He owns property worth £5million, a chain of restaurants and a supermarket.Really..?
But multi-millionaire Shiraj Haque was revealed to be living in taxpayer-subsided social housing with a rent of just £135 a week.
He is among a number of wealthy people who are, or have been, living in social housing despite already owning a number of homes, according to the Sunday Telegraph.And another wealthy council-property sitter is ex-Labour cabinet member Frank Dobson.
Another is serving Labour councillor Ayesha Chowdhury, who lived in council housing despite owning properties worth at least £1million.
Anyone starting to see the pattern emerging?
Mr Haque said he was housed because his previous home had been demolished.Ah, yes. There it is….
He told the Sunday Telegraph that he lived there because he considered himself a 'social democrat' who 'wanted to connect with the community'.
6 comments:
What they really mean is that as commited Socialists, no matter how rich they become .. they can never overide the inborn sense of "entitlement", nor the natural inclination to suckle at the public teat, for as long as they draw breath ..
The "evict rioters" was one reason and this is another reason why having State-as-Landlord is not a good thing.
If he was not given subsidised housing, this chap would be claiming HB, and if he earned enough then no HB. The moment his earnings rose, he would have to pay his own way.
"He owns property worth £5million, a chain of restaurants and a supermarket. "
That such poverty still exists in this country shames us all.
Sweet Jesus, it's almost 'dickensian'....or should that be 'dick ken livingstone-ian'?
Remands me of a German joke: A rich German decides to evade taxes and take his ill gotten gains to Switzerland. He goes to counter of the bank in Zurich and in a whisper says "I'd like to deposit a million Euros please".
To which the Teller/Gnome says in a loud voice "But Mein Herr, you need not whisper. Poverty is nothing to be ashamed of".
How about him connecting with the community in Bigdogistan?
Oh wait... they don't do social housing and free money there, do they? Thank God we do, hey?
"The "evict rioters" was one reason and this is another reason why having State-as-Landlord is not a good thing."
Agreed!
"Oh wait... they don't do social housing and free money there, do they? Thank God we do, hey?"
We truly are mugs, aren't we?
The regular re-examination of the entitlement to social housing is one of the more sensible suggestions the current givernment has come up with.
So, obviously, it has not been implemented.
I can't see why having a good reason to be given a council house at, say 22, means that you should still, automatically, be entitled to subsidised accomodation at 45. We do the inverse, don't we?
Post a Comment