Jobless Somali asylum seekers are put up in lavish £2m, six bedroom house paid for by the taxpayer

If I were British, I might be thinking in terms of tax revolt and a cash economy at about this stage.

The Daily Mail

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 4:25 PM on 14th August 2011

An unemployed couple and their family have been moved into a luxurious London home worth £2million – and pay it with a monthly £8,000 housing benefit funded by the taxpayer.

Unemployed Saeed Kahliif, 49, from Somalia, his wife Sayida and their children have been handed the keys to a sprawling six-bedroom home in West Hampstead, in North London.

After moving from their Coventry home – which cost £1,000 a month in rent – the new property is thought to be one of the most expensive houses ever paid for by housing benefit.

Father Saeed Khaliif at the £2m house he shares with members of his family
Saeed Khaliif's wife at the £2m house he shares with members of his family

Saeed Khaliif and his wife have been given the luxurious home in the exclusive London neighbourhood

 

Plush pad: The spacious lounge area in the £2m newly refurbished Hampstead homePlush pad: The spacious lounge area in the £2m newly refurbished Hampstead home

The People reported that the family have moved from their cheaper house to the exclusive postcode so they can be nearer their friends and family who live in the capital.

Estate agents boasted that the opulent home is a ‘stunning six-bedroom, two-reception house’ and was ‘recently refurbished to a high standard offering ample living space with a spacious en suite master bedroom.’

Four of the bedrooms have an ensuite shower room, two have dressing rooms and it also boasts a 90ft garden.

It is unclear how many children the family have.

The family can now count comedian and author Stephen Fry as their neighbour.

Luxury: The Khaliif's can now count Stephen Fry as a fellow Hampstead neighbourLuxury: The Khaliif’s can now count Stephen Fry as a fellow Hampstead neighbour

The sprawling kitchen in the plush home, which also has en suite bathrooms and was advertised to rent for £7,800 a month The sprawling kitchen in the plush home, which also has en suite bathrooms and was advertised to rent for £7,800 a month

 

One of six bedrooms which include en suite rooms or dressing rooms. The family have moved from Coventry where their rent was £1,000 a monthOne of six bedrooms which include en suite rooms or dressing rooms. The family have moved from Coventry where their rent was £1,000 a month

 

Funded by the public purse: The family, who are unemployed, are in one of the most expensive benefit homes ever Funded by the public purse: The family, who are unemployed, are in one of the most expensive benefit homes ever

When approached by The People Mr Khaliif said in the three years that he had lived in the UK, he and his wife had not worked and were reliant on benefits to support them and their family.

Camden Council declined to comment to the newspaper, but Cllr Johnny Bucknell, who sits on their housing committee, said: ‘When Camden housing is gridlocked and there is ample room up north, why are we encouraging people to move south?’

Cllr Chris Knight whose ward includes the family’s home was puzzled as to why the taxpayer was funding the expensive upgrade when there were so many people desperately needing a home.

‘It seems daft that we have people from this area who we can’t house but are spending £8,000 on rent from someone outside of Camden.’

Although the government brought in new measures to cap housing benefits and try to stop outrageous rent prices being forced onto the public purse.

Capped at £400 a week, the Khaliif’s new home was advertised at £7,800 a month, and would not be an option.

But because the family moved before the changes have been introduced they can count the light and spacious home as theirs.

The Department of Work and Pensions, which funds housing benefits, told the newspaper: ‘It is unfair on taxpayers that some claimants are in large homes most working families can afford. It is vital we lower housing benefit costs.’

The rules will come into force in April and when claims come up for renewal claimants on housing benefits will have to look for homes they can afford.

Vulnerable families may be exempt from this.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025895/Living-luxury-How-family-benefits-handed-2million-home-London.html#ixzz1V2Tf8gXJ

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

18 Replies to “Jobless Somali asylum seekers are put up in lavish £2m, six bedroom house paid for by the taxpayer”

  1. Obama is trying to spread this insanity to the US, over the past 4 months I have read several articles (I don’t remember the URLs) about how he wants to take over the foreclosed houses from the banks and “rent” them out to low income families. Now we know where he got the idea.

  2. My step father was a polish gentleman who managed to survive the German then Russian invasion of Poland.And eventually became a Polish commando.He fought at The Battle of Monte Cassino fighting the Nazis. He told me that after the Nazis had taken the animals for food in Poland his family had to eat grass to survive,as there was nothing else.
    He never forgot his mother gave him her food,and she went Hungry.He was offered the chance to settle in England after the war.He had worked hard as a labourer all his life.When he died of a massive heart attack,all he owned,was the 37 pence in his pocket.No million pound houses here! And when I see our politicians throwing millions upon millions away on those that have never contributed anything to this country, it disgusts me.They will in fact only ever become a burden as they and their offspring start to require healthcare and more benefits.Why would these government idiots possibly believe I should feel any kind of connection to this ethno-experiment? How could Cameron ever think that this menagerie of disparate,competing self interest groups would ever form a …..big society?

  3. Lookit here… That is NOT an isolated case in the UK; and I’m sure David Cameron, who said that it’s mainstream Britain that ought to be more integrated into the muslim way of life and not the other way around, loves it.

  4. Proud kafir is right, this isn’t an isolated case. I think there are a few more stories about this (about 1 or 2 years back).

  5. From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. (Karl Marx, 1875, Critique of the Gotha Programme)

    It’s that fundamental belief — I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper — that makes this country work. (Barack Obama, 2004, keynote address as prepared for delivery at the Democratic National Convention in Boston)

  6. No wonder they are having riots and why is everyone focusing on the ridiculous concept of ‘just bad kids that need better parenting” how insane. We will be right behind them soon enough with our outrageous immigration policies. Last night I spent the evening trying to talk an old friend, former Dean to become more influencial in lobbying in this cause, one which he as well as many others who work on policy development, clearly know is a major simmering future explosion…..We can not sustain the continued growth of more and more people in this country as is clearly obvious in most of the European countries….The false paradigms of \we need more people to prop up the economy to pay for all the aging seniors\ is complete and utter nonsense and needs to be confronted and changed.

    When you see the street reality of so many refugees and unemployed immigrants in our cities and those who benefit from our welfare policies, is it any wonder that there are riots? Ya Think!! It is a wonder that aren’t and haven’t been more.

  7. “He who does not work, neither shall he eat” on the face of it seems a harsh maxim, but it’s a maxim which has been driving human endevour for virtually all of our history.

    I don’t know the ins and outs of the history of the welfare state, but truly we must be among the first couple of generations where an able-bodied person can actually do nothing with their life and yet live and eat as well, if not better in some cases, than those working to keep the boat afloat? And it’s not rare, it’s getting endemic; does anybody not know a nearby house/family being supported solely by the state?

    Far as I can tell, Government social engineering is the root cause of all of this but still engineer they will- eventually of course, like the lifeguard trying to save too many people from the sea at once, we’ll drown 🙁

    All hail our new maxim; “He who does not work shall eat off the plate of others, and sometimes a £2 million house”

  8. Individual (or natural) rights (fundamental of which is the right to life) exist by virtue of the fact of man’s nature as a human being. An individual’s natural rights impose a negative obligation on all other individuals – the obligation not to violate them. The right to property is a natural right; it means the right to keep, use or dispose of the product of one’s own effort (mental or physical) as one sees fit; it does not mean the right to be provided with property.

    So-called welfare rights (for example, the rights to food, clothing, housing, healthcare and education) impose a positive obligation on others – the obligation to give up their property (through the legalised theft of taxation) – in other words, to renounce their natural right to property. One man’s ‘right’ which by its fulfilment violates another man’s natural right is not a right but an abomination.

    Another way of distinguishing between individual (natural) rights and welfare ‘rights’ is this: individual rights are rights to action (to act in sustaining and furthering one’s life), whereas welfare ‘rights’ are rights to goods.

    The welfare system is objectively immoral and must be abolished. The only objectively moral way of fulfilling the basic needs (and more) of those genuinely incapable of providing for their own needs is through voluntary private charity. And history shows that in attaining this end, in all industrialised countries in which a market economy operates, voluntary private charity has always been more than adequate. And to the extent that a country’s economy is free from government intervention (to the extent that it is capitalist), the higher will be its living standards and consequently its voluntary private charity.

  9. That’s a really well written point George, forgive me but did you come up with it just then or is it from a work of literature I can read?

  10. George we can not base our morality on individual rights when we are dealing with the society at large. We need an individual morality that takes into consideration the good of the greatest number of people. Naturally this is something that the Government is best at doing as they deal on the macroeconomic scale. If the state did not step in then beggers would be making a beeline to your door and laying siege. The Welfare state may have it downfall in that it does create odd situations but its positive value in allowing the wealthy to sleep soundly in their beds is vital. Without the welfare state a thirdworld situation is quickly created which impacts on an entire slice of society regardless of ethnicity. The Rich and poor become extremes and it creates its own ugliness as can be seen in the Thirdworld.

  11. ts, my post in regard to individual rights versus welfare ‘rights’ is my own composition. If you wish to gain a full understanding of the nature and origin of individual rights (there are no other legitimate rights), then I would urge you to read Craig Biddle’s book Loving Life: the Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support it; it is a clearly worded derivation and explication of the only fully rational system of ethics: rational egoism. To learn more about the origin, immorality and impracticality of welfarism, I would urge you to read David Kelley’s book A Life of One’s Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State.

  12. ‘George we can not base our morality on individual rights when we are dealing with the society at large. We need an individual morality that takes into consideration the good of the greatest number of people. Naturally this is something that the Government is best at doing as they deal on the macroeconomic scale. If the state did not step in then beggers would be making a beeline to your door and laying siege. The Welfare state may have it downfall in that it does create odd situations but its positive value in allowing the wealthy to sleep soundly in their beds is vital. Without the welfare state a thirdworld situation is quickly created which impacts on an entire slice of society regardless of ethnicity. The Rich and poor become extremes and it creates its own ugliness as can be seen in the Thirdworld.’

    New Congo…, with all due respect, I’m afraid every sentence of your post contains at least one fallacy.

    Morality applies only to individuals, and the only fully rational morality (the morality of rational self-interest or rational egoism) is derived fundamentally from the facts of reality by means of man’s faculty for rational thinking (man’s only means to factual knowledge). A man living alone on a desert island requires a rational code of values (a rational morality) to guide him in making all the right choices to enable him to survive and further his life (his highest value), but in the context of a desert island he has no requirement for individual rights because there is no-one else on the island to violate them.

    The principle of individual rights (the rights to life, liberty, property, speech, the pursuit of happiness, etc.) is the objectively moral principle that establishes man’s freedom within the context of a society, and it is derived logically from his nature as a human being with particular material and spiritual requirements for his life and happiness. As the only way in which a man’s individual rights can be violated is by other men initiating (or threatening to initiate) force against him, rational men choose to elect a government that is limited constitutionally to protecting their individual rights, and the government does this by means of retaliatory force against rights violators through three agencies: a police force, a judiciary (incorporating civil and criminal court systems and prisons) and a military (in case of foreign aggressors).

    In a proper society each individual would be free to do whatever he or she wishes to do, except one thing: violate the individual rights of others. And in this same proper society the elected government would be constitutionally limited to doing one thing and one thing only: protecting the individual rights of all. In a proper society, where freedom is established by the objectively moral principal of individual rights and protected by a constitutionally limited government, all rational individuals (or groups of such individuals) would interact by voluntarily trading value for value (material or spiritual) to mutual benefit. And the total effect of all such (micro-economic) interactions within a society would constitute its economy. The socio-economic system based on the moral principle of individual rights is, of course, laissez faire capitalism. And not only is laissez faire capitalism objectively moral, but it is also supremely practical at creating wealth.

    The reason why third-world countries are third-world is primarily because their citizens and politicians have, on the whole, no conception of the objectively moral principle of individual rights.

    In order to understand fully the nature and source of rational morality (including individual rights), I suggest that you read Craig Biddle’s ‘Loving Life: The Morality of Self Interest and the Facts That Support It’. And to understand why capitalism is not only objectively moral but also supremely practical at creating wealth, I suggest that you read this collection of essays edited by Debi Ghate and Richard E Ralston: Why Businessmen Need Philosophy.

  13. Regardless of the debates here, the original article is at fault. Asylum seekers in the uk are housed in hard to rent properties to which the UK Border Agency keeps the keys and has the right to enter at any time. They are not eligible for housing benefit or the usual income support. Instead they are given a weekly sum of less than the amount the government considers the minimum amount acceptable for British unemployed. Asylum seekers are not legally allowed to work in the Uk so have to depend on these reduced handouts. I don’t know where the ‘facts’ for this story came from but they are either untruths or extremely misleading.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*