Coming a close second to the daft idea of Britishness - is the idea to turf all non- British people out of all social housing.

You should have been working for at minimum 10 years and speak English before being considered. Also if you do not ensure property is clean and safe once in social housing, residents should be made to leave however long you have lived or were born here, wish you could do it in bought properties, so many a disgrace and neighbours sell up to get away.

I can’t take her seriously, I never could - she’s like her own Spitting Image puppet, everything is exaggerated to the point of absurdity.

Badenoch doesn't think on her feet with any agility or grasp of public experience reality is my observation. Though I appreciate she has more recently grown in the estimation of her party supporters from her low start.

Badenoch's face was a picture in response to Burnham at PMQs last Wednesday.

AB responded to Badenoch that she had removed a shadow chancellor who said the Liz Truss budget was a 'mistake' and replaced that shadow chancellor with one that helped write Liz Truss's budget and she herself said Liz Truss's budget was 100% right. She looked haunted as though she had not anticipated that entirely predictable own goal.....

Grantanow

I'm beginning to think she's lost her marbles.

I do keep repeating myself on this but ever since I watched her giving evidence to the Post Office Inquiry I have felt she has some mental distance from reality.

As non residents when we emigrated we were given nothing. We had to make our own way. As it should be. I am not speaking of oppressed asylum seekers, just non residents. I think it is total madness to do otherwise.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

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

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.

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

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. 🤨

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

Clearly everyone doesn’t live in the real world. I described one flat and its occupancy over a period of five years, where the six families living there were all foreign except one. That is happening all over in the real world, and yet here you immediately ‘take issue with it’ and try to point a finger at white British people which of course isn’t racist.

Those families (from various countries) were being supported by the local council, i.e. British tax payers. In this area we pay 35% of our Council Tax on adult social care and another 23% on children, making 58% on social care. No wonder there is nothing left for repairing potholes and other parts of our broken society.

Nobody is saying your experience wasn't real. If six families in one flat over five years were mostly foreign-born, then that's your observation. The question is whether that single experience is enough to draw conclusions about the country as a whole.

Saying "people don't live in the real world" because they ask for broader evidence isn't fair. Different people have different experiences, and anecdotes can point to an issue without proving how widespread it is.

Likewise, the claim that council tax is high because of those families needs evidence. Adult social care is primarily driven by an ageing population, disability services, and care costs, while children's services cover a wide range of responsibilities. If the argument is that immigration is a major driver of those costs, that should be supported with data rather than assumed.

Well who knows what the level of need is for each family. I'm just pointing out that five out of six families who were emergency housed by the council during a period of five years were non-British. They were not new arrivals, they were living somewhere before and some had jobs.

Chestnut

Who mentioned difficulties? This is about taxpayers funding people from all over the world at the expense of our own citizens and our own infrastructure.

If you know that the council is prioritising immigrants over white British nationals, regardless of need - which is I assume what you're saying - then maybe you ought to take this further?

... your local MP - the media?

Who mentioned difficulties? This is about taxpayers funding people from all over the world at the expense of our own citizens and our own infrastructure.

In the real world I have lived in flats before and there are always always difficulties with some neighbours as there can be in suburbia whatever the background is all I can say. Is that not just life?

Clearly everyone doesn’t live in the real world. I described one flat and its occupancy over a period of five years, where the six families living there were all foreign except one. That is happening all over in the real world, and yet here you immediately ‘take issue with it’ and try to point a finger at white British people which of course isn’t racist.

Those families (from various countries) were being supported by the local council, i.e. British tax payers. In this area we pay 35% of our Council Tax on adult social care and another 23% on children, making 58% on social care. No wonder there is nothing left for repairing potholes and other parts of our broken society.

We all live in the real world, but look to the law and guidelines it lays down.
Anecdotal experience of "one flat nearby" or "impressions of" come up against those guidelines. Criminals come from all backgrounds, outward criminals and domestic violence too.

I take issue with the tale of the flat inasmuch as the "One woman even made the excuse that her husband couldn't get a job because he couldn't speak English, so they and most of the others were clearly living on benefits"

Could equally apply to a home grown White British family except the speaking English and it could be... a "bad back"..or a genuine hidden disability or equally there could be criminality. Why do we evade this sort of fact life when it is white people?

Where are the shocked O/P's?

Primrose53

Silvershadow

We aren’t talking about data breaches are we. We are talking about council or social housing being allocated to migrants before British families. Reading this article tells us there’s many of them, some of whom could be criminals but theyre just not too sure about that. Nevertheless they’ve all been housed, the taxpayers are paying, so it’s all ok then.

You are deflecting!

Deflecting is the norm on here from people who think they know it all. 😉

Those of us who live in the real world know what’s going on and whatever is said about treating British people fairly regarding social housing is not correct.

Why is your world "real" and others not, Primrose? My world feels very "real".

Oreo

Whitewavemark2

That already happens

Not always as councils say it depends on need.

They do but you seem to be missing the fact that there are two conditions not one. They are lawful residence and eligibility. I really can't see your issue with this.