Why arent they being deported?
- Thread starter NoobCannon
- Start date
Permabanned
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 969
- Location
- scotland
You don't know that, each case is different, this man might have a wife/partner and kids, by deporting him would you break up a family ?
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
Because it's cheaper than the Hilton?
Another alleged fraudster, Yonatan Eyob, 25, was arrested after police searched his room at the Hilton in Holland Park, where he was put up by the disaster fund.
They found 31 wraps of MDMA along with quantities of what appeared to be cocaine, heroin and cannabis, scales together with snap bags, £3,000 in cash and pairs of £1,000 and £500 trainers.
He has admitted to possession of MDMA, cocaine, ketamine and cannabis with intent to supply.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
Apparently you don't even need to have lived inside a flat to claim you lived there.
A fourth accused conman, Abdelkarim Rekaya, 28, also appeared in custody accused of lying to the local authority about having lived in Flat 4 in Grenfell Tower.
He claimed to have been living homeless and sleeping rough up on the 11th and 12th floor stairwells, the prosecutor Ms Emby said.
Rekaya was subsequently placed in temporary accommodation as part of the efforts to rehouse survivors.
The Tunisian is said to have also sought to exploit the Government's immigration amnesty for survivors.
'He was placed for some time in hotel accommodation and subsequent to that temporary placement he was housed as part of attempts to rehouse any survivors of the fire,' Ms Emby said.
She said Rekaya arrived in the UK on a tourist visa in 2008 which expired a year later and in 2010 failed to attend an appointment with the Home Office.
'He has been in the UK with no legal right to remain from 2009 at the expiration of that tourist visa until he was afforded 12 months leave as a Grenfell survivor,' the prosecutor said.
A fourth accused conman, Abdelkarim Rekaya, 28, also appeared in custody accused of lying to the local authority about having lived in Flat 4 in Grenfell Tower.
He claimed to have been living homeless and sleeping rough up on the 11th and 12th floor stairwells, the prosecutor Ms Emby said.
Rekaya was subsequently placed in temporary accommodation as part of the efforts to rehouse survivors.
The Tunisian is said to have also sought to exploit the Government's immigration amnesty for survivors.
'He was placed for some time in hotel accommodation and subsequent to that temporary placement he was housed as part of attempts to rehouse any survivors of the fire,' Ms Emby said.
She said Rekaya arrived in the UK on a tourist visa in 2008 which expired a year later and in 2010 failed to attend an appointment with the Home Office.
'He has been in the UK with no legal right to remain from 2009 at the expiration of that tourist visa until he was afforded 12 months leave as a Grenfell survivor,' the prosecutor said.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 13,488
- Location
- La France
Too expensive. Inner Mongolia would make a lovely site for a detention facility.
How much do you think hotels cost?
It's hilarious that people here think Grenfell survivors should be treated like anything but innocent victims (which obviously the council misjudged in this particular case).
What do you think home insurance companies do when you are forced to live away from home? Throw you in a hostel?
These aren't people claiming benefits because of the fire. They are being compensated because the council messed up and ruined their lives. If anyone burns down my home, they sure as **** will pay for everything.
They are being compensated by the guilty party. The council. This isn't government welfare.
These people could sue their landlord (and likely still will) and any hardship caused now will only make that sum larger.
Or do you believe taxpayer funded entities should avoid all legal liabilities. Tenants could be convicted criminals, here illegally and it wouldn't matter. The offending party doesn't get to avoid liability because of an unrelated matter. I couldn't go round crashing into illegal immigrants and avoid paying them.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
There was no guilty party, the people we're discussing didn't have any homes burnt down, they didn't live there.
I'm also pretty sure the terms and conditions of my buildings insurance doesn't state, if you don't like the food at the hotel we've provided for you we'll give you a credit card and £40 a day per person to treat yourself.
Last edited:
Actually you are questioning the very fact people are being compensated (even genuine tenants, irrelevant if they are homeowners or benefit claimants), even using the word anyone in some of your posts.
Yes there is a liable party.
Also insurance companies do indeed cover additional living expenses if displaced (like eating at restaurants, laundry etc.).
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
I was questioning the £11,000 additional food budget when food was already provided (a hotel restaurant is still a restaurant right?). What you'll probably find is the genuine tenants went to the hotel, ate the food and got on with their lives. The fraudsters went to the hotel, complained about literally everything and the council threw money at them to shut them up. That's what I have a problem with. They're fraudsters, they'll try it on at every possible point and we're in an age where we can't question anyone's motive but just 'provide' constantly.
You have evidence that that non-fraudsters went on eating at the hotel only?
It's normal even if staying at hotels to claim for food expenses outside of the hotel. You'll find the food at the hotel isn't free either, so you'd simply switch from full board.
I can tell you if someone burns down my home, there is zero chance I'll be accepting full board at a hotel. The insurance company will be getting a load of receipts eating out or giving me access to a proper kitchen.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
The additional food budget wasn't allocated, it was requested. Therefore it's safe to assume without some sort of complaining most non-fraudsters would be eating what was provided.
If your contract states you'll be getting full board at a hotel then that's what you get. I'm sure you understand how these things work. But I guess you can complain about everything and see where it gets you (not as far would be my guess).
There is no such thing as a contract for these matters from a third party. You are to be compensated such that you are not in any worse position than you were before. The key problem is that you cannot cook what you want, when you want.
For claims against your own home insurance policy I haven't come across any that specify additional living expenses in such an exact manner. They fully expect you to eat out. Their main cost really is providing the alternative accommodation which incentivises them to pay for your home or get you back in as soon as possible.
Apart from not catching these fraudsters earlier, the council are doing what they are obligated to do.
Maybe next time all parties will think twice about trying to save a little money by compromising safety if they understand the true costs of what happens when things go wrong.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 2,021
- Location
- London
Yes there is. It's called buildings insurance and the council will have a contract to provide it in case of such problems. One would imagine it to be underwritten by an actual insurer but who knows. Also if people didn't have separate contents insurance then they'll be in a worse position than before since this isn't provided.
The main problems are the council had no idea who lived there, even though every property has tenancy agreements because fraudulent subletting is rife and this allowed this secondary fraud to fester for such a long period before being noticed.
There is a primary problem to all of this and it's totally unaccountability on behalf of the council, combined with a level of ineptitude that wouldn't exist outside the government. This is why grenfell causes such polarised views because anyone with a brain knows this is how most of our country is being operated.
But these people didn't even live there.
Even people who admit they didn't live there and just happened to be visiting with thier own perfectly fine homes are being out up in 4 star hotels .
Do you seriously think if your mate Dave's house burned down while you were over for dinner his insurnace company would put you up ina hotel for a year then find you a new house because you think yours is a bit ****?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
Hotels don't have to be like 4 or 5 star Radisson thiugh surely ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
This has to be one of the most ill-advised things the government has done. I wonder how many illegals are sitting in tower blocks right now thinking about how the building burning down could be hugely beneficial to them.
Apparently there is even an amnesty for those who's name is on the rent book but didn't actually live there because they sublet their flats at great profit
We get them into the corpse of an athlete that was born in Azcoitia and dead in Azpeitia? That's insane, man.