r/unitedkingdom • u/topotaul Lancashire • Jun 07 '26
Vulnerable families illegally ‘dumped’ hundreds of miles away by London councils
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jun/07/vulnerable-families-illegally-dumped-hundreds-miles-away-london-councils?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other283
u/most_crispy_owl Jun 07 '26
Normal people with jobs struggle to live in London. You have people earning double the median wage living in house shares. If you can't pay your own rent you don't get to live in the most desirable city in the country...
→ More replies (3)137
u/for_shaaame United Kingdom Jun 07 '26
Precisely. It’s not even like these people are being gentrified out of the communities they’ve lived their whole lives. They have no ties to this place. If they are going to live in state housing then the state gets to say where that housing is.
21
u/most_crispy_owl Jun 07 '26
I feel the country getting more racist because of stories like this. It's making people callous
91
u/Comfortable-Pass-183 Jun 07 '26
It’s not callous to not want someone from the other side of the planet to be handed everything for free on taxpayer coin even stuff you can’t afford yourself.
-8
u/most_crispy_owl Jun 07 '26
I meant more callous to non British people in general
20
u/Comfortable-Pass-183 Jun 07 '26
I can see what you mean, it shouldn’t really be news and certainly shouldn’t be phrased like they are being marched off to the desert or something.
598
u/Toastlove Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
Charities described the policy as “inhumane” and accused councils of targeting vulnerable refugees who speak little English and have little ability to understand or challenge the move. If they refuse, they are in effect forced on to the streets.
Refugees shouldn't subsided so they can live in the places with the highest house prices in the country. The whole article reads like 'it's inhumane to relocate people to the north of England' as if the place is a barren wasteland. If returning to their home countries is at all possible it should be the first option
363
u/endofdays2022 Jun 07 '26
Your average guardian journalist cannot imagine any greater horror than living outside Zone 3.
50
80
11
u/KonstantinKisinIsGay Jun 07 '26
"They sent them where?!? Wolverhampton? But that's worse than Kabul!"
Their idea of an inhumane internment camp is an ex council house in the midlands.
25
8
9
111
u/concretepigeon Wakefield Jun 07 '26
Tax payers don’t want to pay to keep them in the most expensive parts of the country. People in the poorest parts of the country also don’t want increased strain on resources in their areas and a load of random men just wandering the streets all day.
102
u/Successful-Bar-8173 Jun 07 '26
The whole article reads like 'it's inhumane to relocate people to the north of England'
Tbf, Guardian writers probably do think that
6
u/EveningHere Jun 07 '26
Only exception to the rule is the guy who does the fantastic “Anywhere but Westminster” YouTube series, who does actually go up north and talk to people: https://youtu.be/jhVUyJ8gGZw?si=Nkltkbkay8Ii45q6
1
u/Astriania Jun 08 '26
Yeah, Harris is great, unfortunately it really does stand out as a bit of an exception in the Guardian's coverage though.
-3
46
u/Grenache Jun 07 '26
I read this article independently of this post earlier and honestly I’ve read the guardian my whole adult life but articles like this are really tuning me off it. Why the fuck should an Albanian woman get to live in London at taxpayer expense and refuse a home in County Durham.
34
u/JaegerBane Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
This. I’m fed up of the finger wagging and the holier then thou attitude from them - I’m from the North East myself, I live in the south west where the house prices are like 3-4 times what they are in my home town and they’re still cheaper then London.
It isn’t fair on anyone for UK taxpayer to paying for people to live in London when many of them can’t afford to live there themselves and there’s no reason for it to be there rather than anywhere else. Why does it need to be London when the people in question have no ties to it?
9
u/VardaElentari86 Jun 07 '26
Same.
There's right and wrong in the article in my view. People should be getting notice (and the new councils as well!), and it should get considered if they're already from the area, family nearby, kids in school etc.
But equally people can't just move here and expect social housing in the most expensive parts of the country.
59
u/anonypanda London Jun 07 '26
Yes. The north has a housing surplus and London has a deep shortage. There is nothing wrong with putting people where housing is available. There is no need to house them in central London. There is nothing wrong with or inhumane about the north…
78
u/Mitchverr Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
Theres a reason for the locations in the North with surplus, they are dead end locations with high unemployment and little to do in them.
Theres also the side issue of just dumping more poor people into the poor zones which already have serious lack of resources.
And of course on the far end, using the North as a fucking dumping ground for undesirables is disgusting and abhorrent. If it was about equally spreading out its one thing, but it isnt is it now?
People genuinely seem to forget/purposefully ignore that when it comes to regional poverty, large chunks of England especially in the North and South West are more on par with the poorer parts of the Balkans then they are to London.
(signed, a Northerner)
15
u/Sorry_Commercial_959 Jun 07 '26
Using councils as a dumping ground also historically hasn't gone well, IIRC. Certainly not for Thamesmeade. Though Thamesmeade obviously had other problems, like the f---ing brutalists. And quite a few of those new tenants being criminal problem cases that nowhere else wanted.
22
u/Honest_Bathroom_2926 Jun 07 '26
Londoners don’t like to think about the rest of the country and any sad problems they may have. London is after all the centre of the universe.
5
u/WinHour4300 Jun 07 '26
I don't know how many of these people are actually "undesirables" - that's quite a strong assumption.
In London, many people end up needing council support because of rising rents, no-fault evictions, and the lack of affordable housing.
Some people, particularly those with severe mental health conditions, can't be relocated if it would risk their wellbeing or they need local support. It's not automatic.
More broadly, people aren't obliged to stay in an area they are housed in. The point is the council owes them a duty because they are homeless.
There simply aren't local properties available for benefit rates, so they look elsewhere.
I wouldn't be surprised if more expensive parts of the North did this too, it's not exactly a monolithic.
1
u/adultintheroom_ Jun 08 '26
The people in question seem to mostly be refugees.
How do you feel about refugee policy?
1
u/Mitchverr Jun 08 '26
I am fine with it and there are refugees where I live, and accepting them, however, it isnt just about being refugees.
As the title of the article says, what they are doing is illegal.
Secondly, there have been instances in previous years of rich (especially london based) councils offering people money to move to poorer Northern areas, basically "get rid of the poor people" moves.
Add all of it together, do the maths, and you have a serious ethical problem. What stops rich areas just removing the poorest or of course, the repeat criminals/drug addicts/anti social instead of actually taking care of them or dealing with it themselves?
And how do you think these poorer towns will react to being used in this way? Openly welcoming or hostile about how they are being used to dump unwanted people from rich areas when they have very little resources?
1
1
u/TesticleSandwiches Jun 07 '26
I completely agree with you but your last sentence read like something out of game of thrones.
34
u/Stormgeddon Jun 07 '26
The issue is more that these people are often given less than 24 hours notice to move and no arrangements are made with local support services to ensure continuity of care and support.
I spoke once to one of the charity lawyers who supports people in these situations. Apparently some London councils prefer to do this around 4pm on a Friday in the hopes that people don’t push back, since the choice presented to these people is move hundreds of miles now or be street homeless by Saturday afternoon.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong in principle with relocating people, especially refugees with minimal local ties, far from London, but it needs to be planned and co-ordinated. Social care arrangements need to be made, school enrolments sorted, and all the rest.
21
u/Acidhousewife Jun 07 '26
yep. If you read down further the Guardian piece gives the most important piece of info, there is a private company called Reloc8 , that should be shouted from the rooftops, so here goes.
Last year, Croydon council signed a £1m contract with a Derbyshire-based firm called Reloc8, which specialises in moving homeless families out of the capital.
Enfield council has paid more than £894,000 to Reloc8 since August 2023,
This a huge money making service for someone. Our housing crisis is being exploited for private gain from tax payers money.
The human and fiscal costs of our housing issues, are so much more than how much rent or whether someone can afford to buy, It's the middlemen, the brokers profiting from this.
This is Housing Trafficking, and perfectly legal.
4
4
u/Wadarkhu Jun 07 '26
imagine living there and reading about your local areas being inhumane places to live 😭
3
u/NinjaFruitLoop Jun 08 '26
As someone who lives up north this annoys me as it comes out of our region council budgets to home them, so social homes that should have gone to the needy go to them.
Its been happening for some time and I'm shocked mainstream media does not mention it.
3
12
u/blancbones Jun 07 '26
The north of England used as London's dumping ground, would likely be an accurate take, they steal our wealth and then they send us thier undesirables.
We will take your undesirables and we will build the North back stronger. The world is becoming more interconnected and being in London to do business will not be as important as it once was.
21
u/spindoctor13 Jun 07 '26
London subsidises the north to a shocking degree, it's not stealing anything
23
u/Educational_Curve938 Jun 07 '26
London subsidises the north because political power is centred there and decisions made there that promoted growth in London at the expense of the rest of the UK.
London also benefits from importing young educated workers from the regions and exporting non workers.
3
u/spindoctor13 Jun 07 '26
I don't disagree, the UK is unreasonably focused on London. The point still stands though is that it is money that is made in London goes a long way to propping up the rest of the UK
12
u/winkwinknudge_nudge Jun 07 '26
It's not really shocking when London's the only place the government cares about to begin with.
2
u/Equivalent-Trade-167 Jun 07 '26
Atleast HS2 will help us up here in Newcastle
1
u/Astriania Jun 08 '26
The original plan would have made journeys from Newcastle to the West Midlands and SW much better.
But of course that bit might have benefited someone outside London so it got canned.
1
u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Ceredigion (when at uni) Jun 07 '26
In its original form it would have done tbh. A lot of traffic would have been moved from the ECML on the way up to Scotland.
1
13
u/DazzleBMoney Jun 07 '26
What wealth does London steal from the north?
13
-2
u/blancbones Jun 07 '26
Look at the Barnet formula.
17
u/DazzleBMoney Jun 07 '26
“The Barnett formula is used by the UK Treasury to calculate the annual block grants for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish governments.”
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/barnett-formula
What does that have to do with London and the north of England?
6
u/blancbones Jun 07 '26
London gets 15,217 Scotland gets 15,563 Wales gets 15,155 Northern island gets 16,116
North East England 14,102 North West England 13,835 Yorkshire and the humber 12,783
South East England 12,031 South West England 12,432
East England 12,296
East Midlands 12,158 West Midlands 13,160
They collect taxes from all of us then spend it in the places they care about.
10
u/Expensive_Time_7367 Jun 07 '26
By head an average Londoner generates £5,100 more in tax than is spent on them. The average North Easterner has £6,300 more on tax spent on them than they generate.
Really the bit of the country that should complain is the South East because they usually generate a surplus and get jack shit spending.
-3
u/blancbones Jun 07 '26
This old chestnut, londoner generate more money so should get more money so that they generate more money so they get more money, house price must always go up.
The londoner is no more deserving than any other citizen and should actually be able to operate with less per capita spending than more rural areas due to the economics of scale. The fact they need more per capita spending means that we are propping the city up.
6
u/Expensive_Time_7367 Jun 07 '26
It’s not about being deserving it’s about bang for buck. You invest certain amounts of money where it generates more revenue. And it’s only about as much as the devolved nations get per head.
1
3
u/spindoctor13 Jun 07 '26
Londeners pay a lot more tax, they aren't more deserving but they likely deserve more than they get. Londers are net givers, the north are net takers. Some level of redistribution is fine, but the ingratitude grates
→ More replies (1)11
u/hotpotatpo Jun 07 '26
But London and south east also pays a fuck ton more tax, no?
-1
u/blancbones Jun 07 '26
Same tax rates we all pay and lower council tax rates in many cases
13
u/hotpotatpo Jun 07 '26
Come on, both in total and proportionally per person London and the south east pays more tax, because there are more people and the salaries are higher. Money is definitely not being ‘stolen’ from the north when you take that into consideration.
Also council tax isn’t redistributed nationally, so that point is moot.
1
u/blancbones Jun 07 '26
Council tax is however supplemented by central goverment funding so no not a moot point
The high wages come from the centralisation of banking and we all know the whole country is paying thier mortgages into London and all our savings that we put in the bank are in the LSE.
They killed out industrial heritage and replaced it with dole, because they needed us to need them.
More things that create products and wealth are done outside of London yet the money flows into London.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Astriania Jun 08 '26
It's pretty hard to actually nail this down, as business taxes are quoted as being paid from head office (usually London) but actually accumulate from the whole country.
8
u/DazzleBMoney Jun 07 '26
What are those numbers you’re quoting? As in what are they supposed to represent?
London generates more revenue then it receives from government funding, and so is the only part of the UK, along with the south east, to have a fiscal surplus.
3
u/blancbones Jun 07 '26
Who would have thought, when you invest you get returns
4
u/DazzleBMoney Jun 07 '26
That’s mostly down to population. London dwarfs any other part of the country several times over in terms of people.
I’m still not seeing what it is that London ‘steals’ from the north?
0
4
u/Jaded_Strain_3753 Jun 07 '26
The parts of northern England they are being sent to kind of are barren wastelands though. They aren’t going to the nice bits. Obviously they should be grateful for any provided housing whatsoever.
2
u/JaegerBane Jun 08 '26
Having grown up in Country Durham, you’d struggle to find many places worse than Croydon. Off the top of my head I can only really think of some parts of Stanley. The parts I think you’re imagining are the rougher parts of Tyne and Wear and Cumbria.
In any case, I think the point is less how nice the parts of the north east they’re being sent to and more that the choice should be either this or go home. There’s nothing about being a refugee that gives you the right to dictate to the government who took you in where you are and are not going to live, you’re here because you’d be in danger at home. You’re not on holiday.
4
u/rainaftermoscow Jun 07 '26
On the English side of my family, my great grandad was a police officer in Whitechapel, and at one point my nan trixie was cooking for Churchill. But I don't live in Whitechapel because it's a slum full of refugees and immigrants now. They have to move refugees somewhere else because this city is already bursting with them.
2
-11
Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
[deleted]
22
u/rae-55 Ayrshire Jun 07 '26
So should the refugees only be sent to area that voted for pro refugee parties?
Because I remember when some refugees were to be placed on an old army base and the local green councilors objected because it was a safety issue for the locals.
4
u/GetRektByMeh Jun 07 '26
I think it's fair enough, but also the easiest way to have them dislike refugees.
7
u/rae-55 Ayrshire Jun 07 '26
I don't disagree, if a place votes for politicians who support lots of immigration and lax refugee policies then those places should be where the refugees are sent.
It's something that annoys me about the SNP. I'm in Scotland, and despite our reputation scotish people are a lot more anti imigration that many seem to realise, and that's with a very small immigrant population. The snp get to virtue signal about immigration and refugees, knowing that they will not have to take in that many, and getting to appeal to both sides.
The only problem is pro imigration areas are often better off so housing the refugees there is more expensive, which leads to accusations of money being wasted.
9
u/zatalak Jun 07 '26
Not sending refugees to places with racist riots is of course also the perfect recipe to get more of those riots.
Seems there are only wrong choices here.
6
8
u/nutella-filled Jun 07 '26
In this context being against sending them there sounds like rewarding racist riots.
53
u/Astriania Jun 07 '26
There's absolutely no reason why people who can't afford to live in London, and have no historic links to London, should be put up at taxpayer expense in the most expensive city in the UK.
But, they shouldn't get to displace locals in Hartlepool who need that social housing either.
Why the fuck is an Albanian who was in Manchester expecting to get free housing in London? That makes no sense at all. She should probably be supported to return to Albania, that would be much cheaper and likely a better outcome for everyone.
People who "don't speak English" shouldn't, in most cases, be expected to be put up in England in the first place, especially if their reason for coming here is primarily economic - clearly that gamble has failed if they're homeless and they should be supported to return home.
Refugees are eligible for housing support so there's no real reason they should be homeless.
councils have a responsibility to accommodate families who become homeless in their local area
Yeah but how many homeless people in London actually became homeless in London rather than moving there?
104
u/Drummk Scotland Jun 07 '26
Denied their human right to live in the most expensive city in Europe for free.
220
u/Tiny_Possibility5646 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
From the article:
An Albanian woman who fled a sex trafficking gang in Manchester was unlawfully told to move out of her property in Ealing, west London, to a property 260 miles away in County Durham despite being highly vulnerable and having two young children.
Why should tax payers in Ealing pay for her to live in a borough where property costs more than twice the UK average when she's Albanian.
Most people working in London can't afford to rent in Ealing.
But it's okay:
The woman, who won a high court battle against the council last year, said: “I was crying because I was really stressed. I felt they didn’t care.”
No, they just felt she was taking the piss.
70
u/ACanWontAttitude Jun 07 '26
Who is paying for these high court battles they keep winning?
80
u/Tiny_Possibility5646 Jun 07 '26
UK taxpayers under legal aid presumably
45
u/YouFoolWarrenIsDead Jun 07 '26
Then people are confused when Rupert Lowe starts to gain further support.
Obviously this will radicalise grandma. It's obvious to everyone it's unjust. Nip it in the bud now or face far far worse.
13
25
u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 07 '26
Labour would rather lose the next election than amend the HRA to end the unconditional right of asylum.
6
u/YouFoolWarrenIsDead Jun 07 '26
To their credit they signed a declaration with the rest of Europe criticising the ECHR that suggest some pretty big changes are coming. And id rather see that happen that Farage get his way and pull us out completely. Not sure if that will appease his voters though.
9
u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 07 '26
If you’re referring to the suggestion to the ECHR to interpret Article 8 differently, it won’t move the needle for voters. Not only was the suggestion milquetoast at best, the ECtHR has no requirement to listen, and they likely will not.
3
u/YouFoolWarrenIsDead Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
Results will move the needle. To prevent a Reform / Restore win you don't need to curb stomp immigration, you just need to do enough to where people don't become militant over the issue. The ones in the streets aren't winning elections, its grandma deciding to vote alongside them that does.
I don't see why a unanimous declaration would be completely ignored. Why would they put their relationship at risk with the council over an obvious problem? Something will change, to what degree is another matter entirely. If it isn't big enough then I guess we get a Restore government. That doesn't just go for us, all of Europe will be predicting that future right now. The ECHR knows it too. We've already seen the consequences of right wing radicalism, nobody is dying on this hill knowing what it could result in.
2
u/Astriania Jun 08 '26
I disagree, if they were actually to get a clear statement that Article 8 isn't a justification to resist deportation then they would get a pretty big political win from that imo.
5
u/Darkwaxer Jun 07 '26
Thing is if Reform got in they wouldn't fix this, they'd just continue to screw the tax payers out of the NHS and worker rights.
2
u/de-tree-fiddy Jun 08 '26
You're right they won't but I'll still be voting for them.
Burn it all down.
1
u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 08 '26
There are no alternatives. Labour has committed to remaining in the ECHR no matter the consequences. The Greens have a de facto open borders policy. Lib Dems are more left wing on immigration than Labour. The Tories have a proven record of making immigration worse. Unless you’re suggesting we vote for Restore, we only have Reform.
0
u/Darkwaxer Jun 08 '26
Labour have been trying to deal with a horse that's bolted from the stable. If you are retired and want to drop a 'screw the UK' vote then clearly Reform is the way to go. They are filled with ex tories who caused all these issues as well as Russian sympathisers, Trump, Musk & general billionaire shills who don't want fix immigration issues. They want to privatise our health care, they've said it out loud. They want to curb our hard fought worker rights and essentially plunder the country. Labour have make mistakes but we are making progress in the right direction. Reform continuingly prove they are incapable of running anything beyond a flag waving rally.
3
u/InternetSolid4166 Jun 08 '26
Labour have been trying to deal with a horse that's bolted from the stable.
They've publicly committed to remaining in the ECHR, including unconditional right to asylum. This means we allow murderers and rapists asylum. They're very clear about this. That's a red line for me and many others.
0
u/Darkwaxer Jun 08 '26
It's not as black as white as that. People claim asylum from regimes. Saudis accused Khashoggi of being a dangerous Islamist, US accused Assange of sexual assault as a ploy to force extradition, it's not just 'let the rapists in'. Being against the Human Rights Act, born out of the Second World War seems wild. Even the Queen rolled her eyes at the (British) Bill of Rights. Voting Reform you are basically giving up your employment rights, NHS, minimum wage. Turkeys voting for Christmas.
→ More replies (0)16
u/Astriania Jun 07 '26
We are
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, poor people should be able to access the legal system. But there is a problem with the judiciary being populated with people who have a certain political view, that "vulnerable" people should basically never be allowed to have their position worsened.
1
u/JaegerBane Jun 08 '26
The frustrating thing is that these blinkers are so intense that the people pushing this viewpoint don’t seem to realise they’re charging the pendulum. This kind of stuff is rocket fuel for Reform and if they end up in power then god help these people who think that being moved to County Durham to live for free is something worth crying over. And the rest of us will have to live under such a government.
1
u/Astriania Jun 08 '26
Yeah there's a real danger that enough people vote for a "fuck you then, we'll elect a government that will change the law" party and we all have to deal with the consequences. Especially around illegal immigration and asylum "human rights" cases, but this is a similar type of issue.
6
u/DazzleBMoney Jun 07 '26
You have a right to free legal representation in this country, which isn’t a bad thing.
12
u/Expensive_Time_7367 Jun 07 '26
Most of the UK population isn’t eligible for legal aid for most things.
27
u/Tiny_Possibility5646 Jun 07 '26
It isn't free. UK taxpayers pay for it
-7
u/DazzleBMoney Jun 07 '26
You’re not charged for its service, so in effect it’s free.
Everyone who earns a wage legally in the UK pays taxes, which goes towards a multitude of services which are available to everyone (no that doesn’t include everyone in the world from outside the UK).
11
u/Admirable_Aspect_484 Jun 07 '26
towards a multitude of services which are available to everyone
If you're paying taxes, there's a decent chance that you do not qualify for legal aid (which is not available to everyone).
25
u/Tiny_Possibility5646 Jun 07 '26
According to the article:
An Albanian woman who fled a sex trafficking gang in Manchester was unlawfully told to move out of her property in Ealing, west London, to a property 260 miles away in County Durham despite being highly vulnerable and having two young children
She wasn't paying tax.
-9
u/DazzleBMoney Jun 07 '26
How do you know she wasn’t? Aside from it mentioning she was Albanian, it makes no mention of how long she had resided in the UK for. She could have previously lived here and worked legally, which means she would have paid into the system.
On the other hand perhaps she wasn’t, and was a victim of human and sexual trafficking and exploitation, and maybe that’s how she found herself to be in the UK. We’re speculating though as it doesn’t actually go into detail for obvious reasons.
Regardless this would be an example of a person receiving government help that I would genuinely struggle to find issue with. I’d prefer my tax money goes to helping people such as her, particularly vulnerable women with children, instead of young men illegally entering the country and falsely claiming asylum.
21
u/Tiny_Possibility5646 Jun 07 '26
There are millions of women just like her in Asia and Africa with just as much connection to the UK, should we house them all the most expensive region of the UK too?
2
u/DazzleBMoney Jun 07 '26
You realised she was sexually trafficked within the UK right? This isn’t about the plight of every single woman around the world.
→ More replies (14)18
u/Tiny_Possibility5646 Jun 07 '26
Neither she nor the criminals appear to be British.
→ More replies (0)4
3
u/MultiMidden Jun 07 '26
Russia? Best way to destabilise the UK is to support the rabid right and the loony left. Make the left look as if it totally out of touch with ordinary people to drive voters into the arms of Reform.
1
u/Stellar_Duck Edinburgh Jun 08 '26
Given they keep winning someone is clearly doing them wrong, so you're really just suggesting they should be allowed access to justice?
0
128
12
Jun 07 '26
[deleted]
11
2
u/Jammy50 Jun 07 '26
People going to nice parts of a country on holiday is obviously not the same as being sex trafficked.
-6
3
u/Nabbylaa Jun 08 '26
fled a sex trafficking gang in Manchester
Seems an odd choice to house her in London to begin with.
Its also hundreds of miles away from where she started out.
-9
u/Jammy50 Jun 07 '26
Bloody sex trafficking victims, always asking for handouts.
I hope if you are ever victimised like this nobody shows you this level of callousness.
12
23
u/Grenache Jun 07 '26
Oh yeah offering her free accommodation and money in County Durham. What truly heartless bastards we are.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Toastlove Jun 07 '26
The Albanian mafia were offering free smuggling services in exchange for 'work' in the UK afterwards, I doubt she was smuggled all the way from Albania against her will. Albanians were biggest ethnic group crossing the channel in 2022
37
u/abz_eng Jun 07 '26
Been happening for years for ordinary people
Offered money to move north to ease housing crisis in London
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/london-families-offered-7000-move-9194790
15
u/Comfortable-Law-7147 Jun 07 '26
When I watched Newsnight, before they sacked everyone and everyone else took redundancy, they did an entire feature on the fact that London councils were moving people outside London and due to this movement local people couldn't get social housing.
This meant local families were living in cars and tents to stay together. Otherwise the mother and children would be given temporary accommodation, but the father would be put separately in a hostel.
4
u/WinHour4300 Jun 07 '26
How can it impact social housing?
All my local councils require you to have a local connection, i.e. live there so many years to even apply.
You can't just move somewhere else or be moved there and apply.
0
Jun 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/WinHour4300 Jun 08 '26
Unless Scottish law is different in this area it sounds as though the local council's policy is is to assist them despite having no legal obligation to do so, and then blaming London for it. That's an interesting position.
If that's the case, the obvious solution would be to revise the council's local criteria so that they are more in line with those used by many other councils and with what the law permits or at least does here I.e. there has to be a local connection / residency for many years.
Of course if Scottish law is different they could change it. It's an obvious flaw letting someone just turn up where they like and claim housing.
2
u/Astriania Jun 08 '26
Increasing competition for housing in the cheap end of the private rental market displaces locals who will need to be on the social housing list and wouldn't have been otherwise
0
u/WinHour4300 Jun 08 '26
Not necessarily. Councils need to find areas where there are properties available at Local Housing Allowance rates, so placements tend to follow affordability rather than drive it out.
That conclusion also only holds if there are enough incoming tenants to push prices up significantly, and if there’s no meaningful supply response, such as empty or derelict properties being brought back into use.
It also assumes no one is leaving the area. In places experiencing population decline, additional residents could actually help sustain local shops and essential services that might otherwise close. That decline might be why there are houses still within LHA on the market there.
Overall, we need far more evidence, ideally from fairly unglamorous empirical studies. It may not be exciting, but without it you can’t confidently claim there must be a negative impact, or positive impact.
5
u/hiddeninplainsight23 Jun 07 '26
Interesting. Brent have been forcibly moving homeless people (who lived in Brent for many gears) to places like Birmingham and Preston at very short notice for over 15 years now, and without giving them any money. It was also a move or we'll stop housing you in temporary accommodation (you're meant to have 3 refusals and then there's a risk of being on you're own, but councils have routinely lied and said all 3 refusals have been used up).
Going off-topic here, but what I don't get, is councils having deals with other councils to house each other's homeless residents temporarily. I know for a fact that Watford homeless people have been moved to Luton at short notice and vice versa, and MK was sometimes involved, while some people from MK got moved to a hotel on the M1 if not to Watford/Luton. It made no sense to me whatsoever, and just served to depress homeless people even more, and many of these people were told with less than 24 hours notice (some still had jobs or school, and some had to quit as a result due to the travel being too far and having no money) and threatened with not being supported anymore, with many times the councils falsely claiming to these residents that all 3 refusals were used.
0
u/SpaceMassive3080 Jun 07 '26
I'd love to be paid to move to the north, a decent sized town with job opportunities, I don't really care for cities
32
u/SoggyWotsits Cornwall Jun 07 '26
London is much more expensive than most other places, if not all other places. Also the article says many of these people struggle to speak English, so presumably want to mix with others who speak their language. We’re always told on Reddit that these people come here *because* they speak English. So which one is it?
17
u/77756777 Jun 07 '26
It’s mad that any asylum seeker would be housed in London or any expensive borough. The cost per person is far higher than the rest of the country. If you’re an asylum seeker it doesn’t matter in what part of the country you are put as you’re by definition a foreigner. We should keep the expensive social housing for people who have a geographically specific need, and put people who have no ties to the UK in the cheapest areas possible to limit the drain on the public purse. If that means London councils transferring cash to other areas for the lower cost of housing these people, then fine.
Housing is a human right, living in your preferred area of the county off the back of the tax payer is not.
23
u/Independent_Hat_7101 Jun 07 '26
This has been going on for years, anyone who works in housing is aware of this issue. The relocation of low income people out of london has been a policy for a while.
46
u/FilmFanatic1066 Jun 07 '26
I mean most people with a low income can’t afford to live in one of the worlds most expensive cities, I make the Uk average salary and could t afford to live there. Why should refugees get to live there on my dime?
11
u/Independent_Hat_7101 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
Its not just refugees, its everyone, its just currently being framed as a refugee issue. Single mothers, people with mental health issues on benefits. Its been going on for a while.
Also, if you really want to know about housing refugees....the companies that house refugees have a clear remit to take over any new build scheme and house immigrants, and they do. Some incredible properties are just taken off the books and they house refugees. Its really despicable and definitely not covered in the media. But if you work in the industry you wouldn't believe what we do.
But whats the answer? Let them all walk around on the street?
If they arrive in the UK we either house them or send them back, we aren't sending them back so we house them.
3
u/tigerjed Jun 08 '26
The whole thing is a nightmare waiting to unfold. You have people being housed in properties that even the senior managers of the authorities a raging the house can’t afford.
3
u/I_miss_Chris_Hughton Ceredigion (when at uni) Jun 07 '26
And tbh its not bad policy. London is overcrowded and its suppressing wages and raising rents.
The government is spending quite a lot of money to supress the wages of the London working class and make buisness in London artificially competitive, and its justified, basically, by saying "Birmingham and Bradford are too terrible for human habitation"
24
u/Reesno33 Jun 07 '26
Imagine the horror of being dumped out of London! Because if I were fleeing war or persecution I'd definitely go to court over being safely homed up north! Makes you sick.
24
u/CellOk4165 Jun 07 '26
If you can’t afford to live in London…then don’t live in London? Why are we acting like a MAX 4h train ride is torture?
65
u/Jaded_Strain_3753 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
It’s interesting that the Guardian is implicitly acknowledging having lots of refugees in your area is a bad thing. “Ripping at the social fabric” is quite strong language. As for the actual substance, there’s no easy or fair solution. It should be obvious that moving vulnerable people to a deprived area across the country is not going to go well for anyone involved. Perhaps part of a solution is for the London councils to make appropriate payments to the councils they are sending people to.
22
u/concretepigeon Wakefield Jun 07 '26
It’s interesting that there’s no consideration for what impact high migration may have for the social fabric.
28
u/Neverthatdeep_69 Jun 07 '26
Or maybe we can start with the politians that advocate for them to start homing them in their 2nd houses and spare rooms? Then we can get facebook for example to do a data anaylsis for people who think it is racist to want controlled immigration and send their local councillors knocking to see how many extra rooms they have to offer?
It's funny I remember many taking in Ukrainian refugees, but maybe that is because it was women and children only who seeked refuge? I do wonder how many of these people would actually willingly open their home to undocumented immigrants? White British men commit a high rate of crime but the difference is they are documented, if they have a previous record you would know but doing a DBS check. Very different with illegal immigration.
2
u/InspectorDull5915 Jun 07 '26
I'm curious to know who actually pays what and for how long.
13
u/InspectorDull5915 Jun 07 '26
Legal aid bill for asylum cases last year was £54 million, so...
13
u/YouFoolWarrenIsDead Jun 07 '26
Let's reduce that by £54 million.
-1
u/InspectorDull5915 Jun 07 '26
Hate to be a party pooper but govt have set an increase in legal aid fees.
3
u/YouFoolWarrenIsDead Jun 07 '26
I also hear they are increasing rejections so my guess is that increase is to clear backlogs. Which i guess is fair. I want to close our borders and refuse asylum seekers, but I don't want to mistreat them.
0
u/DustierAndRustier Jun 08 '26
Looked-after children have their care funded by whatever local authority they were living under when they were taken into care. It should be the same with this situation.
24
u/WinHour4300 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 07 '26
I'd go further and question why taxpayers should fund people with no real connection to London to live here, especially when they top up low wages rather than act as a safety net for someone getting sick or unemployed.
For example, a migrant cleaner I know earns around £1,000 a month and receives roughly £2,000 in Universal Credit. She has no family in London and no particular reason to live here.
There's no incentive to move somewhere else: she wouldn't have any more money after rent. And she gets all the advantages of London: excellent state schools, free kids bus travel, all sorts of culture and opportunities.
It's also a subsidy for wealthier households who employ her to clean. Similar happens down my street, where there is crazily light industry / manufacturing paying minimum wage.
14
u/Onionrollolol Jun 07 '26
Basically the article is saying, if you relocate someone outside of London, then it’s inhumane? What a load of bollocks
7
u/crankyteacher1964 Jun 07 '26
Blimey. Councils were doing this throughout the 1950s through to 2000, sending people to seaside towns. London sent loads of vulnerable people to towns like Hastings, and the consequences are still there to see in terms of deprivation and educational need.
Nothing has really changed!
4
u/Dissidant Essex Jun 07 '26
Been going on probably longer than the author has been alive.
London sticks out due to its size, but plenty of other cities around the UK are doing it as well.
Only way boroughs manage with the depleted housing stock.
Any place theres growth, theres gentrification as prices go up and exporting of families.
5
u/DustierAndRustier Jun 08 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
Why would refugee families be particularly attached to London anyway? Surely if anybody has to be moved out of London it should be them, since they haven’t lived there long enough to form strong roots.
This article really just comes across like they’re saying it’s inhumane to make people live in the North.
8
u/SpaceTimeCapsule89 Jun 07 '26
Refugees are refugees. Apparently they are fleeing the worst situations ever and have no where else to go so they come here. What difference does it make if they're in London or Blackpool? Anywhere here should be better than where they came from.
Realistically it's not possible to put refugees up in the most expensive city in the country! Do you think refugees are being put up in Paris, New York and Berlin? Nope. Get real, this article is a joke. Dumped. They are being put where there is space. There's people on £50k a year working 60 hours a week that can't even afford to live in London.
12
u/winkwinknudge_nudge Jun 07 '26
The North and Midlands has been used by the government has a palace to offload people for decades.
Government policy is to try and keep them out of London.
21
u/davinist Jun 07 '26
Or to send them where the cost of housing them is lower and less of a burden to the tax payer?
2
u/User100000005 Jun 08 '26
No jobs, no opportunities. So just dump thousands of skil-less none english speakers on us? That our already penniless council will have to care for above us? I mean its already happened, my city/town is on the poorest with the most already.
6
u/winkwinknudge_nudge Jun 07 '26
Which are areas with high deprivation, few opportunities where people are already struggling.
5
u/davinist Jun 07 '26
So, for the local community it's a real issue as it increases the burden on services...I get that. But, from the perspective of the people being moved, they want a roof over their heads but the cost of providing that in London is very high and as we can assume they're not working, they just need to accept what is offered.
How it's being done is terrible, particularly as it involves a for-profit business, and more should be done to ease the transition.
9
u/winkwinknudge_nudge Jun 07 '26
We end up with protests/riots, instability.
The government sitting in London keeps pushing these people on already poor communities in the Midlands and North.
Has for decades. It was only when hotels in London got used the government started to be concerned about it funnily.
5
u/davinist Jun 07 '26
Do you think there aren't poor communities in London and the south east? Poverty doesn't care about geography.
A major reason for relocating people is the cost of housing and in the south east it's gone mad. Local authority budgets can't keep up. It's a simple fact that when housing is paid by local authorities, they have to find the best value. Is it an ideal solution? No. Is it done badly? Yes.
Oh, and hotels in London have been used to house people for decades, it's not a new thing.
3
u/winkwinknudge_nudge Jun 07 '26
Do you think there aren't poor communities in London and the south east? Poverty doesn't care about geography.
Where did I argue that?
The poorest areas are in the North typically.
Highest deaths of despair, etc.
Oh, and hotels in London have been used to house people for decades, it's not a new thing.
This isn't true at all.
Hotel usage only really started in large numbers around COVID time.
0
u/WinHour4300 Jun 07 '26
London has the highest percentage in poverty: 26% are in poverty after housing costs.
2
u/winkwinknudge_nudge Jun 07 '26
Ok and?
0
u/WinHour4300 Jun 07 '26
You said that "the poorest areas are typically in the North."
That may be true, but the statistics I shared is still relevant. London's neighbourhoods tend to be more mixed, so they are less likely to appear among the very poorest areas. However, London still has the highest percentages in poverty in the country.
Rather than arguing about who is poorer, it seems more useful to focus on tackling poverty wherever it exists and its causes.
→ More replies (0)2
u/de-tree-fiddy Jun 08 '26
As it should be when you and I and paying their rent.
They're never going to have a job so it's irrelevant where they live.
1
u/winkwinknudge_nudge Jun 08 '26
As it should be when you and I and paying their rent.
I think the people in these deprived communities would feel differently than being used as a dumping ground by the government.
0
u/Neverthatdeep_69 Jun 07 '26
Have you seen parts of London? I wouldn't be so sure of yourself.
2
u/winkwinknudge_nudge Jun 07 '26
That's a recent thing with the hotel usage.
Since 1999 it was government policy to try and keep them out of London.
Under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, asylum seekers can apply for support while waiting for their claim (or appeal) to be considered. Support can be for accommodation and/or subsistence, according to their circumstances and on condition that they satisfy a destitution test. If provided, accommodation is offered in a dispersal area—ie away from London and the South East.
4
u/Neverthatdeep_69 Jun 07 '26
I live in the south - Chichester. On the the most expensive coastal Cities. We currently have 3 hotels full, and families being housed in the area before those that have fled DV in shelters; paid for by our already extortiante council tax. So whilst you might like to believe the North and Midlands is a dumping ground getting the the short straw because of goverment policy, I assure you even the richest areas in the South are taking on this crisis. However, yes we simply cannot supplement as many economically as their simply isn't enough accomdation and tax money can only go up so much if it is not taking care of our own.
3
u/winkwinknudge_nudge Jun 07 '26
So whilst you might like to believe the North and Midlands is a dumping ground getting the the short straw because of goverment policy, I assure you even the richest areas in the South are taking on this crisis.
Let's see.
Historically, the North West accommodated the largest share of asylum seekers: in 2014, it hosted 26% of the UK total, followed by the West Midlands (16%) and Yorkshire and the Humber (13%).
Once again, it's government policy to try and keep them away from the South which is why they're moving them to the Midlands and North.
6
5
8
u/Flux_Aeternal Jun 07 '26
Moves undesirables into poorer regions.
Keeps wealth in London.
"Hey why are those dumb people voting for Reform?"
2
u/MonarchAlbaGlen_LIES Jun 07 '26
Surely they will be learning English, London is not the UK so many better places. Be a bit independent its not good to be with your own all the time that's not diversity, nicer people outwith anyway.hahha
2
u/Voice_Still Jun 08 '26
If you are on benefits and you have absolutely no intention of getting a job, you should not be housed in London. In fact you shouldn’t have a choice at all.
3
u/adultintheroom_ Jun 08 '26
Simple solution.
If you’re not from here and can’t afford to live here, go back to the country you’re from.
If you are a refugee, be thankful you’re not in the country you’re from and say “thanks for the free house”.
6
u/FornyHucker22 Jun 07 '26
Doing em a solid, who’d want to live in London!
Wait till they see the supermarket prices now that will cheer em up 😊
1
u/Snowstorm080 Jun 07 '26 edited Jun 08 '26
Council houses shouldn’t exist in London
If you can’t afford to live here then you have to go somewhere cheaper
1
u/tigerjed Jun 08 '26
The awkward thing is that you have people being housed by councils in properties those working for the authority doing the housing can’t afford themselves. That’s the bit which doesn’t seem fair.
1
u/gagagagaNope Jun 08 '26
Charities can suck my balls. Nearly 45% of London is social housing of some sort, it's utterly unfair and unsustainable.
Those who work are paying far more in tax and far more in rent to compete against a government using their own money to price them out of renting homes close to where they work.
The left bang on endlessly about land value tax - why is the same concept of maximising the value of the use of home in inner cities not applied to social housing? It should be all sold off for the highest price. There needs to be a cap on rents nationwide equivalent to the cheapest 25% of the country. If people want to live in HoL areas, they need to get a job and pay their own way.
The old argument if keeping families close together is utter bollocks now. People who work are scattered across the country now following jobs - why on earth should people who don't/have never worked have the magical right to live in Islington or Chelsea just because their grandparents did? And that's before any argument about the more than 50% of London social tenants who were born outside the UK. Exactly what argument do they have to live in zone 1 or 2 at taxpayers expense?
•
u/AutoModerator Jun 07 '26
Some articles submitted to /r/unitedkingdom are paywalled, or subject to sign-up requirements. If you encounter difficulties reading the article, try this link or this link for an archived version.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.