In the news

Whatever their origin, have as many children as you're prepared to pay for.

A la Madonna/Brangelina?

no it wouldn't matter if they were white / yellow / blue or fluorescent green with pink spots
they were given a house and they deemed it not good enough
they need a shot of HTFU
as my old mum used to say beggars can't be choosers .....well it seems actually they can

That article is 2 years old, hardly news

ooops clicked linked from current day newspaper article and got that
didn't spot the date

shameful though isn't it ?

Just playing Devil's Advocaat......

New gTLD .bike has been applied for http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en

darn, sex and porn gone
time for a re think on the website i was planning

. edited

A la Madonna/Brangelina?

Thats different. Madonna built a school as well as medical facilities and Brangelina built a hospital and provided funds for water.

Political asylum - my balls.

No, I mean, like... You can actually pay for children, like, with money... whatever their origin...

Forget it

...

http://www.immigrationmatters.co.uk/former-asylum-seeker-on-benefits-given-2-million-house.html

The Telegraph reports. Abdi and Sayruq Nur, who fled war town Somalia, had been unhappy that their previous home also paid for by housing benefit was not convenient for shopping and meant their children had to get the bus to school.

Now in a move certain to anger taxpayers, the couple and their seven children have relocated to a five bedroom town house in Notting Hill, where they can count artist Lucian Freud and designer Stella McCartney among their neighbours.

The familys new home is thought to be one of the most expensive ever paid for by housing benefit and the revelation comes just a month after Ministers pledged to rein in Britains 20 billion a year housing benefit bill.

Mr Nur, 42, an unemployed bus conductor, arrived in Britain with his wife, who is now 40, in 1999 from Somalia and they were granted asylum.

The family were housed in a five bedroom property in the Kensal Rise area of Brent, at a cost to the taxpayer of 900 a week.

However last month Mr Nur declared he was unhappy with the property because it was in a very poor area and was not convenient for schools and shops.

He approached officials at the council informing them he had found a new home in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

Under housing benefit rules anyone who is eligible can claim for a private property if it is suitable for their needs.

The familys new home, which is in one of the most sought after areas of London, has five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a fully fitted kitchen and a garden.

It is close to the attractions of Portobello Market and local celebrities in the area include pop star Damon Albarn, artist Lucian Freud and Sir Paul McCartneys fashion designer daughter Stella.

Mr Nur receives 2,000 per week from the council to cover the rent, which he then pays to the landlord, who is understood to be an associate of one of his friends.

According to local property sources before the Nur family moved in the house was being advertised for 1,050 a week.

The house is owned by a British Virgin Islands based company called Brophy Group Business Ltd, which bought it for 2.1 million in 2007.

So, someone has realised that you can move anywhere you want, without a reason, and claim Housing Benefit on the property you rent. Do you what people on benefits to have to ask permission every time that they want to move? Consider the cost of that before you answer that bit.

Then consider that Housing Benefit will only pay you the 3rd quartile of the average rent for an area, and is now capped at 4 bedrooms.

I've just been and looked at the rent amounts for Kensington and Chelsea, they can be seen here - https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?LocalAuthorityId=20&LHACategory=999&Month=6&Year=2012&SearchPageParameters=true

The most that he could be getting now is £400 per week, which would be a saving of £500 per week, according to the report. It could well be less that the £400 that he's getting as well, as that would be if he was on Jobseekers or Income Support.

I doubt he was getting the full £900, given the way that benefit rules have changed, but he could have been if he had been claiming long enough at the one address, and not moved, and so was on an earlier version of the scheme.

Quite how, when in full posession of the facts, this can be said to 'anger taxpayers' when its all a load of shit is beyond me. But then I know about how HB works, having been an assesment officer for a while, and now being support staff.

If he is getting £2000 per week to cover the rent, Kensington and Chelsea need to be looking into it, I can only see one way in which that could be done, and that is via a short term provision (that I'm not 100% sure still exisits) that protects people that haven't claimed Housing Benefit in the last 12 months, and will cover up to your full rent for 2 months only, so that you can find somewhere cheaper to rent without being totally fucked over by your landlord, and so you don't fuck the landlord over too. I don't see that provision as unreasonable.

So, is the paper wrong, or the Council? Will we ever find out? The Council cannot defend itself here, the data protection act stops it commenting to a large extent. All it could say is that the Housing Benefit has been assesed correctly, and point the paper at the link I have.

Royal Mail 'to stop delivering post on rainy days':

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-mail-to-stop-delivering-post-on-rainy-days-7847740.html

That would seem to be the sort of news story they might be keen to avoid ... the least I expect is furious backpedalling and adamant denials. If not, it would be shameful. The real story seems to be that some footways in Doncaster are poorly maintained, which is the case throughout the country and is hardly news.

So, someone has realised that you can move anywhere you want, without a reason, and claim Housing Benefit on the property you rent. Do you what people on benefits to have to ask permission every time that they want to move? Consider the cost of that before you answer that bit.

Then consider that Housing Benefit will only pay you the 3rd quartile of the average rent for an area, and is now capped at 4 bedrooms.

I've just been and looked at the rent amounts for Kensington and Chelsea, they can be seen here - https://lha-direct.voa.gov.uk/SearchResults.aspx?LocalAuthorityId=20&LHACategory=999&Month=6&Year=2012&SearchPageParameters=true

The most that he could be getting now is £400 per week, which would be a saving of £500 per week, according to the report. It could well be less that the £400 that he's getting as well, as that would be if he was on Jobseekers or Income Support.

I doubt he was getting the full £900, given the way that benefit rules have changed, but he could have been if he had been claiming long enough at the one address, and not moved, and so was on an earlier version of the scheme.

Quite how, when in full posession of the facts, this can be said to 'anger taxpayers' when its all a load of shit is beyond me. But then I know about how HB works, having been an assesment officer for a while, and now being support staff.

If he is getting £2000 per week to cover the rent, Kensington and Chelsea need to be looking into it, I can only see one way in which that could be done, and that is via a short term provision (that I'm not 100% sure still exisits) that protects people that haven't claimed Housing Benefit in the last 12 months, and will cover up to your full rent for 2 months only, so that you can find somewhere cheaper to rent without being totally fucked over by your landlord, and so you don't fuck the landlord over too. I don't see that provision as unreasonable.

So, is the paper wrong, or the Council? Will we ever find out? The Council cannot defend itself here, the data protection act stops it commenting to a large extent. All it could say is that the Housing Benefit has been assesed correctly, and point the paper at the link I have.

It's all their in the article with the quote 'The Telegraph reports'. It's clearly a load of bollocks, and there are many articles in right-wing papers demonising non-white middle-classes, from Xmas being cancelled, the song White Christmas being banned and ludicrous shite about 'immigrants' who claim huge amounts in Housing Benefit to live in upmarket areas. Sadly they sucker in drooling half-wits at a fair old rate, as can be seen from the comments on this thread.

Indeed. ^

Wait, xmas is cancelled? when did that happen? :/

Thinking on it further, I'm not even sure that the council could confirm that the benefit had been calculated correctly, as that would confirm that he was on benefits, which they can't do.

Therefore it would have had to be an even more waffely output from them.

All of you smug gits who managed to get Stone Roses tickets, it seems your smugness could be short lived as Reni left the venue in Amsterdam before the encore. Given their previous form for infighting the resurrection tour could be short lived.

nah, he'll do it - £4.2 million says he will

I don't care if Remi left, as long as Reni doesn't.

All of you smug gits who managed to get Stone Roses tickets, it seems your smugness could be short lived as Reni left the venue in Amsterdam before the encore. Given their previous form for infighting the resurrection tour could be short lived.

It's hardly being smug having a ticket, there's loads available at face value. Plus as Eightball says Reni will play.

tickets'll still probably sell for a few hundred quid in years to come

win win

tickets'll still probably sell for fiddy dorrah in years to come

win win
fify

Royal Mail 'to stop delivering post on rainy days':

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-mail-to-stop-delivering-post-on-rainy-days-7847740.html

That would seem to be the sort of news story they might be keen to avoid ... the least I expect is furious backpedalling and adamant denials. If not, it would be shameful. The real story seems to be that some footways in Doncaster are poorly maintained, which is the case throughout the country and is hardly news.
Schick slices through spin.

http://www.immigrationmatters.co.uk/former-asylum-seeker-on-benefits-given-2-million-house.html

The Telegraph 'reports'.

I think I've identified the point at which you can stop reading. FTFY, etc

.....

!

quoting youre own ... is the first sign of madness,
you been at the benzo fury?