard (started to think for myself although still followed party line)
UKIP from 2009 (followed my beliefs, could see what Conservative Party was - a sham)

Next time when trying to have a dig, it'd be useful to back up what you are saying. The fact you are spouting "he'll never change" suggests to me that you disagree with me, so again i'd ask you to point out some differences between the main parties - if you cannot then I take it you actually agree with me.
By saying you'll never change, i meant that you'll never change in the fact that you are always strong in what you believe in and won't back down, so trying to stop you doing so isn't gonna work, you have to change what you think for yourself. Not talking about specific party beliefs.

ifuseekamy
14-07-2010, 03:16 PM
An unemployed bus conductor? How does that work :S

Hitman
14-07-2010, 05:19 PM
An unemployed bus conductor? How does that work :S
He used to work as a bus conductor/is a bus conductor, but is unemployed... I imagine.

Tintinnabulate
14-07-2010, 07:02 PM
OMG wth. Seriously WHAT? He doesn't like living in a poor area? THEN ******* GET A JOB YOU PIECE OF ****. GET YOUR WIFE TO ******* FIND A JOB IF YOU HATE LIVING IN A POOR AREA. What a **** and shouldn't even get benefits with that attitude.

Caution
14-07-2010, 07:04 PM
OMG wth. Seriously WHAT? He doesn't like living in a poor area? THEN ******* GET A JOB YOU PIECE OF ****. GET YOUR WIFE TO ******* FIND A JOB IF YOU HATE LIVING IN A POOR AREA. What a **** and shouldn't even get benefits with that attitude.
Do you think he's the only person living in Britain with that attitude?

Hitman
14-07-2010, 07:06 PM
Do you think he's the only person living in Britain with that attitude?
He probably doesn't but I don't see what point you're trying to make - I'm sure Saurav would say this to any benefit raping scum bag...

Caution
14-07-2010, 07:16 PM
He probably doesn't but I don't see what point you're trying to make - I'm sure Saurav would say this to any benefit raping scum bag...
Seems a bit of an overreaction to something that's pretty common. There's plenty that are unemployed, not seeking work and getting everything paid. Not necessarily 2k a week, but the same principle.

Tintinnabulate
14-07-2010, 08:36 PM
Do you think he's the only person living in Britain with that attitude?

Of course not, but his situation is a lot worse, its silly if anyone does think he is the only one.

A lot of people on housing benefit do try and get a job etc, but his seems to be an extremely bad attitude.

Its not an over reaction, I simply hate those with that kind of an attitude. Another similar example was posted when his wife has never worked, they had around 9-11 kids with another due and he quit his job when he realised he would get more on benefits. Obviously there are more, but like I said, I hate anyone with that attitude.

Hitman
14-07-2010, 09:29 PM
Seems a bit of an overreaction to something that's pretty common. There's plenty that are unemployed, not seeking work and getting everything paid. Not necessarily 2k a week, but the same principle.
As Saurav said, this guy has a terrible attitude. He comes to this country as an asylum seeker, to be safe and the Government generously give him a house pretty much instantly. He gets money to eat and has a roof over his head. His kids get to go to school. Then, he demands a bigger house because the area is 'poor', the shops are 'rubbish' and his kids have to catch a bus to school. That is downright ungrateful. I bet in Somalia his kids didn't even go to school, they probably had hardly anything. It was saying on the radio, it'd take him 5,000 years of working in Somalia for him to afford that house...

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2010, 09:39 PM
If he is seeking asylum, then why has he travelled across various nations and seas to come here? Below is the shortest possible route he could have taken to Britain, which is most likely wrong because I doubt he flew here in the first place. In reality he has probably crossed through the likes of; Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Greece (if he has crossed the med sea), France, Germany or even Spain to get to here.


http://www.iaza.com/work/100715C/worldsomalia75337.bmp


Now let us ask, why did he come here?

£££

Hitman
14-07-2010, 09:40 PM
If he is seeking asylum, then why has he travelled across various nations and seas to come here? Below is the shortest possible route he could have taken to Britain, which is most likely wrong because I doubt he flew here in the first place. In reality he has probably crossed through the likes of; Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, Greece (if he has crossed the med sea), France, Germany or even Spain to get to here.


http://www.iaza.com/work/100715C/worldsomalia75337.bmp


Now let us ask, why did he come here?

£££


Undertaker, how could you possibly say that?! For money?! Whatever made you think that? :P ;)

I bet his buddies told him about this place and he thought "yesss"

Caution
14-07-2010, 09:40 PM
As Saurav said, this guy has a terrible attitude. He comes to this country as an asylum seeker, to be safe and the Government generously give him a house pretty much instantly. He gets money to eat and has a roof over his head. His kids get to go to school. Then, he demands a bigger house because the area is 'poor', the shops are 'rubbish' and his kids have to catch a bus to school. That is downright ungrateful. I bet in Somalia his kids didn't even go to school, they probably had hardly anything. It was saying on the radio, it'd take him 5,000 years of working in Somalia for him to afford that house...

Yeah.. I'm not condoning it, I'm saying it's nothing new. There's plenty of people that are dependant on the welfare system and have no intention of working, this has just caught attention because it's 2k a week. If you're an asylum seeker you should be here with the intention of working and should have no intention of being dependant on the state. It confuses me how a guy with 7 children is allowed into the UK.

-:Undertaker:-
14-07-2010, 09:43 PM
The simple solution to solve welfare is to put a 10-year cap on it, meaning you have to work for 10 years (10 collective years, so when you are out of work it stops the counter) before you have access to the benefits system. I would even consider extending this to people living here, meaning that 18-year olds who have no intention of working would be forced to work until they are 28 before they can have access to the welfare state - which by that time I bet most would have changed their attitude and would continue working.

Hitman
14-07-2010, 09:44 PM
Yeah.. I'm not condoning it, I'm saying it's nothing new. There's plenty of people that are dependant on the welfare system and have no intention of working, this has just caught attention because it's 2k a week. If you're an asylum seeker you should be here with the intention of working and should have no intention of being dependant on the state. It confuses me how a guy with 7 children is allowed into the UK.
This takes the biscuit though because we, as a country are kind enough to let him and his family stay here safely, then we even give him a house, food and money and what does he do? Demand more. I am not saying those who are born here abusing it are allowed and are OK, it's just they've been born here so we're stuck with them anyway.

---------- Post added 14-07-2010 at 10:45 PM ----------


The simple solution to solve welfare is to put a 10-year cap on it, meaning you have to work for 10 years (10 collective years, so when you are out of work it stops the counter) before you have access to the benefits system. I would even consider extending this to people living here, meaning that 18-year olds who have no intention of working would be forced to work until they are 28 before they can have access to the welfare state - which by that time I bet most would have changed their attitude and would continue working.
Bingo, they put something in, they get something out. You have to do at least a years work in Spain to get any type of benefits, and even then they're probably not much and they certainly aren't plastered everywhere like in the UK.

Hitman
18-07-2010, 08:28 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1295601/Somali-refugee-given-2-1million-taxpayer-funded-house-owed-7-000-rent-previous-home.html

It has emerged that he owned £7,000 on his old home - what the hellllllllllllllllllllllllll. What did he do with the money, spend it?! :@ People like him should NOT be allowed into the country.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!