#Grenfell residents may lose custody of children if reject distant accommodation

As the SKWAWKBOX covered at the weekend, in spite of promises to the contrary by Theresa May and the local council some residents of Grenfell Tower have been offered accommodation in Preston and even as far north as Northumberland – and threatened with being labelled ‘intentionally homeless’ if they refuse the offer.

Being judged ‘intentionally’ homeless would mean the withdrawal of support and the loss of a position on housing lists.

But it has emerged that it can also mean losing custody of your children.

Intentional homelessness when dependent children are involved usually results in the involvement of social services and, as a government document on intentional homelessness confirms, Social Services departments,

frequently limit their response to ‘offering’ to take the children into care.

The document goes on to elaborate that the government’s

aim should be to avoid families being split up as a consequence of homelessness through a mix of better prevention services and support packages and the use of other means of intervention such as anti-social behaviour orders where appropriate

but offers no guarantee that the aim must be successfully achieved.

The inhumanity of the attempts to pressure Grenfell survivors into accepting unsuitable or distant accommodation is even more profound than it at first appeared.

The SKWAWKBOX is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers. If you found this information helpful and can afford to, please do click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your support so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.

20 responses to “#Grenfell residents may lose custody of children if reject distant accommodation

  1. Words can’t describe the disgust I feel for this government. Families, who have lost so much, now stand to lose their children, if they don’t take what’s offered to them. It’s an absolute disgrace.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m mightily pissed off about that; but also the fact that it’s already ‘allowed’ and has been done anyway.

      There are stories on t’internet of kids being separated from families in SECRET family courts…Probably separated only to be nonced by pederasts in care homes, or given to pederasts…

      These poor sods are being viewed as a ‘problem’ , and frank field wanted to stick ‘problem’ families in containers under the M53 flyover. Give these rotten, stinking bastards even more vicious ideas, why don’t you, frank?

      http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/put-families-hell-containers-3531060

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Have you actually heard first hand from the people being offered “take it or leave it” accommodation in Preston and Northumberland, or is it, as in the previous video, second hand accounts?

    If it’s first hand how many residents are we talking about, and how many actually have children?

    Like

  3. *Sighs*

    What is it escapes you, Graham – other than scruples, empathy & sense?

    You just don’t get it, do you? The option to do excatly this IS there if people refuse to be moved away from the area to take up accommodation elsewhere. That not enough for you?

    It’s most probably (Read ‘definitely’ or else the practice wouldn’t exist) been used several times before – but even that wouldn’t be enough, would it?

    “How many?” You ask

    What, because even if it’s just one or two families, then that’s fine as a percentage – is that it?

    Just get to F***, you poikilotherm.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. “I think it’s legitimate to ask the question” he says…

    But not question – in any way whatsoever – that the threat that CAN be carried out; or what we’re doing allowing such draconian laws.

    And with that, we discover what you are. You don’t give a flying one about them, moreso, now they’re making life uncomfortable for your beloved conservatives.

    I haven’t read a single instance of your sympathy for these poor sods – not one. And going on what I HAVE read from you, you’d be hard-pressed to convince any normal person of your ‘condolences’ for them.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Still nowt to say about the 000’s of families already forced out of the capital using the same process/threat, plus the benefit cap (Yet another policy based on LIES) – at a rate of hundreds per WEEK?

    Nope – thought not.

    You’re the type of contrary, infuriating, pub-bore beaut what would say: “Victims of child sexual abuse can’t really be classed as ‘victims’ if they weren’t penetrated by their nonce abusers.”

    Like

  6. Pingback: #Grenfell residents may lose custody of children if reject distant accommodation | Jaffer's blog·

  7. Children, who were the greatest victims of this tragedy, stand to suffer again.
    I should attack the child services bureaucracy. Excuse me if I demur. My mother worked in it, during a time when good men and women were replaced by ideologues. Ideology being the corruption of logic by vested interest.
    The ideologues will be more than happy to get their hands on these children.

    Like

  8. Unfortunately this is not news to me. I saw an episode of “How to get a Council House” (channel 5 I believe) recently, and even though I am quite well up on how these things work – having been on a Council waiting list myself for 20 years – I was deeply shocked to see the very things mentioned here actually happening. It was LB Hounslow btw.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s