Asylum Seekers Found To Be Lying - Hiding Ipads & Luxury TVs

10th January 2014

These asylum seekers are betraying our trust and kindness and taking from our children and grandchildren.

Remember - the below are just the stupid ones who didn't hide their luxury goods.



Asylum seekers who claimed they were penniless in order to receive free housing at the taxpayer’s expense were found to own luxury goods including iPads and widescreen televisions, official watchdogs have revealed.


The National Audit Office (NAO) inspected properties provided for asylum seekers and discovered “signs of wealth” among foreigners who had told the government they were destitute.


Auditors carrying out checks on properties across the country were surprised to find some occupants possessed a variety of expensive luxury gadgets.


They carried out 10 visits in each of three regions of the country and found “at least one” address in each area where there were “indications of prosperity”.


If the figure is extrapolated to all 23,000 asylum seekers who are receiving free housing it could mean that 2,000 claimants are more wealthy than they claim to be.

The report also highlighted how some local councils have complained the government’s decision to house asylum seekers in their area was having a negative impact on school places and community relations.

One local authority in north west England had told Serco, which operates the accommodation on behalf of the Home Office, that it would not accept any more asylum seekers “due to concerns over community cohesion”.

And the local authority in Rotherham, south Yorkshire, had asked G4S, the firm which has the contract in its region, to reduce the number of asylum seekers.

The report said: “The town currently has the highest number of asylum seekers in the region, including higher numbers than Leeds, the biggest city in the area.”

The NAO study said staff working for companies such as G4S and Serco which provide the accommodation had a duty to inform the Home Office about any “destitute” asylum seekers who appeared to have funds at their disposal.

“There is a risk that individuals or families may be occupying properties to which they are not entitled, thus taking resources away from those more in need,” it said.

“Where housing officers see signs of wealth on their regular inspections, indicating that the occupant may have a higher level of income, they have a contractual duty to report this to the relevant authorities in the department within one working day.

The latest iPad costs between £399 and £739, while the cheapest iPad mini costs at least £249. A 32-inch widescreen TV would cost £200 to £400, while larger sets can cost many thousands of pounds.

If they meet the criteria for free accommodation, individual asylum seekers also receive an allowance of £36.62 a week and a family of two adults and two children receives an average of £178.44 a week.


For the full story:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10561239/Destitute-asylum-seekers-had-iPads-and-luxury-goods-says-report-by-government-auditors.html

" “The Home Office has a duty to provide accommodation and subsistence support only to those who are destitute.”

If that is the case why do we have so many homeless British people on our streets including a huge number of ex service personnel. Does that rule only apply to immigrants ?

10 visits in each of three regions that 30 visits

extrapolated to all 23,000 ................bit misleading if you ask me

thats 0.0391304347826087 % of the overall figure i think ?

What if those were gifts?

Ben_Reilly wrote:What if those were gifts?

From experience of being on the brink of destitution - you sell the gifts to live.

Strange the left on here defend the benefits system however much it is abused. I am wondering what would someone have to do before it's too much.

There are thousands of claimants who do so fraudulently many actually working for cash in hand and claiming benefits. Many claiming benefits who pretend to be disabled. Many who pretend to be separate but clandestinely live together etc etc.

Every instance that is quoted to you ;lefties is derided. o you hate the working population so much you would rather cheer on fraud than give the taxpayer a break. That would certainly seem the case whether it is intentional or not.

Ben_Reilly wrote:What if those were gifts?

From whom - their destitute asylum seeking friends who they flew over here with in the undercarriage?

Or one of the generous posters on an extreme left wing forum?

sphinx - you're so right - i'd be selling a luxury item for something useful.

The key words are luxury items - to me that means useless unless turned in to cash.

And I guess all explanations of how the destitute can cling to the few things they may have that make them feel as though they're part of modern society, like a TV or a tablet, will be lost on you two?

I guess no asylum seeker ever had a wealthier friend or relative?

Are we certain these auditors know the difference between a $400 iPad and a $50 Chinese Android tablet?

Clarkson wrote:o you hate the working population so much you would rather cheer on fraud than give the taxpayer a break. That would certainly seem the case whether it is intentional or not.

I have the same work ethic as any right-winger; the only difference between me and them is that I only occasionally slap myself on the ass in congratulations about it.

Ben, you're not living in the UK. You don't see what we see.

Same for veya.

Quill.

Beekeeper.

Lurker.

Ben_Reilly wrote:And I guess all explanations of how the destitute can cling to the few things they may have that make them feel as though they're part of modern society, like a TV or a tablet, will be lost on you two?

I guess no asylum seeker ever had a wealthier friend or relative?

Are we certain these auditors know the difference between a $400 iPad and a $50 Chinese Android tablet?

Not being funny here but have you ever actually been close to destitution?  I ask because

cling to the few things they may have that make them feel as though they're part of modern society

 is the sort of intellectual ignorance that also drives anthropomorphism.[/quote]

Andy, I don't trust that you're "seeing" what you think you're seeing. What I see is the possibility of fraud in a projected 8.6 percent of the participants in a program that only has 23,000 people in it to begin with. Oh, and you pissing your pants over these numbers; that too.

Lets face some home truths here, yes some asylum seekers take the piss, the majority live in shit holes and abject poverty, another no brainer article from Andy. Are those in this article wrong?
Yes does it mean we should stop genuine people fleeing persecution?

No

Nothing worse than association fallacy bollocks arguments!







The facts about asylum
Asylum seekers and refugees do not get large handouts from the state

• Asylum seekers do not come to the UK to claim benefits. In fact, most know nothing about welfare benefits before they arrive and had no expectation that they would receive financial support. 
  (Refugee Council, Chance or Choice? Understanding why asylum seekers come to the UK, 2010)
  
• Most asylum seekers are living in poverty and experience poor health and hunger. Many families are not able to pay for the basics such as clothing, powdered milk and nappies.
  (The Children's Society Briefing highlighting the gap between asylum support and mainstream benefits, 2012 Independent Asylum Commission citizens’ inquiry in The Independent, 2007)
  
• Almost all asylum seekers are not allowed to work and are forced to rely on state support – this can be as little as £5 a day to live on.
  
• Asylum seekers do not jump the queue for council housing and they cannot choose where they live. The accommodation allocated to them is not paid for by the local council. It is nearly always ‘hard to let’ properties, where other people do not want to live.
  
• Asylum seeking women who are destitute are vulnerable to violence in the UK. More than a fifth of the women accessing our therapeutic services had experienced sexual violence in this country. (Refugee Council, The experiences of refugee women in the UK, 2012)
  
• Asylum Seekers do not receive more benefits than pensioners in UK (UK Parliament briefing paper, 2012)
  

I've lived in my parents' car for a few weeks, along with motels and trailer parks. I've gone months where our family ate nothing but 50 cent pot pies for dinner. My parents pawned their wedding rings for food or to cover the bills at times, and sometimes we had our phone or electricity cut off for non-payment.

So no, I've never been destitute, but I've been fairly close for an American, where I had to go to school in thrift-store clothing and live in a society in which most people had things we couldn't afford. It does make you feel like an outsider, and to have a television or a computer can be huge in that situation -- you think of yourself as less of a loser and a nobody, cut apart from mainstream society.

And you can bet that when a little extra money came in, we bought things like video-game consoles or upgraded our TV. You don't think in the long-term when you're living like that and money seems to spill through your fingers. You get freaked out by having a little extra money and you buy something that makes you feel like a person with it.

Fallacy association arguments work both ways

If one person does wrong that does not mean 19 other people the same do wrong but neither does 19 people not doing wrong mean another person the same is not doing wrong.

We seem to get debate polarized into a group of he did it so they must do it versus a group of they didnt do it isnt his fault he did it - and both groups are wrong.

They are not fleeing persecution.

They travel here because they want what we have.

And they will commit crimes and lie to get here, stay here and take everything from us.

sphinx wrote:Fallacy association arguments work both ways

If one person does wrong that does not mean 19 other people the same do wrong but neither does 19 people not doing wrong mean another person the same is not doing wrong.

We seem to get debate polarized into a group of he did it so they must do it versus a group of they didnt do it isnt his fault he did it - and both groups are wrong.

Yes well done Sphinx, though the facts are many assylum seekers live in utter poverty and in shit holes. The story is as stated a no brainer, yes they should not have such goods and I agree with you they should sell them  for what is needed but when ever stories are posted like this they are as if many do, which is utter nonsense.

I think all I have left to say about this thread was better stated by Jarvis Cocker, so here goes:

"I said pretend you've got no money, she just laughed and said oh you're so funny.
I said yeah? Well I can't see anyone else smiling in here.
...
Rent a flat above a shop, cut your hair and get a job.
Smoke some fags and play some pool, pretend you never went to school.
But still you'll never get it right
'cos when you're laid in bed at night watching roaches climb the wall
If you call your Dad he could stop it all.
You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view, and dance and drink and screw
Because there's nothing else to do."

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've lived in my parents' car for a few weeks, along with motels and trailer parks. I've gone months where our family ate nothing but 50 cent pot pies for dinner. My parents pawned their wedding rings for food or to cover the bills at times, and sometimes we had our phone or electricity cut off for non-payment.

So no, I've never been destitute, but I've been fairly close for an American, where I had to go to school in thrift-store clothing and live in a society in which most people had things we couldn't afford. It does make you feel like an outsider, and to have a television or a computer can be huge in that situation -- you think of yourself as less of a loser and a nobody, cut apart from mainstream society.

I am afraid that you were not as far down as you think you were - you were close enough to see people near the bottom but not to live there. You were at the point where society had meaning to you - there are depths below that where all you can focus on is personal survival. (Going to school is a fairy tale ambition to the destitute)

I have full support for helping and supporting the destitute and those in real need (hey I am a member of the only party that has called for the UK to take in Syrian refugees because their need is genuine) however coupled with that I have no support for those who claim a need they do not have to benefit from help and support they do not need.

If a refugee has nothing then house him and feed him - if he has something then he can and should contribute to housing and feeding himself.

sphinx wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I've lived in my parents' car for a few weeks, along with motels and trailer parks. I've gone months where our family ate nothing but 50 cent pot pies for dinner. My parents pawned their wedding rings for food or to cover the bills at times, and sometimes we had our phone or electricity cut off for non-payment.

So no, I've never been destitute, but I've been fairly close for an American, where I had to go to school in thrift-store clothing and live in a society in which most people had things we couldn't afford. It does make you feel like an outsider, and to have a television or a computer can be huge in that situation -- you think of yourself as less of a loser and a nobody, cut apart from mainstream society.

I am afraid that you were not as far down as you think you were - you were close enough to see people near the bottom but not to live there.  You were at the point where society had meaning to you - there are depths below that where all you can focus on is personal survival.  (Going to school is a fairy tale ambition to the destitute)

I have full support for helping and supporting the destitute and those in real need (hey I am a member of the only party that has called for the UK to take in Syrian refugees because their need is genuine) however coupled with that I have no support for those who claim a need they do not have to benefit from help and support they do not need.

If a refugee has nothing then house him and feed him - if he has something then he can and should contribute to housing and feeding himself.

So I think we're coming at a truth from opposite sides here. If you're destitute in a destitute society, you feel like royalty when you have a leak-proof roof over your head and eat three times a day.

When all you have is a leak-proof roof over your head and three meals a day in the United States or Britain, you feel like a loser, and having an iPad or a TV makes you feel like less of one. I think it's terribly mean-spirited to begrudge the poor what few luxuries they can have in otherwise miserable lives.

and found “at least one” address in each area where there were “indications of prosperity”.

Oh well, that condemns all of them!   

FGS, these are asylum seekers, not immigrants, have people got no empathy to understand the horrors that some of them have gone through, things we couldn't even begin to imagine.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am afraid that you were not as far down as you think you were - you were close enough to see people near the bottom but not to live there.  You were at the point where society had meaning to you - there are depths below that where all you can focus on is personal survival.  (Going to school is a fairy tale ambition to the destitute)

I have full support for helping and supporting the destitute and those in real need (hey I am a member of the only party that has called for the UK to take in Syrian refugees because their need is genuine) however coupled with that I have no support for those who claim a need they do not have to benefit from help and support they do not need.

If a refugee has nothing then house him and feed him - if he has something then he can and should contribute to housing and feeding himself.

So I think we're coming at a truth from opposite sides here. If you're destitute in a destitute society, you feel like royalty when you have a leak-proof roof over your head and eat three times a day.

When all you have is a leak-proof roof over your head and three meals a day in the United States or Britain, you feel like a loser, and having an iPad or a TV makes you feel like less of one. I think it's terribly mean-spirited to begrudge the poor what few luxuries they can have in otherwise miserable lives.

No we are not coming at it from opposite sides - I am saying you have not been to a place you think you have. When you are truly destitute it does not matter what the condition of society is you have no energy to feel like a looser. The level where you start feeling a value relative to society is 2 above destitution. You have destitution and you dont feel like a looser because you are too busy surviving. Then 1 level up and you are surviving but you do not feel a comparative value because you are resting in the unbelievable luxury of not having to worry about survival (probably the most intense feeling of luxury any human ever has anywhere) Then another level up is where you start looking around and thinking hey most people have got stuff I have not got.

You quoted the song earlier "But still you'll never get it right " - if you are measuring luxury by possessions then you have still not got it right. If you cannot conceive of a state where possessions are nothing but their value in food you have not been there.

I will add be grateful. Then when you see the guy with nothing looking more happy than you have ever been realize he is experiencing a sense of luxury you have not approached.

The headline in the Telegraph and on here is a complete load of rubbish because the NAO report says absolutely nothing about widescreen television or Ipads but as usual the cap doffers, forelock tuggers and nodding dogs jump on it as if it's gospel being fed to them by this higher wisdom that they see as looking after them.
The report is actually about the performance of the private sector contractors G4S and Serco and their findings are damning even to the extent that they have ripped of millions from the taxpayer and they are now looking down the barrel of having to pay service credits (rebates to the Department) as of July 2013, and they also face steps to recover between £3 million to £4 million of service credits that it deemed have accrued for poor performance between January and June 2013.
Out of a 45 page report there is only one short statement about wealth followed by a reminder that the contractors are required to notify the Home Office if they find evidence of that. There are no conclusions made in respect of how whatever evidence of wealth was found came into their possession so any accusations would just be pure speculation.

Here's the actual report. If you are only interested in the wealth part then you will find it in Part 3.20. If you are interested in why the report was commissioned and the findings and recommendations of the NAO then it's all there in black and white and it points the finger at the privatised companies and their hopeless performance.

Another failure of privatisation.

http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/10287-001-accommodation-for-asylum-seekers-Book.pdf

They can twist anything to suit their agenda. Mind you, they have had a lot of practice.

Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, except in very rare circumstances. Asylum seekers who have not yet had a decision on their claim generally receive accommodation and financial support set at about two-thirds the level of income support if, otherwise, they would be destitute (Section 95 support). In 2013, a single adult in this situation would receive £36.62 per week (£5.23 per day). This support is normally terminated soon after a decision (positive or negative) is made on the claim. In the second quarter of 2011 there were 20,855 people (excluding dependants) receiving Section 95 support.


http://www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/asylum/

Oh god, don't give them facts, they can't handle them!

The asylum seekers get a very bad press in some newspapers but at least this country plays its part in its commitments to looking after those that seek sanctuary from oppressive regimes. I know there must be some that are not genuine but overall I think most are.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

sphinx wrote:

I am afraid that you were not as far down as you think you were - you were close enough to see people near the bottom but not to live there.  You were at the point where society had meaning to you - there are depths below that where all you can focus on is personal survival.  (Going to school is a fairy tale ambition to the destitute)

I have full support for helping and supporting the destitute and those in real need (hey I am a member of the only party that has called for the UK to take in Syrian refugees because their need is genuine) however coupled with that I have no support for those who claim a need they do not have to benefit from help and support they do not need.

If a refugee has nothing then house him and feed him - if he has something then he can and should contribute to housing and feeding himself.

So I think we're coming at a truth from opposite sides here. If you're destitute in a destitute society, you feel like royalty when you have a leak-proof roof over your head and eat three times a day.

When all you have is a leak-proof roof over your head and three meals a day in the United States or Britain, you feel like a loser, and having an iPad or a TV makes you feel like less of one. I think it's terribly mean-spirited to begrudge the poor what few luxuries they can have in otherwise miserable lives.

I don't mind them having them, but not if the tax payer has paid for it.

If that's the case, we're giving them too much.

Or maybe they've stolen them.

Korben Dallas wrote:Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, except in very rare circumstances. Asylum seekers who have not yet had a decision on their claim generally receive accommodation and financial support set at about two-thirds the level of income support if, otherwise, they would be destitute (Section 95 support). In 2013, a single adult in this situation would receive £36.62 per week (£5.23 per day). This support is normally terminated soon after a decision (positive or negative) is made on the claim. In the second quarter of 2011 there were 20,855 people (excluding dependants) receiving Section 95 support.


http://www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/asylum/

lol where you from, Korben?

You're making the mistake of telling us the facts from a piece of paper.

Problem is, I like to use real-world facts, not what "should happen" but what "really happens".

I invite you to come and stay in the UK and see for yourself.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, except in very rare circumstances. Asylum seekers who have not yet had a decision on their claim generally receive accommodation and financial support set at about two-thirds the level of income support if, otherwise, they would be destitute (Section 95 support). In 2013, a single adult in this situation would receive £36.62 per week (£5.23 per day). This support is normally terminated soon after a decision (positive or negative) is made on the claim. In the second quarter of 2011 there were 20,855 people (excluding dependants) receiving Section 95 support.


http://www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/asylum/

lol where you from, Korben?

You're making the mistake of telling us the facts from a piece of paper.

Problem is, I like to use real-world facts, not what "should happen" but what "really happens".

I invite you to come and stay in the UK and see for yourself.

Wot!!! Like what you posted in the thread title?

Dinny make me laugh Andy.

Bloody hilarious!

BigAndy9 wrote:

Korben Dallas wrote:Asylum seekers are not allowed to work, except in very rare circumstances. Asylum seekers who have not yet had a decision on their claim generally receive accommodation and financial support set at about two-thirds the level of income support if, otherwise, they would be destitute (Section 95 support). In 2013, a single adult in this situation would receive £36.62 per week (£5.23 per day). This support is normally terminated soon after a decision (positive or negative) is made on the claim. In the second quarter of 2011 there were 20,855 people (excluding dependants) receiving Section 95 support.


http://www.irr.org.uk/research/statistics/asylum/

lol where you from, Korben?

You're making the mistake of telling us the facts from a piece of paper.

Problem is, I like to use real-world facts, not what "should happen" but what "really happens".

I invite you to come and stay in the UK and see for yourself.

I often find facts on pieces of paper ........thats where they tend to live

but at least you accept there are facts ,thats got to be a start

and i provided a link

Your facts seem to be the ones you get from looking through a tin foil tube at life
myopic tunnel vision I think is the correct characterisation

And i am from a place Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy a small unregarded yellow sun.
3rd planet out ....hope that helps