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 think my 'single experience' was pretty typical of what's going on elsewhere.

I am in England, but just looked at a Welsh newspaper online and look what came up! What a coincidence, more evidence from the real world. The local people here are told their adult children cannot have these flats because 13 out of 15 are earmarked for asylum seekers.

Chestnut

I think my 'single experience' was pretty typical of what's going on elsewhere.

I am in England, but just looked at a Welsh newspaper online and look what came up! What a coincidence, more evidence from the real world. The local people here are told their adult children cannot have these flats because 13 out of 15 are earmarked for asylum seekers.

Thanks for the article photoChestnut about the former Gronant Institute that is being converted into a housing development near Prestatyn by EMW Developments. The site is under consideration to be leased to Clear Springs Ready Homes, privately owned by Graham King.

Clear Springs Ready Homes, Serco and Meers are the three companies contracted by the Home Office to find and lease contingency accommodation (ie not permanent), e.g. for asylum seekers.

As the article sets out- if Clear Springs secures the lease it will move in 13 asylum seeker families as contracted by the Home Office. Asylum seekers will be not be in permanent allocated social housing as they are not eligible. They will be housed there temporarily whilst they await their asylum application outcome and that during that time they are in limbo unable to work. The article also states those placed in the properties are typically fleeing from violence pr persecution in their home country.

Flintshire Council as I understand, though please correct me if that is not factually the case, neither owns or manages the development. Thus the asylum seekers who not appear to be displacing anyone on the waiting list from permanent social housing.

The article sets out the issue of concern to local residents is asylum seekers into their local community.

You're treating anecdotes differently depending on whether they support your conclusion Chestnut. Your experience counts as evidence, a newspaper story counts as evidence, but experiences that don't fit your conclusion are not, according to you,"real world".

That's why anecdotes alone can't answer the question. We need representative data. You seem determined to only use anecdotes that, for you, confirm your bias while using condescending terms about those who don't share your point of view. That is not a discussion.

nanna8

Are non residents eligible for social housing anyway ? Sounds a bit strange when there is a waiting list of residents.

They have to live somewhere nanna8
But the UK has definitely lost the plot. I imagine there’s a good deal of simmering resentment up and down these Isles.

FriedGreenTomatoes2

nanna8

Are non residents eligible for social housing anyway ? Sounds a bit strange when there is a waiting list of residents.

They have to live somewhere nanna8
But the UK has definitely lost the plot. I imagine there’s a good deal of simmering resentment up and down these Isles.

UK non-residents, including people living abroad or foreign nationals without legal immigration status or local connection, are generally not offered council housing. Local councils require applicants to pass strict eligibility tests regarding immigration status, habitual residency, and a local connection to the specific area before joining a housing register.

It's so easy to bias an argument with suggestions that are untrue but why do that?

DaisyAnneReturns

You're treating anecdotes differently depending on whether they support your conclusion Chestnut. Your experience counts as evidence, a newspaper story counts as evidence, but experiences that don't fit your conclusion are not, according to you,"real world".

That's why anecdotes alone can't answer the question. We need representative data. You seem determined to only use anecdotes that, for you, confirm your bias while using condescending terms about those who don't share your point of view. That is not a discussion.

What 'experiences that don't fit my conclusion' ? What condescending terms have I used?

I have no idea what you're talking about. That post makes no sense to me with its veiled insults. 🤨

Reply to *Chestnut Wed 12-Aug-26 12:03:10

It's not a "veiled insult". I'm referring to comments where you dismissed experiences that didn't support your conclusion as not being "real world", while treating your own experiences and media reports as valid evidence.

That's the inconsistency I was pointing out. If anecdotes are unreliable, then they're unreliable whether they support your view or someone else's. If they're acceptable evidence, then they should be considered consistently.

As for "condescending", I'm referring to the way you've characterised people who disagree with you, rather than engaging with their points.

My main point hasn't changed: anecdotes alone can't answer the question. We need representative data, not just the examples any of us happen to have encountered.

DaisyAnneReturns

Reply to *Chestnut Wed 12-Aug-26 12:03:10

It's not a "veiled insult". I'm referring to comments where you dismissed experiences that didn't support your conclusion as not being "real world", while treating your own experiences and media reports as valid evidence.

That's the inconsistency I was pointing out. If anecdotes are unreliable, then they're unreliable whether they support your view or someone else's. If they're acceptable evidence, then they should be considered consistently.

As for "condescending", I'm referring to the way you've characterised people who disagree with you, rather than engaging with their points.

My main point hasn't changed: anecdotes alone can't answer the question. We need representative data, not just the examples any of us happen to have encountered.

This thread seems to have been hijacked by the thread Police. I don't agree with whatever it is you're saying and I don't like personal attacks, whether on me or anyone else. It's up to each of us how we make our points, we don't need anyone telling us what to say. Your last two posts have added nothing to the discussion, just criticised me.

I was criticising the argument, not you. I don't think we're getting any further, so I'll leave it there.

One part of this debate that often gets overlooked is what happens to families with children when a parent loses their permission to stay in the UK. The immigration consequences can go far beyond the individual - especially where children have grown up here or have their own immigration or nationality issues. These situations can become legally complicated very quickly, so understanding the family’s options before any enforcement action is important.
consultantlm.uk/consultant-article/childs-uk-immigration-status-when-a-parent-loses-permission-to-stay