Worrying situation

The fact that the company who owned the properties with red doors have apologised suggested to me they had made a 'faux pas' but i don't know for sure. The other issue was the red wristbands....

But responsibility for the attacks /abuse lies 100% with the racist people who carried them out.

www.irr.org.uk/news/indifference-to-asylum-seekers-property/

You were being nasty about red doors I have never been nasty about front doors of any hue, although some are nicer than others.
And I have not been nasty about asylum seekers.



I was being nice about red doors and pointing out that I was probably wrong in saying that it could perhaps have been a job lot of red paint obtained cheaply, as apparently red front doors are very fashionable.

Some people condemn others for attempting to question and rationalise but do not seem to offer any solutions.

Are you saying the increase in population is all down to immigration?
An increase in population of 5 million does not require 5 million houses. That's rather simplistic. We do not each have a house, unless we are very rich.

Net migration was at its highest last year at 330,000. The lowest was 77,000. The average was roughly 200,000 over those years, so the increase in population because of migration was nearer half that.

I haven't said that immigration had no effect on the housing stock. The houses lived in by asylum seekers, which is what this is about, are houses that the indigenous population do not want to live in.
An asylum seeker can be living in near slum conditions for up to a year before their claims are sorted. They are then not necessarily given decent housing. Many of them go to live with relatives.

This is the company that lets those houses in Middlesbrough to the asylum seekers. Strangely enough, I do not see any houses like the ones for asylum seekers on this website.

www.jomast.co.uk/

Stuart Monk was the man questioned in parliament.

DJ. You more or less say that immigration has had no effect on the housing stock.
The population in 2001 was approx. 60 million. The population now is approx. 65 million.
We all know that 5 million homes haven't been built in that time. ?

And besides, the landlords may be guilty of something some people disapprove of, but it is not abuse to paint doors red. The guilt when migrants are targeted in some way by abusers is all on the abusers, not the owners or painters of doors.

Good point, thatbags.

Was the chappie who was being accused of acting like Pontius Pilate found guilty? Wouldn't he have to have deliberately painted the doors of houses provided for migrants all the same colour just before they moved in in order to mark them out for some purpose?

All sounds rather far-fetched to me.

You were being nasty about red doors. I do not think asylum seekers deserve that, either.

What questions were not answered by the Red Cross link?

Perhaps it's not clear because you do not want to see the facts clearly.
Excuse me??
Who the hell are you to answer so rudely?
Are you always like this if someone asks questions?
I thought GN would be somewhere to exchange views and ask questions, not get rude and personal remarks if something is not clear.

It was not clear because it did not answer the questions I asked.

www.refugeecouncil.org.uk/policy_research/the_truth_about_asylum/facts_about_asylum_-_page_1

Perhaps the Refugee Council will tell you the facts more clearly then.
Perhaps it's not clear because you do not want to see the facts clearly.

It's not the fault of asylum seekers that they are living in former council houses which have been sold off to landlords instead of being kept as council housing. You really should try to find the right culprit, and not blame the asylum seekers, who have enough to put up with without having to live behind red doors or wear red wristbands.

Well, when I say clear as mud it threw up as many questions as it (apparently) answered.
And didn't answer the ones I asked

I read it
Clear as mud

And I am a Red Cross supporter.

I'm not convinced that the point about asylum seekers not putting pressure on council/housing association waiting lists is entirely fair. Once asylum is granted, the families become priority and progress up the waiting list quickly. This is clear from the growing African population on a nearby council housing estate. I know the area well and traditionally, the council has housed family members close to each other. It's an area of high deprivation where extended families have offered support to help elderly/young relatives cope. The pressure on housing stock must be increasing given the new arrivals and the fact that many former council houses were sold and are now in the hands of private landlords who don't have the commitment to the community that our former social landlord, the council, did.

Because they are not council houses, Jane.
Ask the government why it has not asked these private landlords to give those wanting council houses one of these houses to live in.
Have you actually seen the houses they live in? Not palaces, you know. They are not up to council or housing association standards.

www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2016/01/26/racist-thugs-take-a-lesson-from-the-home-office-s-hostility

So why can't people on housing waiting lists have them too? Its not surprising that there is resentment in some communities.

Perhaps you ought to read the red cross link, jalima.

"First of all, here are some things an asylum seeker can’t get…

Income support.

Housing benefit.

A council house.

That’s because asylum seekers don’t receive mainstream welfare benefits – the kind of safety net given to UK nationals, when we fall on hard times."

Your family cannot be pushed further down the waiting list for a house because of asylum seekers. These houses are not council houses or housing association houses.

Sorry, I was wrong, according to the Farrow and Ball website classic colours such as black and red are very smart for front doors - try Pitch Black and Incarnadine for a classic, stylish look

So 59% of doors were painted red with what was probably a job lot of paint which may not be fasionable at the moment, hence it was cheaper.
A lot of front doors are painted red on many houses.
Many houses in Syria don't have any walls any more, let alone front doors.
Some other European countries are providing tents.

Members of my family would have welcomed the offer of a house with any colour front door but they got pushed further and further down the waiting list.

The authorities can never provide these houses for our own homeless people, can they. I'm sure that there are many who would jump at having one, red door or not.

So, once again, how would you suggest the authorities handle the problem of housing and feeding these people?

Just been reading about it on the Guardian website. It sounds more like a case of the three wise monkeys.

Nobody told us there was a problem with the red doors.
I never noticed that they were painted red. In fact it was only 59% of them.
I never asked the painters how many doors they had painted red.
They were red when we bought them twenty years ago.
Someone painted his door white, and the painters painted it red again? I do not know anything about that.

The owner of the company that painted the red doors was questioned by a commons committee today. He was accused of acting like Pontius Pilate.

It can be seen on politics live on the Guardian website.

As far as I can see, they either get money to feed themselves or they get "full-board" with their food provided, as there was not enough accommodation for everyone to have cooking facilities.

It could be that single men are getting "full board" in hostels and families get somewhere they can cook but I am not sure of that.

It is probably groups of single men who are walking along the street to get their meals.

You could read the Red Cross article, Jalima. It's not very long. Just in case you want to find out more.

"These ‘costs’ are often mentioned in the same breath as immigration policy or net migration. This confuses the issue, as asylum seekers are here for different reasons.

Some papers do cite big, scary numbers about asylum support – but when you break down the figures, the amount actually becomes very small. A budget of £155 million is around £5 a year for each taxpayer.

That means a small amount of money – just over 1p a day – will help people who have fled traumatic and terrifying experiences, such as rape, torture and murder. It’s the sort of loose change that rattles at the bottom of your rucksack."

Per member of population, not per tax payer. Not forgetting, of course, that the population includes many asylum seekers. If you want to know how many, it's on the Red Cross website, but it's not as many as most people think.