Barry House - what happens there?

[LuLu Too]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Does anyone know what happens at Barry House, the

> church building at top of Barry Road. I pass it

> every morning and there are groups of people and

> coaches/mini buses waiting to take them somewhere?

> I've always wondered what they are doing - anyone

> know?

Barry House is used by NASS for emergency accommodation for those asylum seekers waiting for dispersal (usually outside of London).

This is probably what the coaches/mini buses are for.

[Mick Mac]

Thanks LuLuToo (and everyone else)

I guess it would be improper to suggest that these people should not be based at the end of my road. I don't suppose Holland Park or Kings Road has a Barry House equivalent?

Why ED? Or should we be charitable and say, ok use ED as long as you like.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Yeah Mick. It's just Ed. Only Ed. Nowhere else in London or the rest of the country. Your road. That you paid for. Yours

[Mick Mac]

Yes Sean - I'm just having a little fun - No need to take it so seriously - its not even the road I live on.

BTW - I bought the Guardian today - but I forgot to read it. I'm trying though. Buying it is the first step in the right direction.

[LuLu Too]

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks LuLuToo (and everyone else)

>

> I guess it would be improper to suggest that these

> people should not be based at the end of my road.

> I don't suppose Holland Park or Kings Road has a

> Barry House equivalent?

>

> Why ED? Or should we be charitable and say, ok use

> ED as long as you like.

Mick Mac,

Every local authority, including the illustrious Royal Borough of K&C will have a share of NASS funded asylum seekers currently residing in their catchment area. Southwark (including ED) is no different.

Official policy is to disperse these individuals outside of London and the South East as overheads are deemed to be less.

Thus saving tax payers money.

[Mick Mac]

That all seems very well informed LuLu. Thanks. I don't mind as long as ED is not the only area dealing with this issue.

On a wider political point - You may have guessed I'm slightly suspicious of asylum seekers as it seems a relatively new phenomenon. But I admit to being poorly informed, just suspicious.

[LuLu Too]

Not a new phenomenon, but confusion may be caused when people use the term Asylum Seeker erroneously, when in fact they are referring to something different eg: an Overstayer, a failed Asylum Seeker who is liable to deportation, an (illegal) economic migrant etc.

If a person has successfuly been granted Asylum, they are then given Refugee status - often Temporary Leave to Remain.

Don't forget, there has been a lot of global conflict over the past 10-15yrs,perhaps it is not surprising then that people will seek to leave their country of origin.

[LegalEagle-ish]

NASS disperse the asylum seekers to places like Liverpool, Glasgow and Newcastle because accomodation is much cheaper in those areas, so the asylum seekers do not stay in London for long unless they have settled friends or relatives who are willing to put them up for free.

The problem with dispersal is that the asylum seeker has no control over where they are sent, and are often dispersed more than once, so their legal representation is often disrupted which can result in poor representation and them unfairly receiving refusals of their asylum claim, despite being totally genuine.

When their claim is then refused, they get no further support from the UK govt and are expected to return to the country they fled from.

I do a lot of fresh asylum claims of people in this position but we make sure that their evidence is properly verified and translated and commission various country experts to evaluate their original claim and the refusal etc and we have a lot who get a different decision to the one they had originally received.

This is all paid for by the client and not the tax payer, so failed asylum seekers without the financial ability to pay for this kind of service often get sent back to torture and death.

Many of the cases i see are ones where the Home Office have made blatant mistakes or failed to follow their own published policy. They often refuse to change their decision until we end up in the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal-wasting our client's money and tax payers money too.

The system is massively unfair, and by refusing pretty much everyone in the first instance, decisions which are wrong and often overturned on appeal, the Home Office are wasting millions of your pounds. They need to start evaluating the initial claims more fairly instead of the blanket cut and paste refusal policy they have now.

[Andystar]

Dulwich_ Park_ Fairy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Andystar

>

> I heard that it was a Care Home for the Elderly

> until the owner realised that there was more

> profit to be made in cramming refugees there and

> promptly kicked the residents out with 1 months

> notice.

10 points to u, D_P_F, my buddies' nana was a resident, it used to be called Greystones back in the day, but I used to call it grave stones, poor old folk - not only did they have to live out their last days in that place, but they were also on the receiving end of my razor sharp quips.

[Keef]

Only thing that annoys me about places like this, is that often, the landlords will be charging councils a lot of money for each person, it's a gold mine for them, and shouldn't be allowed, but councils are held over a barrel.

[Domitianus]

Keef Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Only thing that annoys me about places like this,

> is that often, the landlords will be charging

> councils a lot of money for each person, it's a

> gold mine for them, and shouldn't be allowed, but

> councils are held over a barrel.

Why should it not be allowed for landlords to charge for the provision of services to local councils?

[Keef]

It's what they charge for the service, and that they charge at all. If they charged a fair rate I'd have no problem with it. For the record, I'm making a general point here, based on experience. I'm not talking specifically about Barry House, and don't know what they charge (although I bet it's a lot).

[Domitianus]

You haven't answered my question and you have directly contradicted yourself within ten words. You stated that you object to the fact that they charge at all and then immediately say you WOULDN'T object if they charged a fair rate! So I am a little confused. Do you object to them charging or don't you?

If you DO object, are you actually suggesting that private landlords should provide free housing to the council? I really can't see any of them agreeing to that somehow and if private landlords didn't provide the councils with paid for accomodation I think we have to assume that these asylum seekers would be living on the streets. Landlords have a right to charge for theior services as they are in the 'for profit' sector - i.e. they have a living to make. If the council don't like their rates then they can go elsewhere.

I won't be able to check this thread again until tomorrow but I look forward to hearing your views on this.

[Keef]

You're right, I just re read my post, and instead of

It's what they charge for the service, and that they charge at all. If they charged a fair rate I'd have no problem with it

It should have read

[quote name=It's what they charge for the service, NOT that they charge at all. If they charged a fair rate I'd have no problem with it]

My mistake when typing on phone at a bus stop.

Of course landlords should be charging for their property, but not cynically doubling their rates because they know the council are paying, that, IMO, is immoral.

Hope that is clear for you Dom.

[Jeremy]

Keef, you're right - but the guys at the council should be smart enough to see when they're being ripped off, and insist on a fair rate. Unfortunately you can't just expect people to "do the right thing".

[Keef]

Very true, case homes cost an absolute fortune to place people in, so I guess it is no surprise that a private landlord would take a slice. Anyway, I am going off topic, so I'll stop.