Coming a close second to the daft idea of Britishness - is the idea to turf all non- British people out of all social housing.

I live in the real world, Primrose.

A flat nearby was put over to the council for emergency housing between 2018 and 2023. During that time six families lived there for various lengths of time. Only one family, father and daughter, were white English, the other five were various nationalities, some being poor English speakers. One woman even made the excuse that her husband couldn't get a job because he couldn't speak English, so they and most of the others were clearly living on benefits. 🙄

Don't ask me for evidence. It is lived experience from the real world

Is that opinion or based on data?

Silvershadow

We aren’t talking about data breaches are we. We are talking about council or social housing being allocated to migrants before British families. Reading this article tells us there’s many of them, some of whom could be criminals but theyre just not too sure about that. Nevertheless they’ve all been housed, the taxpayers are paying, so it’s all ok then.

You are deflecting!

Deflecting is the norm on here from people who think they know it all. 😉

Those of us who live in the real world know what’s going on and whatever is said about treating British people fairly regarding social housing is not correct.

Oreo

I have now looked, and as I thought, all LA’s are different and much is done on need.You can google this easily enough.

All LAs are not different in as much as they must follow the law. The protocols as you will be aware outline this.

wayrtmeadows

Unfortunately that is exactly what is happening. Rough sleepers - the majority now are asylum seekers.

If immigrants aren’t allowed to work they would be forced to steal to stay alive. If they aren’t allowed somewhere to live they would be sleeping rough on our streets.

Need. tbh I don't have a problem in resources being allocated on the basis of "need". Perhaps that's because I see another human being equal in terms of their value rather on the basis of where they were born or who their parents were.

I have now looked, and as I thought, all LA’s are different and much is done on need.You can google this easily enough.

Look at the protocols.

I think you will find that LAs have strict guidance relating to housing for local people and immigrants.

The protocols outline very clearly how immigrants must be treated regarding housing.

Whitewavemark2

That already happens

Not always as councils say it depends on need.

That already happens

It won’t help the shortage of housing with low or subsidised rental market to turf anyone out of these homes but what should be done is to say from now on those in need of social housing (if British )will be at the front of the queue when a house or flat becomes available.

Silvershadow

What about all the Afghans air lifted over with very large families, some up to 20, who were housed. They didn’t wait years and years for housing.

The list given by DaisyAnne is how it should be allocated and how it was allocated but is no longer.

Which list are you referring to Silvershadow?

Wyllow3

Carers often get paid between mimimim wage which is is £12.71 per hour for workers aged 21 and over.

The Agency I used a while, a known one Home Instead, paid around £13 and hour and £15 for qualified/experienced ones.

You could not get a place for that in many area nanna

Because they not often not paid for the travelling time either.

😡

Wyllow3

Carers often get paid between mimimim wage which is is £12.71 per hour for workers aged 21 and over.

I know this thread is about 'Britishness' and housing, but that really is shocking isn't it?

In 1995, I emigrated to Norway where I worked until retirement. When I left the UK, I was paid between £11 and £12 per hour as a 'bog-standard' shorthand-typist, 'temping' locally. It wasn't a minimum wage, but considered average at the time.

So, 31 years later, carers - who have a heck of a responsibility tied to their job - earn only 71p per hour more than I earned, in many cases?

I know the two jobs are not comparable, but, it does give a perspective on the general stagnation of wages over the last 30 years or so.

... and at that time, we were in temporary private rented accommodation which, by today's standards anyway, was affordable.

A friend, who also works as a carer and is in private rented accommodation, has just had a rent increase of £100 per month. Her landlord, who owns a number of properties as well as a chain of local pharmacies, cares not one jot that her budget is already stretched to its maximum - he can always find another tenant who will pay...

This is the real problem isn't it - the lack of affordable housing for a working population which contains many whose wages are simply too low and whose rents are too high?

Silvershadow

Whitewavemark2

silvershadow

OK.

Now I put the question back to you.

Our troops spent years in Afghanistan and often survived only because of the bravery of Afghans who were supporting them.

It was known that if the Taliban got hold of these Afghans they would be tortured and put to death along with their families.

What would your solution have been?

My solution would have been to airlift them if it was totally necessary and the jury is out on that, put them in barracks for three months and if they wanted more to go out and earn it like the rest of us do. And to be 100% certain there are no Taliban or criminals amongst them. Limit it to immediate family and no more than four. Once their country recovers they go back.

What’s your solution?

My solution is what happened.

In 2021, the Government made a covenant with Afghan citizens who had served our nation's interests by working with our Armed Forces and diplomatic services. This was a covenant that they would be resettled with their family members in the UK under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP).

And they worked and contributed to our society

Immediate Permission: Individuals arriving under official routes like the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP) or the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme received Indefinite Leave to Remain or full settled status right away. This status includes full, unrestricted rights to take up employment or self-employment, just like a UK-born citizen.

Silvershadow

My solution would have been to airlift them if it was totally necessary and the jury is out on that...

Which jury?

When the Western-backed government collapsed, the Taliban gained access to data - ministry payrolls and local employment records - that were left behind. This allowed them to construct a precise 'kill' list. If the collaborators or interpreters, couldn't be found because they'd gone into hiding - their families would be targeted instead.

That's the reality on the ground. Still.

Silvershadow

We aren’t talking about data breaches are we. We are talking about council or social housing being allocated to migrants before British families. Reading this article tells us there’s many of them, some of whom could be criminals but theyre just not too sure about that. Nevertheless they’ve all been housed, the taxpayers are paying, so it’s all ok then.

You are deflecting!

Yes, of course we are. We have a responsibility for people our data breach put in danger. I’m not deflecting at all. I do wonder if you watched that Sky News analysis I put up yesterday though, which puts this into perspective as a tiny part of an overall housing shortage issue. Hyper focus on one group of people you don’t think should be accommodated is pointless in the bigger scheme of things.

Whitewavemark2

silvershadow

OK.

Now I put the question back to you.

Our troops spent years in Afghanistan and often survived only because of the bravery of Afghans who were supporting them.

It was known that if the Taliban got hold of these Afghans they would be tortured and put to death along with their families.

What would your solution have been?

My solution would have been to airlift them if it was totally necessary and the jury is out on that, put them in barracks for three months and if they wanted more to go out and earn it like the rest of us do. And to be 100% certain there are no Taliban or criminals amongst them. Limit it to immediate family and no more than four. Once their country recovers they go back.

What’s your solution?

It was an appalling error putting thousands in great danger. Who can know how many went on the be "disappeared".

We have to take the consequences of our failings at the time
Which includes this daily, which of course is inappropriate...

But to pick out just one is not the point and go

"oh they are all/nearly all, like this". Which is what is being done here.

We aren’t talking about data breaches are we. We are talking about council or social housing being allocated to migrants before British families. Reading this article tells us there’s many of them, some of whom could be criminals but theyre just not too sure about that. Nevertheless they’ve all been housed, the taxpayers are paying, so it’s all ok then.

You are deflecting!

silvershadow

OK.

Now I put the question back to you.

Our troops spent years in Afghanistan and often survived only because of the bravery of Afghans who were supporting them.

It was known that if the Taliban got hold of these Afghans they would be tortured and put to death along with their families.

What would your solution have been?

So it was one family of 22 members then. The data breach was a UK error, are you saying that you think we should brush that under the carpet, or should we face up to the consequences of our error?

There we are Casdon.

Whether it was in mainstream newspapers other than as an exception report about very few families I would doubt very much, because it isn’t borne out by the facts.
I disagree that people are not a high priority for accommodation, when they would be killed for helping British military personnel in Afghanistan in the war effort, if they had not been airlifted to safety here.

A single Afghan migrant was allowed to bring 22 relatives to Britain under a secretive resettlement scheme that has now sparked outrage over security, cost, and government transparency.

The unprecedented case emerged this week after the High Court lifted a super-injunction that had concealed the fallout from a 2022 Ministry of Defence data breach—described as the most damaging in British history. The leak, caused by a Royal Marine’s email error, exposed thousands of Afghans linked to UK forces to potential Taliban retaliation.

The government responded by launching a classified evacuation programme, the Afghanistan Response Route. But court rulings significantly expanded the definition of “family member,” allowing claimants to bring in large extended families—regardless of blood or legal ties.

Previously, just 10% of those now entering would have qualified under existing rules. Now, officials estimate over 12,000 additional relatives may be eligible due to the breach. In one case, ministers reportedly considered knocking two military homes into one to accommodate a single family unit.

The scheme’s estimated cost has ballooned to £6 billion, fuelling backlash from across the political spectrum. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the public had been “betrayed,” warning the influx includes individuals with criminal pasts who had previously been denied asylum.

While Defence Secretary John Healey insists that all arrivals were “carefully” vetted, critics say genuine allies were left behind while Britain’s asylum system was quietly rewritten under cover of secrecy.

under a secretive resettlement scheme that has now sparked outrage over security, cost, and government transparency.

The unprecedented case emerged this week after the High Court lifted a super-injunction that had concealed the fallout from a 2022 Ministry of Defence data breach—described as the most damaging in British history. The leak, caused by a Royal Marine’s email error, exposed thousands of Afghans linked to UK forces to potential Taliban retaliation.

The government responded by launching a classified evacuation programme, the Afghanistan Response Route. But court rulings significantly expanded the definition of “family member,” allowing claimants to bring in large extended families—regardless of blood or legal ties.

Previously, just 10% of those now entering would have qualified under existing rules. Now, officials estimate over 12,000 additional relatives may be eligible due to the breach. In one case, ministers reportedly considered knocking two military homes into one to accommodate a single family unit.

The scheme’s estimated cost has ballooned to £6 billion, fuelling backlash from across the political spectrum. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage said the public had been “betrayed,” warning the influx includes individuals with criminal pasts who had previously been denied asylum.

While Defence Secretary John Healey insists that all arrivals were “carefully” vetted, critics say genuine allies were left behind while Britain’s asylum system was quietly rewritten under cover of secrecy.