Susie Rushton: I'm ashamed by our sneaky, racist press
Urban notebook: One paper had the good grace to print/bury her straightforward thanks
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
We've been invited into their fabulous home, just down the road in Acton, several times over the past few days. Pausing to admire the "what appears to be silk" cushions and the "Persian-style rug", a Nintendo Wii console "complete with extra games costing £40 each", we then gathered around the star attraction, a 50-inch television "worth £1,500 ... [but procured] 'Cheap off a friend'".
This is, of course, the seven-bedroom abode of Toorpaki Saiedi, an Afghan single-mother of seven who fled the Taliban in 2001 and now lives here, on social security. Our hosts on these guided tours? The tabloid press at its inflammatory worst. in case you missed it, hacks inveigled their way into her modestly decorated home, slyly pricing up each item with a precision that suggested a successful future career in repossession. Going by the proud smile on Mrs Saiedi's face, as she posed for photos with her two younger children, she was unaware of the "angle" those newspapers planned to take. The racist, shit-stirring angle.
Never mind that Mrs Saiedi appears to be highly deserving of asylum, and needs a seven-bedroom house because her kids are too old to share rooms; that she is diligently learning English; that she struggles to pay bills; nor that, thanks to the ludicrous property boom in the capital, £1.2m pounds doesn't actually buy "a mansion" – even as prices fall, that'd hardly get you a two-bedroom flat in Notting Hill. it does however buy a pleasant enough family-sized house in a cheap part of west London.
It may be erroneous that a private landlord is paid £12,458 a month for the £1.2m property provided by Ealing Council. But the council workers who should have worked out a cheaper solution weren't doorstepped by hacks. Certainly not; that would be blowing a chance to use the words "handouts", "asylum-seeker" and "plasma television" next to a photo of a woman in a headscarf.
One paper had the good grace to print/bury her straightforward thanks: "We just had the clothes we arrived in. We are grateful to the British." My own feelings are more mixed: proud that we shelter her from the Taliban, but ashamed at the sneaky racism and envy cultivated by our popular press.
Well-timed, bad-mood bailout
Londoners this weekend woke up not to a portent of Armageddon but sunshine and temperatures of 22.9C – higher than LA. The tennis courts were full. Boys in the park with their tops off.
"it's an Indian Summer," announces my boyfriend, in a tone suggestive of the tipping of a Panama hat. But was it? The Met office offers two definitions of this meteorological fillip. "A historical definition is a warm, calm spell of weather occurring in October or November," says a spokeswoman. "But a more modern reference is a temperature reaching 21 celsius for seven consecutive days after the autumn equinox [22 September, calendar-counters]." Not quite a full Indian, then, but well-timed, bad-mood bailout nevertheless.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
56 Comments
We are now the second most over populated country in Europe, rising unemployment, insufficient affordable homes thus building on green belt to accommodate the masses. Our schools, police, health service and councils are struggling to cope with the massive influx of immigrants. We are now in financial ruin facing a recession, inflation is sky high, many British born can no longer pay thier bills or get a job. Why are we accommodating this woman and dozens like her? It would be great if we had infinte resources and a bouyant economy with little unemployment but thats not the case. Allowing people into the country with 7 children is ridiculous. This woman's son isnt even working to contribute. He could have been working for the past 6 years to contribute a fraction of the costs of education, health and benefits. Allowing this on such a scale is causing resentment and will contribute to the social unrest we will see on our streets in the coming years.
Posted by P Tyler | 16.10.08, 11:02 GMT
You should have read Rod Liddle's article on this case in the Sunday Times. He cited some 60-year-old white bloke and his missus in Ealing who were refused rehousing after their area was redeveloped because they were not urgent cases, and were thus left homeless. These white folks, they expect the earth just because they've paid tax to the British exchequer all their life. He's a real racist that Liddle.
Posted by Trofim | 15.10.08, 22:21 GMT
Typical lazy Dave, not having read the original articles. The point about this family is simply that the council allowed the house to be massively over-valued in terms of the rent charged, an overvaluation brought about by an anomally in the calculation of the rent producted by the location of the house.
The council workers are the ones to blame. Not this woman and her family, who all seem to be making a go of the stay here.,,
Posted by Dominic | 15.10.08, 20:08 GMT
Typical lazy journalism. From time to time stories appear about specific families who are able to get amounts of state benefit which seem astronomic compared to most ordinary families. Because the person in this article is an asylum seeker the writer believes that there should be no criticism - political censorship. Given resources are limited the writer should consider if it would be better for society to house two families for the same amount of money. I realise Indie journos do not have a concept of children sharing rooms but it is quite common. From what i have read and seen on TV this family is getting a far higher level of care than the wounded squaddies who come back from fighting in Afghanistan.
Posted by dave | 15.10.08, 17:25 GMT
I agree totally, Unhappy Jon, that new housing stock, both public and private is needed in order to 1, provide homes, and 2, bring down house prices. Because once the current financial crisis is over house prices will rise again.
But there is a great deal of controversy about new houses being built. In my area, I know of two housing schemes which have been turned down in the last eighteen months because of protests from local people who don't want ANY kind on new housing built in their back yard. Even though one was a 'Green' scheme, which would have seen the building of energy efficient houses which needed no heating from gas, oil or electricity.
The NIMBY's have it at the moment. However, there is a good deal of housing stock left to rot, which could be easily renovated as social housing.
Posted by Andrea | 15.10.08, 11:21 GMT
And i do not dispute that fact either andrea, but my point is there is blame to be aportioned but not at this family.
The blame should be aimed at all governments since the mid 80S for not building more social housing at all local authorities (to a lesser extent) for the same reason and to us the home owning British public.
We cannot have it both ways rising house prices over the last 15 years but low housing stock. IF we wish to be able to house our own and immigrants we need more housing stock and if that lowers housing costs in the long term so be it. ( i cant see this happening as any political party that actually did this would be commiting political suicide).
The alternative, in order to sustain high house prices for as long as possible is no new social housing and this is the result.
Posted by unhappy jon | 15.10.08, 11:09 GMT
Unhappy Jon, I am sure there are many places, even without moving the family north, that can be found for less than £12,000 per month. It's ludicrous. I bet if you put 'rentals in London' into Google now, you will find suitable houses many times cheaper.
I am not disputing that this family is in genuine need of asylum, I don't not know the details of their case. What I dispute is that a family house couldn't befound for a lot less. In fact, I know of half a dozen not a hundred yards from me and I don't live in Bradford.
Also, the nonsense about room sharing and it is nonsense.
I would not deny asylum to anone on need of it, but I would seriously question what has happened that a family is being housed by the local authority at £12,000pcm.
We live in a society of fools.
Posted by Andrea | 15.10.08, 10:36 GMT
Still no one has answered the issues if not in this house at 12 grand a month then where?
All the posters who have said its a disgrace, either go to the daily mail website or come up with a solution.
the closest any of you have come is to suggest moving the family to the North of England, Bradford perhaps which has a recent history of accepting immigrant populations with open arms.
as my previous post points if we had more social housing in the UK this would not be an issue, but i guarantee that the same people condemning this Afghani family would then be condemning the government for the crash in housing prices, irrespective of the credit crunch.
Again more middle class hypocracy, you still cant have your cake and eat it.
Posted by unhappy jon | 15.10.08, 10:12 GMT
Steve Jay - repeating the idea that asylum-seekers live in luxury a couple of times doesn't make it true. Objective proof is needed. And please don't quote the Mail, or Littlejohn all of whom have their own agenda. Asylum-seekers leave the county they live in because conditions have become intolerable - why else would people leave their homes and travel halfway across the world? The answer isn't a dose of bile, but improving conditions in home countries so that people don't become so desperate that they have to leave.
Mark, a 5 bedroom house with 7 people in it may not be overcrowded (under the definitions used by local authorities) depending on the size of the rooms and the ages/sexes of the children. I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be difficult to say the least - we found 5 people in a 3 bedroom house bad enough - but it is the legal definition that triggers local authority re-housing. This is about a council making a hash of things. Not such a good story though, is it Daily Mail?
Posted by Nick | 15.10.08, 09:32 GMT
I always think that th gibe 'If you hate this country so much, why don't you leave' is such a cheap and fascile one, Golam Murtaza. It is often used to silence those who have concerns, worries and issues with the society in which they live. Being a democracy with free speech, people are fully entitled to express those worries and issues, without being told to leave their country.
This is not a racist issue. No one with one iota of intelligence can possibly think that a local authority paying £12,000pcm for a property in which to house its tenants can possibly be right. Many others have pointed out that large, decent, family homes can be had in this country from about £600pcm. At that rate, almost 24 families could be helped for the amount being paid for just one family. This is about using resources wisely and fairly.
Posted by Andrea | 15.10.08, 08:27 GMT
56 Comments