|
U-Know! Forum » Asylum |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 22, 2001, 10:21
|
||
|
I never knew about the change/voucher issue. Thankyou for illuminating those that were unaware of this. That is appalling. I saw that ugliest (in both character and looks) woman, ann whiticome on TV last night going on about stopping asylum processes and agreements. I was shouting and throwing things at the tele by the time she'd finished. I don't think I've been that angry in a long time. And it always takes a tory to do it, funny that. Now that you know were my true sympathies lie, I would like to play devil's advocate for a moment. Would the resources be better spent dealing with the existing homeless problem first? This argument is powerful and needs to be answered rationally. There are countries like France and Germany that do not suffer from enormous overcrowding that the UK does. Where do these people live? Do we plough up the remaining countryside to house them? This problem was apparent while I was living in the UK and is a growing situation here in Ireland. Every day new faces appear on the street corners, ironically holding out McDonalds cups, asking for change. Something has to be done, but what?
|
|||
stray 2057 posts |
Aug 22, 2001, 11:33
|
||
|
Lets appropriate. there are at least two empty properties per homeless person in this country. Unfortunately, as they're all in private hands they aren't likely to be given away free. So the solution could be either organised squats, or the govt buys/leases them. What d'yall reckon ?
|
|||
Merrick 2148 posts |
Aug 22, 2001, 19:15
|
||
|
On the overcrowding thing, as Stray says there are far more empty properties than homeless people in the UK. Homelessness wasn't a major problem in the Uk until 10-15 years ago when the Tories Damn The Poor policy kicked in. There is enough housing for us all, and plenty more. Britain is tenth in Eurpoe for the number of asylum seekers taken compared to the size of the existing population. The vouchers thing is a total rip off. Asylum seekers are given vouchers which are only spendable on certain items at supermarkets, and only by the person to whom the voucher has been issued. They cannot buy cheap food at the market cos the vouchers are only taken by (expensive) supermarkets. The voucher system has been dreamt up and implemented by civil servants who all shop at supermarkets and don't realise that when you're on £50 a week you *have* to buy food elsewhere. The supermarkets do not give change for the vouchers, so the vouchers are effectively worth less than their face value, and the supermarkets are profiting from it. Limiting the kind of items they can be used for means that people cannot buy toys for their kids or cosmetics. I remember reading of Red Cross parcels sent in to liberated concentration camps in 1945, and how the lipsticks were the first thing many of the women went for, even before food, because it rehumanised them. Only allowing the vouchers to be spent by the person who they're given to means that asylum seekers cannot club together to buy in bulk, and must buy small packets of food at supermarket prices. One asylum seeker was arrested for buying some food for him and his friend with vouchers issued to them both. He was given a police Caution, which admits guilt. Because he commited an offence he faces deportation. Britian's policy on asylum seekers is barbaric and racist. The 'detention centres' are prisons. Indeed, many are kept in actual prisons. These are people who have commited no offence and yet are improsoned indefinitely, a clear breach of their human rights. The solicitors given to help them are largely crap and mercenary, and just collect the Legal Aid money and do fuck all. Thus they are denied a fair hearing, another breach of basic human rights. The Immigration civil servants know this, and they just don't care. Institutionalised racism at its cruellest.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 24, 2001, 08:51
|
||
|
As well as the facts you state I believe that the biggest land/property owner in the UK is the Church. It would be good to see the Church allow some of the unused (admin) buildings and churches to be utilised to home people instead of selling them off to the highest bidder. Isn't it about time that they walked the walk? I was not aware of the total absurdity of the voucher system. What pressure groups exist to change this policy? One of the main problems that needs to be addressed is the resentment that is generated when seekers seemingly get given flats and furniture for nothing. I know this is an educational matter, but when you're fighting fear tactics as used by the NF etc. it is a hard battle to win. It is difficult to talk to a man about the struggles of others being harder than his when he is himself struggling to put food on the table for his own family.
|
|||
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Aug 24, 2001, 12:38
|
||
|
FourWinds says of The Church: > > isn't it time they walked the walk? > actually, no i don't think it is. i think they've had plenty of opportunity to practice what they preach over the past coupla thousand years. maybe we should just accept that if they've not managed to get it right in all that time, it ain't ever gonna happen. church property should be handed over immediately to 'the people' (not 'the state'... blair would just sell it into the private sector for 5 pound 50 and ten B&H) and an independent commission set up to see how best that land could be used for the benefit of the general public... at least some of it should - therefore - be set aside to ease such problems as housing the homeless and any asylum seekers who require it. them's my thoughts on it anyway.
|
|||
Nat 1905 posts |
Aug 24, 2001, 15:16
|
||
|
Been very interested in what you've all got to say here but as someone who works with both Asylum Seekers and the Homeless (in Southampton I might add so NOT London) you must remember that not all Homeless people want to be housed!! Some are quite happy doing the circuit of Shelters that are available and even at this time of year sleeping rough. There may be a surplus of empty properties in the Uk, but you can't fill them with people who don't want to be housed! The Charity I work for has been praised for being one of the first Charities outside of London to re-house long term heavy drinkers - our lads are all in their 60's have all been rough sleepers and drinkers since their 20's and we are basically giving them a meal, support and a bed and allowing them to continue drinking until they die in comfort & with dignity, and not just another forgotten statistic in a subway.... one out of the 4 loves it in the house the other 3 hate it and continue to leave and sleep rough - usually on the door step of the property, because they don't like being enclosed in 4 walls on a permanent basis, but like to have some kind of security and shelter if its raining!. The main worry for us as a Charity at the moment with regards to the Asylum Problem is the amount of very young children coming into the UK. Aged sometimes only about 6 they are placed into Foster Care until 16-18 and then become homeless in some cases as their Asylum cases are taking too long to sort out. This is an appaulling state of affairs which needs sorting out as soon as possible.
|
|||
|
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Aug 24, 2001, 17:22
|
||
|
I too could choose to sleep outside. But that's the issue CHOICE. You and the charity you work for is doing a fine job in offering people the ability to choose. Keep up the good work. But this does raise one other issue. Why do we need charities to do this work? Why aren't the government doing it? Also ask whether your existence makes it easier for the government to do nothing. Please don't misunderstand me I truly admire all the people like yourselves who give so much. I just wish we lived in a society where you didn't have to.
|
|||
|
grufty jim 1978 posts |
Aug 24, 2001, 17:32
|
||
|
to paraphrase... "wouldn't it be great if we lived in a society where schools had all the books they needed and the military had to hold bake-sales to raise the cash to buy guns." the sad truth is that charities, such as the one Nat works for, exist for no other reason than the fact that we (as a society) have got our priorities completely wrong. if every person in the country had enough to eat, a roof above their head (assuming they choose that), access to education, medical treatment and a basic standard of living that didn't make them feel like second class citizens, then i suppose i would grudgingly accept that the government could spend some of the remainder on fast planes and the like (i'd actually prefer the remainder to be invested in alternative energy research, but one can hardly expect our elected representatives to do anything so sensible). until the day however, that there's not a single person living rough who doesn't want to, every penny spent on the military is an obscenity.
|
|||
|
yarky 5 posts |
Aug 29, 2001, 15:10
|
||
Don't wear rosy- coloured specs tho'- My aunty is a social worker and 2 teenage girls have been raped here (Hull) by Eastern European asylum seekers, all hushed up of course.
|
|||
fitzcoraldo 2709 posts |
Aug 29, 2001, 15:11
|
||
|
just a little note on why some of these folk come to our shores. My wife, in her professional capacity, is helping to resettle a Rwandan family. The father was forced to watch his wife and daughter being raped and then mutilated and then tossed into an open sewer, his sons then had their limbs cut off and were also tossed into the sewer, when the soldiers had a pile of people in the sewer they would then toss a grenade in. to retrieve the bodies the father had to pay for the granade. The father and a son and daughter managed to escape with a grandmother and live here with a few vouchers and a couple of quid on a sink estate with no community around them and hostility from the neighbours Sort of fucks you up doesn't it. Funny how the tabloids never explore this side of the tide of immigration. Fitz
|
| Pages: 2 – [ 1 2 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
