Posted on 07/11/2010 5:53:04 AM PDT by cycle of discernment
Somali asylum seeker family given £2m house... after complaining 5-bed London home was 'in poor area'
By CHRIS HASTINGS, GEORGE ARBUTHNOTT and MATT SANDY
10th July 2010
A family of former asylum-seekers from Somalia are living in a £2.1million luxury townhouse in one of Britain's most exclusive addresses at a cost to taxpayers of £8,000 a month.
Abdi and Sayruq Nur and their seven children moved into their three-storey property in a fashionable area of London last month because they didn't like the 'poorer' part of the city they were living in.
Mr Nur, 42, an unemployed bus conductor, and his 40-year-old wife, who has never worked, are now living in Kensington despite the fact that they are totally dependent on state benefits.
They live close to celebrities, including artist Lucian Freud, singer Damon Albarn and designer Stella McCartney, and their home is just minutes from the fashionable Kensington Place restaurant which was a favourite haunt of the late Princess Diana.
The family's new home is believed to be one of the most expensive houses ever paid for by housing benefit, which is administered by local councils but funded by the Department for Work and Pensions.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
"Bus conductor"?
“Unemployed” bus conductor- back troubles from punching all those tickets
The Brit press is rife with stories of grifters of color - many of them muslim immigrants - living on welfare in megamansions paid by Brit taxpayers
Charming display of liberal guilt
This story has to be a joke, but I do know that the Brits fell off the cliff some years ago.
Obama will do the same, given time.
It happens here too, just doesn’t get reported. You think those section 8 vouchers are for basic housing your kidding yourself. Section 8 is meant to integrate any area that is deemed too white. The Govt. has done that to several small towns in our area by importing minorities to previously all white areas and paying for them to move and rent, and damn the cost.
“Bus conductor” English for bus driver.
“The family’s three-storey property, which dates from the 1840s, has five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a fully fitted kitchen and garden.
The family’s living room, which boasts a large bay window, is dominated by a 50in LG flatscreen TV. It also has two large black leather sofas, two elaborate rugs and lush houseplants.
Mr Nur said: ‘The new house is good enough and it is near the school and the shops. We need a house this big because we have so many children.”
Un-freakin’-believable.
.
Unreal. At least the issue is being exposed. Hopefully the new government in Britian will have what it takes to stop welfare abuse.
Shudder...
I recall 2 months ago an article that showed this family (white Brits btw), where the mom and dad (with several kids) were bragging how they live well, how they SHOULD be living better, and why they will not get jobs because it makes 'no sense' to get one.
I wonder what Winston Churchill would do ....must be turning and twisting at 400kph in his grave!!!!!!!!
Not necessarily ...it could also mean the person who collects fares (money and/or tickets) on the bus. When I was there some buses had drivers AND conductors ....same in many parts of the Commonwealth
Sort of like an assistant elevator operator or assistant door man.
"I note that the rent immediately went up from £1,050 to £2,000 weekly as soon as an asylum seeker family was renting: that seems absolutely improper, immoral, and therefore highly questionable, but the council just smiled and said OK. To be frank, it sounds like a scam."
…I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means.—I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world [but England] where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen?—On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
[From Benjamin Franklin, “On the Price of Corn and the Management of the Poor” (1766), Writings (New York: Library of America, 1987), 587-88.]
I know what you’re saying about Section 8. I won’t go into details, but it secretly disgusts me. I’m happy that a family I know has a decent place to live, but why do I have to bust my butt to pay my own way, and theirs? Especially, since like the couple in the story, all they did to get ahead was stick their butts in the air, have a lot of sex and make babies they couldn’t afford.
What do you expect in a “redistribute the wealth” society?
Because there are so many similar situations in the USA, I am shocked and extremely insulted at how often people assume we are on some type of welfare program just because we have more than two kids. We work very hard to live frugally and God has been our wonderful provider when we are faced with financial shortfalls. We do NOT expect other people to provide for our children.
Not every large family is on welfare but stories like this make it seem so. IMO, if we must have welfare, allow assistance only for the first child. After that, families are completely on their own.
Check this out:
Muslim woman with 8 kids living in Government supplied $4.2 million London Council House
near Paul McCartney,
costing $11,000 a month paid for by the Socialist Welfare State.....................
says “Life in Britain is great” !!!
Ya think???
And then she gets an additional $16,000 in cash each year more, in “benefits”!!!
Wow.
and again, “Why work when I can get $64,000 in benefits a year AND drive a Mercedes, a van, and have a 42 inch TV?”
The Davey family’s $1,250 -a-week state handouts pay for a four-bedroom home, top-of-the-range mod cons and two vehicles including a Mercedes people carrier.!!!
Father-of-seven Peter gave up work because he could make more living on benefits.!
Yet he and his wife Claire are still not happy with their lot.
With an eighth child on the way, they are demanding a bigger house, courtesy of the taxpayer.
Yes, demanding! Isn’t life great in Great Britain???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.