|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 21:15:23 GMT
They didn’t force them to sell it. If you had read the article then you would have known that. Why did you lie and claim that you read the article ? So it turns out the couple concerned were lying, the council was actually politely inquiring and no 'force' was mentioned. The people that should most have read the letter are a) the couple b) the Daily Mail c) the author of the OP  “An elderly couple who had just moved into their £200,000 house were horrified to receive a letter from their council suggesting the property could be subject to compulsory purchase and used to house asylum seekers.” technically true … |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 21:17:52 GMT
We've moved on from. That what's your none point It's about the thread Being Misleading and a lie has pointed out by Steve and Dappy plus me . But you kept Trolling and Arguing the toss it wasn't Are you going to accept you been wrong all the time even before I joined the thread ? Come on man glow up and accept the responsibility you are wrong Final attempt,this thread is not really about the DM and even the old couple are somewhat irrelevant the whole point is the council have put down in black and white that they want properties for asylum seekers and make no mention of housing the homeless,veterans on the street or people seeking housing who already live here. So forget the house price,the DM,the old couple it is about people who are in desperate need of housing in this country not figuring in plans to grab housing.. I’m not going to answer you again on this I don’t want to be rude but you either understand what this is really about or you don’t end of. The regular asylum system Ukrainian refugees can also claim asylum in the UK. People who receive visas through the Ukraine Family Scheme are not officially designated as asylum seekers or refugees but receive a different temporary status. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk › ... Ukrainian migration to the UK Let's end this about Asylum seekers getting Social housing when the law says they Can't End of |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 21:20:14 GMT
Final attempt,this thread is not really about the DM and even the old couple are somewhat irrelevant the whole point is the council have put down in black and white that they want properties for asylum seekers and make no mention of housing the homeless,veterans on the street or people seeking housing who already live here. So forget the house price,the DM,the old couple it is about people who are in desperate need of housing in this country not figuring in plans to grab housing.. I’m not going to answer you again on this I don’t want to be rude but you either understand what this is really about or you don’t end of. The regular asylum system Ukrainian refugees can also claim asylum in the UK. People who receive visas through the Ukraine Family Scheme are not officially designated as asylum seekers or refugees but receive a different temporary status. migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk › ... Ukrainian migration to the UK Let's end this about Asylum seekers getting Social housing when the law says they Can't End of So the letter from the council was a lie then? |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Feb 15, 2024 21:22:25 GMT
You are missing the point too Steve it’s about who housing is being prioritised for in this country, There are several lines of debate in this thread. I was responding to a point raised on the compulsory purchase line. Within a few posts on the first page the original poster (fair society) makes it clear what this issue is really about Now so many threads are started on this forum based on media stories and soon develop in to the core of the argument this has,it doesn’t matter who the media is from the beeb to the broadsheets and the red tops all have their own slant on the story as this has,it was soon made clear what the issue was and it’s unfair to divert from that. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 21:28:29 GMT
Misleading ? Three days later they received an apology, saying their staff had mistakenly ear-marked the house for possible compulsory purchase, but the Saunders were still baffled by the policy itself. 'What on earth is the council doing forcing people to sell their houses – and even an empty house is owned by someone – so that asylum seekers can live in them?' asked Jose. 'The answer to this is to stop them coming in the first place, not to force people out of their homes.' The incident was seized upon by the Reform UK Party, whose candidate in Thursday's (Feb 15) Wellingborough by-election, Ben Habib, heard about the couple. Mr Habib, who is also the party's co-deputy leader, told MailOnline: 'I was horrified to hear the plight of Mr. & Mrs. Saunders, but my horror could not compare to what they experienced last month. 'They were served with a letter from North Northamptonshire District Council seeking to possess their home. The accusation made was their home was derelict and the Council intended to use it to house single young men seeking asylum. Known to the rest of us as illegal migrants. ' I can confirm their home is most certainly not derelict. It was well appointed and cared for. They were distraught by the threat made by the Council. They feared not having title deeds and being incapable of defending their position. It was not until they visited the Council and after much pleading they managed to get the Council to desist.The Not surprised that Reform jumped on the Band wagon maybe they should of looked at the law first that States Asylum Seekers can't get Social housing . Never mind illegals |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 21:28:51 GMT
There are several lines of debate in this thread. I was responding to a point raised on the compulsory purchase line. Within a few posts on the first page the original poster (fair society) makes it clear what this issue is really about Now so many threads are started on this forum based on media stories and soon develop in to the core of the argument this has,it doesn’t matter who the media is from the beeb to the broadsheets and the red tops all have their own slant on the story as this has,it was soon made clear what the issue was and it’s unfair to divert from that. Indeed. That was from the 3rd post . After that it was taken over by Dappy and Steve whining about the thread title and the cut and paste monkey demonstrating how little he knew about the article . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 21:30:47 GMT
Misleading ? Three days later they received an apology, saying their staff had mistakenly ear-marked the house for possible compulsory purchase, but the Saunders were still baffled by the policy itself. 'What on earth is the council doing forcing people to sell their houses – and even an empty house is owned by someone – so that asylum seekers can live in them?' asked Jose. 'The answer to this is to stop them coming in the first place, not to force people out of their homes.' The incident was seized upon by the Reform UK Party, whose candidate in Thursday's (Feb 15) Wellingborough by-election, Ben Habib, heard about the couple. Mr Habib, who is also the party's co-deputy leader, told MailOnline: 'I was horrified to hear the plight of Mr. & Mrs. Saunders, but my horror could not compare to what they experienced last month. 'They were served with a letter from North Northamptonshire District Council seeking to possess their home. The accusation made was their home was derelict and the Council intended to use it to house single young men seeking asylum. Known to the rest of us as illegal migrants. ' I can confirm their home is most certainly not derelict. It was well appointed and cared for. They were distraught by the threat made by the Council. They feared not having title deeds and being incapable of defending their position. It was not until they visited the Council and after much pleading they managed to get the Council to desist.The Not surprised that Reform jumped on the Band wagon maybe they should of looked at the law first that States Asylum Seekers can't get Social housing . Never mind illegals So you’ve not read the letter yet? Here’s a clue..it refers to the ones who have been granted asylum. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 21:37:53 GMT
There are several lines of debate in this thread. I was responding to a point raised on the compulsory purchase line. Within a few posts on the first page the original poster (fair society) makes it clear what this issue is really about Now so many threads are started on this forum based on media stories and soon develop in to the core of the argument this has,it doesn’t matter who the media is from the beeb to the broadsheets and the red tops all have their own slant on the story as this has,it was soon made clear what the issue was and it’s unfair to divert from that. Who diverting when the law Clearly states that Asylum seekers cant Claim social housing. The only ones who diverting are the ones who say they can .because of the lie by the title of the Thread. Even Dan dare a very clever man who against immigration who knows the law inside out on immigration. More or less Confirm that Asylum seekers can't claim social housing. Let's end this argument now . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 21:39:17 GMT
The thread title didn’t mention asylum seekers. Did you read it ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 15, 2024 21:44:00 GMT
So it turns out the couple concerned were lying, the council was actually politely inquiring and no 'force' was mentioned. The people that should most have read the letter are a) the couple b) the Daily Mail c) the author of the OP “An elderly couple who had just moved into their £200,000 house were horrified to receive a letter from their council suggesting the property could be subject to compulsory purchase and used to house asylum seekers.” technically true … Where's the words in that letter that so suggest? |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 21:45:44 GMT
Not surprised that Reform jumped on the Band wagon maybe they should of looked at the law first that States Asylum Seekers can't get Social housing . Never mind illegals So you’ve not read the letter yet? Here’s a clue..it refers to the ones who have been granted asylum. So granted Asylum means there not Asylum seekers but legal visas holders. In other words Residents of the UK .. Thank you for Confirming what I said Asylum.seekers can't Claim Social Hiding Or don't you understand you Confirm it . Let's end this Argument now it's going no where but trolling |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 21:49:50 GMT
“An elderly couple who had just moved into their £200,000 house were horrified to receive a letter from their council suggesting the property could be subject to compulsory purchase and used to house asylum seekers.” technically true … Where's the words in that letter that so suggest? The letter claims the house is empty and that the owners are required to repair it . The inference is that the house will be used to house immigrants . Therefore the council is suggesting that the property could be subject to compulsory purchase . The clue is in the words that are bigger than the others . |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 15, 2024 21:51:21 GMT
The thread title didn’t mention asylum seekers. Did you read it ? you No it says Council chucking old and vunable people out . When Clearly they haven't The title like I said is Misleading and dishonest Don't you understand that? |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Feb 15, 2024 21:52:03 GMT
So you’ve not read the letter yet? Here’s a clue..it refers to the ones who have been granted asylum. So granted Asylum means there not Asylum seekers but legal visas holders. In other words Residents of the UK .. Thank you for Confirming what I said Asylum.seekers can't Claim Social Hiding Or don't you understand you Confirm it . Let's end this Argument now it's going no where but trolling I never said the letter claimed asylum seekers could claim social housing . Asylum seekers can claim social housing once they have got what they seek. whats your point? |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Feb 15, 2024 21:57:16 GMT
Where's the words in that letter that so suggest? The letter claims the house is empty and that the owners are required to repair it . The inference is that the house will be used to house immigrants . Therefore the council is suggesting that the property could be subject to compulsory purchase . The clue is in the words that are bigger than the others . That's just the couple guessing and the Daily Misery reinforcing their guess. The letter talks about helping them. I suspect they've fallen victim to 'man works down the chip shop said' syndrome. |
|
