Refugee Refuses High Rise Flat - Takes Council To Court - Can't Speak Any English

by Guest Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:23 pm

First topic message reminder :

7th March 2014

Who gave this non-English-speaking REFUGEE the idea that she can take the council to court???

Due to give birth too - how timely.

A refugee took a council to the High Court when she turned down their offer of a high rise council house claiming she was scared of heights. Somalian Naima Mohamoud, who does not speak any English, claims she is separated from her husband and said she was thrown out of friend's house when she told them she was due to give birth. She applied for council accommodation and signed a form agreeing that if she refused an offer of a home she would not get another. Ms Mahamoud was given the chance to move into a tower block, by Birmingham City Council.

http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/#sthash.01Mhvqns.dpuf

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:31 pm

'There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country.There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state'.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:33 pm

Unfortunately Tommy - any rules, whether written down or not, support people globetrotting to the country who gives out the most money.

by Fred Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:38 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:Unfortunately Tommy - any rules, whether written down or not, support people globetrotting to the country who gives out the most money.

The do can anyone tell me why the left support an asylum seeker traveling through several countries to get to us. They keep on telling us our benefits sytem is mean and et they travel to it like moths to a light. They keep on telling us that these people are genuine asylum seekers worthy of our compassion and yet ignore the fact they travelled through several countries and fund them suing us.

They try to tell us they are grateful and then they sue us because the home offered isn't up to scratch when in reality the home they came from will have been much much worse.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:42 pm

I still stand by this:

When given anywhere to live the only emotion she should have felt was relief, not gratitude, not happiness, not sadness, but relief that she had escaped whatever awful circumstances she was fleeing and had somewhere to begin a new life with her unborn child.

The gratitude to us should come later on.

What is clear is that this woman expected something more - she had heard or been told to expect something very nice in the land where streets are paved with gold.

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:01 pm

That is why they come, opportunists.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:11 pm

What a load of bollocks, from people who should go and get a job.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:13 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

'There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country.There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state'.

So again it is not against international law and someone asked why does it matter if they do travel through other countries, it doesn't matter and I am RW, what they know is a country through their own history that will help them, again, where are most of them coming from.

The reality is we are trying to do the humane thing helping people who are suffering persecution, what you have to ask is why some are so utterly prejudice against their fellow humans to help, that is the more important question.

So again no international law is being broken '

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:19 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:That is why they come, opportunists.

Assumption based upon prejudice bollocks.

I think its inhumane people like yourself that give a country a bad name, thankfully, the majority are not like yourself

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:40 pm

There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state'.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 2:44 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state'.

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Is an understanding, international law or just an understanding?

Take your time

As I saw inhumane people like you not only belong in the wrong era in time but also the wrong nation also.

Laters

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:00 pm

It is a long standing principle of international law.
And I am not inhumane, just honest and realistic.
Two things you lefties have no concert of.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:05 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is a long standing principle of international law.
And I am not inhumane, just honest and realistic.
Two things you lefties have no concert of.

No that now shows how stupid you are, it is an understanding, not law, thus no law is broken, plus I am RW, showing even more so you do not understand politics now also, so on all counts you know very little and are very inhumane, because you think people fleeing persecution of which there are millions in the world are all on the take, showing how absurd your views are

Not only that you failed to back up any of your claims with countess evidence

Byeee

by Tommy Monk Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:22 pm

It is a principle of international law and that is why it is a consideration when deciding on asylum claims.

by Guest Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:27 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:It is a principle of international law and that is why it is a consideration when deciding on asylum claims.

Still not international law no matter how desperately you try

by Spindleshanks Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:39 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:

'There is no obligation under the refugee convention or any other instrument of international law that requires refugees to seek asylum in any particular country.There has, however, been a longstanding "first country of asylum" principle in international law by which countries are expected to take refugees fleeing from persecution in a neighbouring state'.

If you read that correctly you would understand that means that if a refugee shows up in that country then the country is expected to take them, not that the refugee HAS to go to the neighbouring state.

by Lone Wolf Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:07 am

Catman wrote:
Sassy wrote:
FFS, another arsehole sticks his head up.

Rats escaping a sinking ship....

B'Andy, Drinky and "Tommy Dumbfuck"...

THREE racist pricks plus their multiple IDs..

And neither a complete brain, nor a skerrick of "common sense" nor "common decency", between their whole little white_supremacist club.

by Lone Wolf Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:12 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
It is a long standing principle of international law.
And I am not inhumane, just honest and realistic.
Two things you lefties have no concert of.

LIES layed upon more lies...

"Tommy Dumbfuck" is nothing more than yet another mindless 'sock puppet' giving these racist 'IAF' moles and trolls another name to hide behind..

cyclops

by Lone Wolf Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:20 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

didge does not like people noticing his cock-ups Ragga.

I'll try not to notice them in future then.

:-:cawg:-: "BagOfMufffns" adds yet more evidence to that pile of oderous crap building in her wake, to help reinforce my previous suspicions that "she" is nothing more than another racist and brain-fucked 'faux ID' now being shared among "her" racist cohorts, (and probably mirroring her real world life experiences..).

GOES a long way to explaining the constant personality and style changes across the day ~ and why sometimes "her" faux ID has been up across an entire weekend..

UNLESS of course she has an extreme case of 'Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD)'. Suspect

by Lone Wolf Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:37 am

kevins58 wrote:
She was a chancer not a real asylum seeker. She is ripping of the people of the UK why is it you support these people instead of those being ripped off Sassy. Do you hate your fellow Brits?

WHY does this sound so much like Drinky sometimes ?

MET her personally did you, kevin58, to know her situation so well ??

P.S. Does that "58" refer to your I.Q. or your hat size ???

by Lone Wolf Thu Mar 13, 2014 2:44 am

Sassy wrote:
Exactly, we were very happy to go over to their countries and take a share of the riches. I wonder how much of our wealth is based on what we have done to other countries over the years.

99%

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:25 am

Sassy wrote:‘The challenge is made on the basis that Ms Mohamoud’s confusion led her to refuse the offer of accommodation in circumstances where, if she had understood the true position, she would have accepted it’, Lord Justice Moore-Bick said, sitting with Lord Justice McFarlane and Mrs Justice Proudman.
‘It is hard to see how the Council could have made it clearer that only one offer would be made.
‘However I can understand how someone, either reading the letter cursorily or not fully understanding it, might find the bidding process confusing’, the judges said.
‘It may be the case that Ms Mohamoud was confused about the system.
‘[size=18.285715103149414]I would only add that Ms Mohamoud should not take this judgment as meaning that she will inevitably receive another offer of accommodation[/size]'.

https://www.facebook.com/policealertsUKnewsreportsUk/posts/10203497907908354?stream_ref=10

Didn't realise it would be her only offer and still doesn't get another propery.

You can all stop worrying about the three bedroom house she isn't going to get.

Perhaps she should learn english and should have had and interpreter explain it before signing . She just doesn't want a flat she wants a house .

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 9:30 am

she must have been told the rules, if it was checked that she understood the rules, which is the crux of it, she should be left homeless, it happens just only to British, if she can prove she did not understand the ruling then she has a legal case, I would have thought..

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:00 am

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:she must have been told the rules, if it was checked that she understood the rules, which is the crux of it, she should be left homeless, it happens just only to British, if she can prove she did not understand the ruling then she has a legal case, I would have thought..

And Jesus said, let them be homeless, really?

She did nothing wrong, you see in Christianity it Jesus taught people to be humane.
She did nothing wrong no other person would have asked for considering her condition, so who are you to judge her doing so?
because you are born here?
I don't think so

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:02 am

VOD(original) wrote:
Sassy wrote:‘The challenge is made on the basis that Ms Mohamoud’s confusion led her to refuse the offer of accommodation in circumstances where, if she had understood the true position, she would have accepted it’, Lord Justice Moore-Bick said, sitting with Lord Justice McFarlane and Mrs Justice Proudman.
‘It is hard to see how the Council could have made it clearer that only one offer would be made.
‘However I can understand how someone, either reading the letter cursorily or not fully understanding it, might find the bidding process confusing’, the judges said.
‘It may be the case that Ms Mohamoud was confused about the system.
‘I would only add that Ms Mohamoud should not take this judgment as meaning that she will inevitably receive another offer of accommodation'.

https://www.facebook.com/policealertsUKnewsreportsUk/posts/10203497907908354?stream_ref=10

Didn't realise it would be her only offer and still doesn't get another propery.

You can all stop worrying about the three bedroom house she isn't going to get.

Perhaps she should learn english and should have had and interpreter explain it before signing . She just doesn't want a flat she wants a house .

She is a refugee, is it now a requirement to learn English to seek asylum?

No

She has a fear of heights and asked for alternative accommodation, that is not being unreasonable, if this had been someone British and white, you would not have say anything wrong in regards to this, and that is the reality of the matter

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:05 am

PhilDidge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:she must have been told the rules, if it was checked that she understood the rules, which is the crux of it, she should be left homeless, it happens just only to British, if she can prove she did not understand the ruling then she has a legal case, I would have thought..

And Jesus said, let them be homeless, really?

She did nothing wrong, you see in Christianity it Jesus taught people to be humane.
She did nothing wrong no other person would have asked for considering her condition, so who are you to judge her doing so?
because you are born here?
I don't think so

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:06 am

::troll:: alert

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:10 am

BigAndy9 wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

And Jesus said, let them be homeless, really?

She did nothing wrong, you see in Christianity it Jesus taught people to be humane.
She did nothing wrong no other person would have asked for considering her condition, so who are you to judge her doing so?
because you are born here?
I don't think so

if you bothered to read my post i said if she knew the rules, that's that the rules apply, if she did not know the rules , as they were not explained to her properly or the language barrier was an issue she has the right to appeal the decision, I assume you can read??

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 10:14 am

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

if you bothered to read my post i said if she knew the rules, that's that the rules apply, if she did not know the rules , as they were not explained to her properly or the language barrier was an issue she has the right to appeal the decision, I assume you can read??

Well if you had bothered to actually understand that many asylum seekers do not have a clue about the system, showing the claim they come here to scam is clearly false. Many will come here not having a good command of the written language.
So if the council failed to help her understand she rightly should win the appeal

You did say she should be left homeless, when she has a young child also, proving beyond doubt you have no Christian values, in fact you make a perfect analogy tot he story of Jesus stating those without sin cast the first rock

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:06 am

why is sassy calling phildidge a troll and posting troll alert is it because philidge keeps mentioning God ?

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:11 am

VOD(original) wrote:why is sassy calling phildidge a troll and posting troll alert is it because philidge keeps mentioning God ?

It must be, to be honest I don't pay it much attention... Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 11:14 am

PhilDidge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

if you bothered to read my post i said if she knew the rules, that's that the rules apply, if she did not know the rules , as they were not explained to her properly or the language barrier was an issue she has the right to appeal the decision, I assume you can read??

Well if you had bothered to actually understand that many asylum seekers do not have a clue about the system, showing the claim they come here to scam is clearly false. Many will come here not having a good command of the written language.
So if the council failed to help her understand she rightly should win the appeal

You did say she should be left homeless, when she has a young child also, proving beyond doubt you have no Christian values, in fact you make a perfect analogy tot he story of Jesus stating those without sin cast the first rock

back peddling how unusual for the dick-tator...

she should be treat according to the rules as would anyone else, if that means her being homeless, that's the rules, it is the same for everyone else in the country...

I forgot you don't believe in equality do you... Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:14 pm

Hilarious, what rules, she won her case, thus those who stated against here were wrong dummy and you would kick a mother and child out on the street, Lucifer would be proud ha ha ha ha ha ha

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:15 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Hilarious, what rules, she won her case, thus those who stated against here were wrong dummy and you would kick a mother and child out on the street, Lucifer would be proud ha ha ha ha ha ha

lol, i would adhere to rules, those rules would apply to all, that is equality...

herr dick..tator forcing treatment on people would not be ... Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:18 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:Hilarious, what rules, she won her case, thus those who stated against here were wrong dummy and you would kick a mother and child out on the street, Lucifer would be proud ha ha ha ha ha ha

lol, i would adhere to rules, those rules would apply to all, that is equality...

herr dick..tator forcing treatment on people would not be ...

She did apply to the rules known to her, thus equality, because the rules were not explain, the council is at fault dummy and again that does not excuse the fact a so called Christian would wish to throw out a woman with child onto the street, because the council got it wrong, not her.

Oh my busted again, how many more times today ha ha ha ha ha

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:22 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

lol, i would adhere to rules, those rules would apply to all, that is equality...

herr dick..tator forcing treatment on people would not be ...

She did apply to the rules known to her, thus equality, because the rules were not explain, the council is at fault dummy and again that does not excuse the fact a so called Christian would wish to throw out a woman with child onto the street, because the council got it wrong, not her.

Oh my busted again, how many more times today ha ha ha ha ha

If you read my comment i made all the understanding bit quite clear herr dick..tator, you really can't read can you...

I did not make her homeless, the rules would make her homeless, who ever made the rule made her homeless, the same rule that would make anyone in that situation homeless...equality...now do you get it...

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:24 pm

You said she should be homeless, ha ha and then try to worm out of, hilarious, you are no Christian proven again, just some Johnny thinking just to believe makes a person have Christian values, it does not.

Anyway on all counts she did nothing wrong, she asked for alternative accommodation, which was not unreasonable, of which the council screwed up, that is not her fault and she should not be held accountable for that either.

So again you look the dummy

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:27 pm

PhilDidge wrote:You said she should be homeless, ha ha and then try to worm out of, hilarious, you are no Christian proven again, just some Johnny thinking just to believe makes a person have Christian values, it does not.

Anyway on all counts she did nothing wrong, she asked for alternative accommodation, which was not unreasonable, of which the council screwed up, that is not her fault and she should not be held accountable for that either.

So again you look the dummy

lol..herr dick..tator you really are full of it...

did I make the rule..no..

did I enforce the rule....no

did i make her homeless...no

sorry i have no crayons on me but that is as clear as I can make it... Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:29 pm

I never said you did make her homeless but said she should be, that has no Christian values what so ever ha ha ha

Lets face it if she was white, Christian and British, you would be busting a gut to say everyone should move mountains to help herm that is the reality of your prejudice

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:31 pm

PhilDidge wrote:I never said you did make her homeless but said she should be, that has no Christian values what so ever ha ha ha

Lets face it if she was white, Christian and British, you would be busting a gut to say everyone should move mountains to help herm that is the reality of your prejudice

you said i made her homeless dummy....

herr dick..tator contradicts even itself...lol... Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:35 pm

Nope, you said to let her be homeless, is in black and white dummy and from a person who claims to have Christian values

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:36 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:she must have been told the rules, if it was checked that she understood the rules, which is the crux of it, she should be left homeless, it happens just only to British, if she can prove she did not understand the ruling then she has a legal case, I would have thought..

Busted

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:40 pm

PhilDidge wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:she must have been told the rules, if it was checked that she understood the rules, which is the crux of it, she should be left homeless, it happens just only to British, if she can prove she did not understand the ruling then she has a legal case, I would have thought..

Busted

lol yes you have been herr dicktator ... if it was checked she understood the rules, the rules would apply to her just the same as anyone else...equality...

just as it would apply to anyone else ,,, Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 1:42 pm

I have put in context, if she was in the wrong you would put her out on the street, the completely unChristian thing to do

Ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha

So we really see who is the complete Nazi and enemy of Christians is you, not only have you been exposed for being anti Christian but exposed for being heartless and inhumane

Busted

Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:45 pm

PhilDidge wrote:I have put in context, if she was in the wrong you would put her out on the street, the completely unChristian thing to do

Ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha

So we really see who is the complete Nazi and enemy of Christians is you, not only have you been exposed for being anti Christian but exposed for being heartless and inhumane

Busted

lol...the rules would put her out on the streets, the rules that apply to everyone... Smile

try again herr dicktator....lol... Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 3:55 pm

Hilarious, still trying to worm out saying she should be put on the street, those are your words, undeniable now, busted ha ha

You have no Christian values

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:08 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Hilarious, still trying to worm out saying she should be put on the street, those are your words, undeniable now, busted ha ha

You have no Christian values

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

you really are quite simple...

one more time...

did i make the rule...no...

do i enforce the rule...no...

did i put her out on the streets...no...

is equality about the rules applying equality to all yes...

again herr dicktator fails..... Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 4:26 pm

Nobody said you made the rules, you did say she would have to go though ha ha ha ha

No Christian values

So funny and hilarious watching you squirm

Bless

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:22 pm

PhilDidge wrote:Nobody said you made the rules, you did say she would have to go though ha ha ha ha

No Christian values

So funny and hilarious watching you squirm

Bless

why would I squirm, by equality, which I believe in, she regardless of who she is would be treat the same as any one else..

I could see how that is so difficult for a dicktator to understand but the same rules to all is how real equality works.... Smile

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:30 pm

What equality?
So you think making people homeless is equality?

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Hilarious, I do not shy away from showing the root causes of issues in the world, but I do not think anyone "should" be made homeless

Thus you have been exposed for having no Christian values

DOH

by Guest Thu Mar 13, 2014 5:37 pm

PhilDidge wrote:What equality?
So you think making people homeless is equality?

://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/:

Hilarious, I do not shy away from showing the root causes of issues in the world, but I do not think anyone "should" be made homeless

Thus you have been exposed for having no Christian values

DOH

if the rules state that and the rules apply to all, yes that is equality...try looking it up...

are you mixing equality and morality again... herr dicktator.... Smile

by Sponsored content