Wednesday, 24 February 2010

"Her three-year legal battle was funded by the charity Shelter."

How nice:
Standing proudly with her arm draped over her 36in television, this is the Somali woman who must be given a council house even though she has no right to live in Britain.

Nimco Hassan Ibrahim - who lives with her four children on benefit handouts - was granted the right to the home by EU judges yesterday because she was once married to a Danish citizen who briefly worked in this country.
There's something to think about, next time a 'Shelter' begging letter drops through your door, eh?
The landmark EU judgment opens the door for hundreds of thousands of unemployed foreigners to claim both state benefits and council or housing association homes.

In particular, it means migrant families from Poland and other Eastern European countries will for the first time have a right to council housing and state benefits even if they have worked for only a brief period in Britain.

It comes at a time of heavy demand for council housing from hard-pressed British families - and as ministers have been promising families in disaffected Labour heartlands that local people will have first call on council homes.
Whoops!

5 comments:

Jeff Wood said...

If the Labour vote migrates en masse to the BNP, it serves them bloody right.

blueknight said...

Nicholas GRIFFIN X

Is that what you want? Because that's what you'll get.

And no donations for the RSPCA or Shelter now

John R said...

It's like a news report from a different planet.

JuliaM said...

"If the Labour vote migrates en masse to the BNP, it serves them bloody right."

I wonder sometimes if they really do...

"Nicholas GRIFFIN X

Is that what you want? Because that's what you'll get."


I think it more likely their core vote will simply stay home, and not vote at all. Of course, that serves their purpose quite nicely too.

"It's like a news report from a different planet."

If aliens are really monitoring our broadcasts, it explains why none have yet landed. They obviously think there's no intelligent life here.

I can't blame them...

Mark said...

I've read several press reports about this shocker of a case, but a couple of the central facts are still unclear (different reports say different things).

Ms Ibrahim is clearly of Somali origin, and her husband, originally 'Ethiopian', is almost certainly a Somali speaker from the Ogaden region. They appear to have moved, as a family unit, to Denmark,and obtained some sort of refugee status there.The husband also later acquired a Danish passport, but it is unclear whether his wife and children also acquired them, or just the Danish equivalent of 'carte de sejour'/indefinite leave to remain.The latter seems more likely, and that is where the questions begin.

IF both Ms Ibrahim and her children weren't Danish citizens, but just had a right of residence there why, after her husband's desertion, didn't the Home Office remove them to Denmark ? It is not exactly a totalitarian dictatorship, and the Danes seemed happy to accommodate them when dad was with them. If the Tories had any sense they'd be asking these questions NOW- and demanding Phil Woolas's head if he doesn't produce a convincing explanation.

This judgment (apart from confirming our status as the benefit haven of choice for third worlders who already have a foot in the European door)may generate some interesting blowback. Firstly, as Jeff Wood & blue knight point out, it's a heaven sent pre election present for the BNP. Secondly, if the judgment really does give residents (not citizens) of EU &/or Schengen states, in households with school age children, the right to live anywhere in the EU(and claim benefits anywhere in the EU) then where is the government's argument against our remaining outside Schengen ? Blown out of the water, it would appear. However, it may also be that the 'official' argument against out not being in Schengen isn't the real one. Signing up to Schengen would also mean signing up to a common visa regime, and a common scale of visa fees.The first would mean extending visa requirements to several commonwealth states, mainly in the Caribbean, that don't require them at the moment (that would offend Labour's Caribbean vote bank). The second would mean reducing the cost of many visas,(ours are usually much more expensive) and thus also remove a source of subsidy to the costs of running the FCO in the 'former great power' mode to which the mandarins subscribe.

We certainly live in interesting (and anger inducing) times !